编辑创新：出版传播的核心竞争力

编辑活动本质上是编者协同作者与读者,约定新规范,创造新媒体,架构新媒介,传播新文化,不断创新的人文事业。编辑是通过创生媒介实现其编辑价值的,主要是通过创新架构各种媒体来传播其编辑思想的。编辑创新的重点或要义,是能产生最大交互性的,多向快速、传播久远的媒介结构整体,而不是单纯的文化内容的解释或载体的复制技术或媒介产品的经营管理。"六经"的编辑创新,成就了中国学术文化史上第一个完整的人文学说体系。孔子创构的这个学说体系,主要是通过他编辑的"六经"构建起来的完整而稳定的媒体结构。朱熹主要是通过编辑"四书"和《近思录》,重建新的宋儒学术文化结构。各种媒体的编辑,根据不同的内容,按照读者的需要,编创出各种新的媒介。     

西方学术出版机制、误区及其借鉴

我国目前过分强调学术期刊、大学出版社的转制及市场化问题。在西方,尤其是美国,大学主办的学术期刊及其出版社是大学的一个有机组成部分,被绝对地界定为非营利性机构;西方国家的学术期刊、大学出版社一般由学校注资,绝大部分其他学术期刊也往往由国家和社会的各种财政、资金、基金进行资助,其成熟的出版机制是由政府、各种基金会、各种学术团体、企业等组织起来的一个比较严密的经费资助、使用、监督机制;西方学术期刊的商业化改造已经引发了深刻的"学术期刊危机",为此催生了学术期刊的"开放存取运动"。我国应积极借鉴他们的成功机制,对其"危机"引以为戒,以免误入歧途。目前,业内应当在"十二五规划纲要"提出的"探索"和"创新"上下功夫,而不是简单地把学术出版"一刀切"地市场化了之。     

王统照与中国新文学出版传播活动

王统照是一位"诚笃,严谨"①、"朴实,诚挚"②的作家和学者,也是一位"一丝不苟地担起全部责任"③的编辑.以新文学的"美、善、知",去"感化"、"薰浸"读者的心灵,让"真的文学的根"由"人之心内茁生",是王统照自觉的文学使命,也是他自觉的编辑使命.在中国现代文学出版传播史上,王统照是一位有着真诚风格、"真"的心性及其哲学理性的编辑大家.其魅力缘于他的赤子般"纯念"和孺子般"真诚".他倡导"不阿私"、"不回避"、 "不唱高调"、"不容‘市侩主义'"、"不‘骑墙圆滑'"的编辑批评态度,反对言过其实的标榜和心怀歹意的攻讦;主张编辑鉴别"只以作品的价值为准","视其艺术的如何为准,绝不有所偏重";编辑方法"不必一律从同,像每一个作家一样,各有其姿态与风格".探索<编后记>作家作品评介及专栏介绍和世界文学译介的编辑特性与侧重;认为,编辑是作品与读者的推介者、整合者、批评者、鉴别者、倡导者和刊布者.王统照在上世纪二三十年代与文坛各路名家一起共同把文学出版物编辑水准推向一个高峰,其编辑范式被借鉴袭用至今.     

外语类核心期刊栏目发文计量学分析——以《外语教学与研究》2006～2009年为例

本文以外语类核心期刊《外语教学与研究》（外语类权威刊物）2006~2009年期各期各栏目发文数量为统计源,从栏目发文情况、各栏目作者区域分布情况和区域作者发文情况进行统计分析,以期获得相关数据,向作者和读者提供该核心期刊的发文现状信息,为他们今后的研究、撰写论文、投稿提供参考.     

Are Private Interests Clouding the Peer-Review Process of the WHO Bulletin? A Case Study

Readers’ trust on the medical literature has been eroded, and journal editors and some editorial boards are taking measures to ensure that authors fully and accurately report research findings and disclose conflicts of interest. This article describes a case study in which the papers editor of the World Health Organization (WHO) Bulletin influenced the content of an article that had been approved by the external reviewers. The editor objected to the publication of the large price differentials of the new molecular entities (NMEs) across the Latin American countries where they had been tested and the limited added therapeutic value of the NMEs that had been assessed by independent drug bulletins. This article summarizes the exchanges with WHO staff and posits the hypothesis that the WHO Bulletin might be affected by the shifts in WHO financing. Several authors have raised concern about the impact of financial conflicts of interest in WHO activities in the field of nutrition, intellectual property, and in the emergency response to the flu pandemic. Moreover, it has been reported that powerful WHO contributors pressured WHO into revising its publication policy. This is the first time that authors question if these conflicts of interest are also affecting the editorial independence of the WHO Bulletin.     

Professional Decision Making on Elder Abuse: Systematic Narrative Review

Social work and health care professionals internationally are recognizing the need to understand and respond to the abuse of older people. Policy and guidance have identified processes but definitions of key concepts remain problematic, and the literature suggests that practitioners and agencies have little insight or guidance for decision making. Nine bibliographic databases were searched for studies on professional decision making regarding abuse of older people. Relevant studies retrieved were appraised for quality using explicit criteria. The findings of the 19 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesised using a structured narrative approach. Common themes identified were abuse factors, situational factors, and broader contextual factors. Abuse factors relating to risk levels and client vulnerability were central; age, gender, and health status were considered as key indicators of vulnerability. The opinion of adult protection workers about the potential effectiveness of their intervention was a factor in deciding about responding to alleged or suspected abuse. Professionals struggled with complex ethical dilemmas created by elder abuse, particularly when the victim did not want an investigation. Making objective judgements was difficult when faced with complex family and contextual factors. A structured approach to narrative synthesis of a diverse range of studies retrieved through an explicit search and inclusion process provided a useful summary of key issues for practice and identified gaps in the research literature.     

文章发表的有关参考

文章发表的层次既可以理解为发表的文章作品在价值和影响上所达到的层次,也可以理解为发表所凭借的媒体被社会广泛认定的外在层次,并且各有具体的划分.文章发表者都有义务遵守有益而非有害于读者和社会的基本原则,也都有必要认真遵守著作权法和有关法规、标准、规范,配合发表媒体的有关约定,鄙弃关涉文章发表的学术腐败和学术不端行为.寻求文章发表成功,关键在于文章本身的质量如何,此外寻求发表者不同的主观能动性也会给需要发表的文章作品带来不同的命运.     

实现学术期刊出版流程电子化问题探讨

分析了学术期刊电子化定义、国内发展现状及特点;从编辑部管理电子化、为作者提供标准化的创作模板、数据库检索在稿件初审中的应用、推广专家在线审稿四个方面探讨了学术期刊电子化流程的建设;并指出学术期刊电子化进程中最重要的因素是编辑电子化,只有重视培植编辑的数字化理念,才能最终实现高质量的学术期刊电子化出版。     

Protecting the Public's Health in An Era of Bioterrorism: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

During the fall of 2001, public health law scholars at the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities were asked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a series of national partners to develop the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). The MSEHPA provides a series of modern powers for states to consider in responding to catastrophic public health emergencies, including bioterrorism events. Since December 2001, provisions based on the MSEHPA have been introduced in nearly 40 states and passed in 20. Underlying the development of the act is a long-standing debate between legal and ethical scholars and law- and policymakers as to the appropriate ways to balance individual and communal rights. The drafting challenge was to create a comprehensive model law that provides adequate powers to protect the public's health while also respecting individual and group rights. The MSEHPA empowers public health agents with broad authority and simultaneously limits the exercise of power in time, duration, and scope to accomplish communal goals of abating serious public health threats. Coercive public health powers, particularly isolation and quarantine, are exercised on a temporary basis, only so long as are reasonably necessary and only among persons who justifiably may pose a risk to others because of their contagious conditions. Individual rights to contest the coercive use of public health powers, even during an emergency, are secured.