东西南北暖心内容 继续升温

以国庆60年期刊成果观摩、梳理2005—2009中文期刊传播数据与品牌期刊群、公布网络发行量、发布李东东副署长作序的《期刊主编访谈》等为议程内容的“2009中文期刊网络传播排名发布暨3G时代期刊盈利模式高峰论坛”日前在京举行。会议由中国出版科学研究所、龙源期刊网主办，协办方包括中国期刊研究所、中国图书商报等业界权威机构．本刊执行主编王奎龙代表《东西南北》杂志社与09年度网络传播TOP100刊社及龙源期刊网合作伙伴期刊社人士共聚一堂。国家新闻出版总署科技与数字出版司司长张毅君、     

出版形式发展及其与内容观念的关系

当代,出版技术的信息载体由实质的纸张发展到虚拟的网络,网络出版应运而生并带来出版业革命。出版形式与出版内容是手段与结果关系,与出版观念是手段与基础的关系。出版形式、内容、观念三方互动、三位一体置身于全球化信息社会,必将会推动着出版大众传播事业不断向前进步。     

喜报

中国出版科学研究所、龙源期刊网、全球中文电子期刊协会日前发布我国杂志内容阅读年度排行结果。这一结果来自真实的网络点击率,由专家和专业网络阅读平台进行分类统计。《东西南北》2008年度在"中文期刊网络传播国内阅读排行100强"中列87名;     

国外社会科学开放获取学术期刊的发展现状探讨

自20世纪90年代起,随着网络技术的飞速发展和纸质出版物价格的不断上涨,国外一些大学和学术机构开始编辑出版一批被称之为开放获取(open access)的电子期刊.这类电子期刊的出版方向主要集中在学术领域,所涉及的内容涵盖了自然科学和人文社会科学的大部分学科.它们的出现对传统的学术刊物出版模式带来了强烈的冲击.本文将描述国外社会科学领域中这类期刊的出版情况,并对其应用前景和所面临的问题进行分析和探讨.     

著作权法对我国期刊出版业的作用

加入WTO以后 ,我国期刊出版业的发展和繁荣更离不开著作权法的促进和保障作用。著作权法对期刊出版业的主要作用是 :调整期刊出版利益 ,维护期刊出版秩序 ,促进期刊出版效益 ,保障期刊出版公正和实现期刊出版自由     

对我国公共文化服务研究的文献计量和分析

利用文献计量学方法,对2002-2010年收录在《中国学术期刊网络出版总库》的1007篇我国公共文化服务的论文进行了文献计量分析,揭示了其文献增长、作者分布和期刊分布等特征和规律。     

试论期刊编辑的素质与创造性思维

期刊作为为读者、为社会服务的精神产品,离不开编辑人员的创造性劳动。期刊出版要以编辑为中心,说明了编辑这一主体实践活动的重要性。因此,期刊编辑素质如何,是否具有创造性思维,从一定意义上说,决定着期刊的质量和生命。期刊编辑的素质,是指他们的政治、思想、品德、作风、学识和才能诸要素在一定时间的状态,而他们的创造性思维则是指他们在编辑实践中应当具有的预见性、超前性和创建性的思维方式。     

本刊启事

正为适应我国信息化建设,扩大本刊及作者知识交流渠道,本刊已被中国核心期刊(遴选)数据库、中文科技期刊数据库、中国学术期刊网络出版总库及CNKI系列数据库等多家数据库收录。若作者对此有异议,请在来稿时向本刊说明,本刊将作另行处理。     

本刊启事

正为适应我国信息化建设,扩大本刊及作者知识交流渠道,本刊已被中国核心期刊(遴选)数据库、中文科技期刊数据库、中国学术期刊网络出版总库及CNKI系列数据库等多家数据库收录。若作者对此有异议,请在来稿时向本刊说明,本刊将作另行处理。     

本刊启事

正为适应我国信息化建设,扩大本刊及作者知识交流渠道,本刊已被中国核心期刊(遴选)数据库、中文科技期刊数据库、中国学术期刊网络出版总库及CNKI系列数据库等多家数据库收录。若作者对此有异议,请在来稿时向本刊说明,本刊将作另行处理。     

Meaningful learning in weighted voting games: an experiment

In April 2013, all of the major academic publishing houses moved thousands of journal titles to an original hybrid model, under which authors of accepted papers can choose between an expensive open access (OA) track and the traditional track available only to subscribers. This paper argues that authors might now use a publication strategy as a quality signaling device. The imperfect information game between authors and readers presents several types of Perfect Bayesian Equilibria, including a separating equilibrium in which only authors of high-quality papers are driven toward the open access track. The publishing house should choose an open-access publication fee that supports the emergence of the highest return equilibrium. Journal structures will evolve over time according to the journals’ accessibility and quality profiles.     

Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers’ money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.     

网络出版与传统出版

网络出版的非独占性、图书消费的无损害性以及读者的广泛参与性,使之具有传统出版无可比拟的优势;但上网读书造成的视觉疲劳、计算机对身体的辐射以及携带不便等缺陷也十分突出。应该看到,网络图书都有火爆的纸质版,网络出版促进了纸质图书的销售,传统出版的大众性、便携性成为网络出版的有力支持和补充。     

我国大学出版社数字出版的现状及未来

出版与信息技术的融合催生了数字出版。面对数字出版的挑战,各大学出版社积极应对。近年来,凭借着自身在资源、人才、学术等方面的天然优势,我国大学出版社探索出网站建设、原版原式的电子出版、特色数据库、在线教育平台和手机出版5种数字出版模式。今天的数字出版尽管面临着诸多困境和难题,但各大学出版社逐步找到了各自有特色的数字出版模式,正在实现从传统出版向数字出版的转型。     

味经刊书处：陕西近代出版业的先声

味经刊书处作为附设于味经书院的一个专业出版机构,代表了传统刊书向近现代图书出版的过渡,从刊书内容到管理制度两方面突破了传统模式,顺应了时代发展的需要,是出版史上的一个成功范例。通过对其管理制度和刊书成果的分析研究,可以看出味经刊书处对于陕西近现代出版业所做的独特贡献。     

教育期刊应对网络媒体挑战之策略

网络媒体雄厚的经济实力、阅读终端的多样化、视觉冲击力的强势以及受众的广泛性,为教育期刊的发展带来前所未有的挑战。主要表现为:期刊的读者群体逐渐流失到网络媒体,进而使广告份额递减;加之期刊的市场化运作机制尚不完善,其内容的电子版低成本地被网络媒体二次销售。鉴于此,教育期刊应对挑战应积极创造条件,加快转企改制的进程,使期刊出版人切实拥有经营自主权;健全期刊网站,以网站内容的丰富多样性、致力论坛互动、经营电子版和开展深度报道等措施,壮大受众群体;创新采编模式、广告经营模式和发行模式,与网络媒体实现最佳融合;打造期刊品牌,延伸产业链,立足主业,实现多元化发展。     

学术的评价机制和生成规律

创新性学术的生成需要以天赋、勤奋、灵感三位一体为基础,这就决定了优质学术研究者的稀缺性、学术作品自身成长的长期性、学术作品评价的公正性,学术生成规律是建立科学学术评价机制的基础.稀缺性要求学术评价机制的筛选性质,将具有学术天分和爱好的人挑选进学术队伍,没有学术天分和兴趣的人则排除出去;长期性要求不能急功近利年年考评,以三五年或更长为一个周期较为合理,优秀的学术作品需要一个如琢如磨的较长过程;公正性要求期刊的运行要规范,作者和论文要一致,论文质量和期刊档次要一致,避免平庸之作进入权威期刊而将学术庸才装扮为学术天才.     

Research Misconduct Policies of Scientific Journals

The purpose of this study was to gather information on the misconduct policies of scientific journals. We contacted editors from a random sample of 399 journals drawn from the ISI Web of Knowledge database. We received 197 responses (49.4% response rate): 54.8% had a policy, and 47.7% had a formal (written) policy; 28.9% had a policy that only outlined procedures for handling misconduct, 15.7% had a policy that only defined misconduct, 10.2% had a policy that included both a definition and procedures; 26.9% of journals had a policy that was generated by the publisher, 13.2% had a policy that was generated by the journal, and 14.7% had a policy that was generated by another source, such as a professional association. We analyzed the relationship between having a policy and impact factor, field of science, publishing house, and nationality. Impact factor was the only variable with a statistically significant association with having a policy. Impact factor was slightly positively associated with whether or not the publisher had a policy, with an odds ratio of 1.49 (P < .0004) per 10 units increase in the impact factor, with a 95% confidence interval (1.20, 1.88). Our research indicates that more than half of scientific journals have developed misconduct policies, but that most of these policies do not define research misconduct and most of these policies were not generated by the journal.     

Under the Influence: The Interplay among Industry,Publishing, and Drug Regulation

The relationships among academe, publishing, and industry can facilitate commercial bias in how drug efficacy and safety data are obtained, interpreted, and presented to regulatory bodies and prescribers. Through a critique of published and unpublished trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for approval of a new antidepressant, vortioxetine, we present a case study of the “ghost management” of the information delivery process. We argue that currently accepted practices undermine regulatory safeguards aimed at protecting the public from unsafe or ineffective medicines. The economies of influence that may intentionally and unintentionally produce evidence-biased—rather than evidence-based—medicine are identified. This is not a simple story of author financial conflicts of interest, but rather a complex tale of ghost management of the entire process of bringing a drug to market. This case study shows how weak regulatory policies allow for design choices and reporting strategies that can make marginal products look novel, more effective, and safer than they are, and how the selective and imbalanced reporting of clinical trial data in medical journals results in the marketing of expensive “me-too” drugs with questionable risk/benefit profiles. We offer solutions for neutralizing these economies of influence.