| 恽佳欣1 范晶晶2 杨郁2.我国高水平英文医学期刊开放科学实践的调查研究[J].中国科技资源导刊,2025,(5):51~58 |
| 我国高水平英文医学期刊开放科学实践的调查研究 |
| Research on the Practice of Open Science in High-level English Medical Journals in China |
| 投稿时间：2025-06-30 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 开放科学;医学期刊;报告指南;出版伦理;数据共享 |
| 英文关键词: open science, medical journals, reporting guidelines, publishing ethics, data sharing |
| 基金项目:江苏省科技期刊学会?TrendMD期刊学术传播基金资助项目“开放科学实践对皮肤病学文献学术传播的作用”(JSKJQK-TM-2025-001)。 |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 恽佳欣1 范晶晶2 杨郁2 | (1. 南京医科大学第一附属医院《临床皮肤科杂志》编辑部，江苏南京 210029
2. 南京医科大学第一附属医院《江苏医药》编辑部，江苏南京 210029) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 32 |
| 全文下载次数: 24 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 开放科学是促进科学研究的透明度、开放性及可重复性的实践活动。为评估我国高水平英文医学期刊对开放科学实践的认可程度，从6个维度计算各期刊的开放科学评分(opensciencescore，OSS)，并进一步采用Spearman相关分析探讨OSS与期刊影响因子(journalimpactfactor，JIF)、CiteScore、Scimago期刊排名(scimagojournalrank，SJR)及标准化影响系数(sourcenormalizedimpactperpaper，SNIP)之间的关系。结果表明:纳入研究的32种期刊中68.75%遵循报告指南，25.00%为强制性要求;65.62%提及临床试验注册政策;在出版伦理与不端行为方面，56.25%未声明遵循国际出版伦理委员会(COPE)发布的指南和最佳实践建议，仅有37.50%期刊对论文进行剽窃或相似性检查;71.87%期刊鼓励作者共享研究数据;尚无任何期刊采取开放型同行评议;所有期刊OSS值中位数为61.66%，其中被开放获取期刊目录(DirectoryofOpenAccessJournals，DOAJ)收录期刊的OSS值高于非DOAJ收录期刊(p<0.05);期刊OSS值与JIF、CiteScore、SJR及SNIP均存在中度正相关关系(p<0.05)。综上所述，纳入研究的32种英文医学期刊对开放科学实践的要求总体不高，各个维度政策的认可程度也存在异质性，因此提出今后期刊应重视和实施标准化的开放科学政策、鼓励良好的科学实践的建议。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Open science refers to the practical activities that aim to enhance the transparency, openness and reproducibility of scientific research. To assess the degree of recognition of open science practices by high- level English medical journals in China, the open science score (OSS) of each journal was calculated from six dimensions. Furthermore, Spearman correlation analysis was employed to explore the relationship between OSS and journal impact factor (JIF), CiteScore, Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP). The results showed that 68.75% of the 32 journals included in the study followed reporting guidelines, while 25.00% had mandatory requirements; 65.62% mentioned clinical trial registration policies; in terms of publication ethics and misconduct, 56.25% did not declare compliance with the guidelines and best practice recommendations issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and only 37.50% of the journals conducted plagiarism or similarity checks on papers; 71.87% of the journals encouraged authors to share research data; none of the journals adopted open peer review; the median OSS value of all journals was 61.66%, with journals included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) having higher OSS values than those not included in DOAJ (p<0.05); there was a moderate positive correlation between journal OSS values and JIF, CiteScore, SJR, and SNIP (p<0.05). In summary, the 32 English medical journals included in the study generally have low requirements for open science practices, and there is heterogeneity in the recognition of policies across various dimensions. Therefore, it is recommended that future journals should attach importance to and implement standardized open science policies and encourage good scientific practices. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
