以論文審查的角度探討學術期刊論文之撰寫

界定學術論文與非學術論文的其中一個條件是前者的著作必須通過同儕評審（peer review）在品質上把關。雖然學術文稿的評審標準並無明確的指引規範，但一般會先針對整體的優缺點作出評估，再依照就論文各章節逐一分別提出意見。文稿常見的缺失包括文獻回顧不當、研究方法描述不足、結果的闡述缺乏系統性或邏輯性、結論缺乏研究結果支持以及文法錯誤等。本文首先為期刊投稿流程和評審人所普遍著重之處作一介紹，目的是協助作者能夠預先針對常見的評審意見，在投稿前即確定文稿沒有類似的缺失，而藉此提升文稿被期刊接受的機會。

關鍵字

學術發表；同儕評審；同儕審查；同行評審

並列摘要

One of the distinguishing characteristics between academic and non-academic publications is that the quality of the former has to be scrutinized by peer review. ＂While there are no clear guidelines for review of academic manuscripts, in general, their overall merits and demerits are first evaluated, followed by comments made specifically for various sections of the manuscripts. Pitfalls commonly encountered in manuscripts include inadequate literature review, insufficient details describing the methods, lack of a systematic or logical presentation of the results, conclusions not supported by the results, and poor grammatical skills. This article provides background information on the process of manuscript submission and the areas that reviewers will typically focus on. The aim of this article is to assist authors in ensuring that their manuscripts are free of flaws before submission by anticipating common reviewers' comments, and thereby increasing the chance of manuscript acceptance.

並列關鍵字

publications ； peer review ； refereeing

參考文獻

Smith R: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82."

Williams HC: How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83."

Committee on Publication Ethics: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE. 2013. http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2017."

Pain E: How to review a paper. Science 2016. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1600134"

Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:848-54."

國際替代計量

以論文審查的角度探討學術期刊論文之撰寫

全文下載

主題瀏覽