我们的同行评议文献可持续吗?

N. Coppola, S. Carliner
{"title":"我们的同行评议文献可持续吗?","authors":"N. Coppola, S. Carliner","doi":"10.1109/IPCC.2011.6087222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a snapshot of a content-analysis study of five years of issues for the four key technical communication journals. Using coding schemes for topics and types of research used to generate data on which conclusions are based, the authors coded all articles in the last five years of our major journals. This paper reviews the current state of the peer-reviewed literature to determine topics covered and overlooked; research methods; dominant authors (if any); the assessed level of consistency between the editorial focus of each journal as stated in its editorial mission and the peer-reviewed literature that is actually published in the journal; and the similarities and distinctions between and among the journals.","PeriodicalId":404833,"journal":{"name":"2011 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is our peer-reviewed literature sustainable?\",\"authors\":\"N. Coppola, S. Carliner\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/IPCC.2011.6087222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper presents a snapshot of a content-analysis study of five years of issues for the four key technical communication journals. Using coding schemes for topics and types of research used to generate data on which conclusions are based, the authors coded all articles in the last five years of our major journals. This paper reviews the current state of the peer-reviewed literature to determine topics covered and overlooked; research methods; dominant authors (if any); the assessed level of consistency between the editorial focus of each journal as stated in its editorial mission and the peer-reviewed literature that is actually published in the journal; and the similarities and distinctions between and among the journals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2011 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2011 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2011.6087222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2011.6087222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文简要介绍了四种关键技术传播期刊五年来的内容分析研究。使用主题和研究类型的编码方案来生成结论所依据的数据,作者对我们主要期刊最近五年的所有文章进行了编码。本文回顾了同行评议文献的现状,以确定涵盖和忽视的主题;研究方法;主要作者(如果有的话);每份期刊的编辑任务所规定的编辑重点与期刊上实际发表的同行评审文献之间的一致性评估水平;以及这些期刊之间的异同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is our peer-reviewed literature sustainable?
This paper presents a snapshot of a content-analysis study of five years of issues for the four key technical communication journals. Using coding schemes for topics and types of research used to generate data on which conclusions are based, the authors coded all articles in the last five years of our major journals. This paper reviews the current state of the peer-reviewed literature to determine topics covered and overlooked; research methods; dominant authors (if any); the assessed level of consistency between the editorial focus of each journal as stated in its editorial mission and the peer-reviewed literature that is actually published in the journal; and the similarities and distinctions between and among the journals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信