论编辑工作的创造性

依据客观事实和有关理论,对编辑工作进行研究,认为编辑工作是一种创造性劳动,编辑创造性劳动需要编辑具备创造性思维和能力.     

浅谈学报编辑劳动量的核算

编辑工作量如何考核,是一个关系到编辑工作人员积极性和编辑劳动的质与量不断提高的重要问题,本文试图结合编辑劳动的特点,谈点计算工作量的方法,以求教于同仁。一、编辑劳动的特点编辑是指从事社会化的文化再生产,再创造的劳动者。他的劳动是对现有的文化成果资料,通过编辑的选择、加工,使之变成系统的、规范的、较为久远的具有社会价值的精神产品。因此,它必须具有相当高的学术性和创造性。可见,编辑并非人人可做,决非象平常所     

探究年鉴编辑的素养

企业年鉴是企业软实力的体现。年鉴编辑人员的素质如何,直接影响着企业年鉴质量的高低。年鉴的编辑不仅要有过硬的文字功底和业务知识,更要保持高度的责任心,用科学的发展观统领企业年鉴的编纂工作,并在实践中不断学习和创新,提升自身的综合素质。     

论学术期刊编辑人员应具备的编辑与科研能力

编辑人员能力与素质的高低直接决定着学术期刊的质量。学术期刊编辑应具有较强的编辑能力,这是提高期刊质量和水平的前提和基础,同时,还应具有较强的科研能力,这是提高期刊质量和水平的重要保证。     

论编辑的素质与专业能力

编辑是期刊的设计师与工程师，随着新闻出版界改革的不断深入，对编辑的要求越来越高，本从对编辑发展方向的判断能力、勇于进取的能力，业务能力与协调能力等方面阐述了编辑人员应具有的素质和专业能力。     

提升学报编辑职业素质刍议

结合编辑理论与实际,思考、研究了学报编辑的职业素质,并探讨了如何在学习贯彻科学发展观的新形势下,加强理论修养和提高职业技能,即提升学报编辑职业素质,有品质地做好学报编辑出版工作。     

编辑审美素养论

如果以美的观点来审视和对照编辑实践,"美"存在于编辑实践活动的全过程.在编辑活动中,作为审美中介而存在的编辑,其审美素质的高低直接关系着社会文化产品的质量,关系着整个人类文明的发展.编辑的审美素养已成为编辑从业者最基本的职业能力.因此,努力提高编辑群体的审美素养是这个时代的迫切要求.     

论高校学报编辑应具备的意识

编辑是文化行业,编辑所从事的是精神劳动,高校学报属于高层次的学术刊物,对编辑应该具备的意识提出了更高的要求,只有具有较高科研能力、较高学术水平的编辑,才能在较高学术层次上与作者打交道,才会与作者有许多共同语言,才能抓住学科优势,才能与专家学者共同研究和探讨,才能适应网络信息时代的变化。因此,编辑必须树立和强化学术意识,逻辑意识,网络信息意识,以适应高校学报对编辑人员的要求,从而办出高质量的高校学报。     

论学报编辑应具备的基本素质

学报编辑应当具备的基本素质包括政治素质、业务素质、作风素质和道德素质四个方面。在政治上，学报编辑应具有较强的政治敏感性和必要的法律法规知识；在业务上，学报编辑应具有较高的学识水平、较强的创新意识和文字加工能力；在作风上，学报编辑应具有实事求是的科学态度、民主的工作作风和精益求精的工作责任心；在道德上，学报编辑应具有无私奉献精神。     

全媒体环境下出版编辑基本素质初探

当前,全媒体发展已势不可挡,这对于出版编辑来说既是发展本行业的机遇也是对自身能力的挑战,出版编辑应提升自身素质以适应这一全媒体环境.本文从全媒体环境的优越性与全媒体环境下出版编辑的几个具体基本素质两方面对全媒体环境下出版编辑基本素质进行了初步的探析.     

新时期高校文科学报工作者的文化使命

在国家文化体制改革背景下,高校文科学报也将是改革建设的重点,学报编辑队伍的使命是继续坚持创造和发掘、记录和传播优秀的科学文化研究成果,将其转化并融入于科学文化传播的河流中,参与科学文化交流与创新。学报编辑人员承担着着文化科学研究与创新、学术与科研文化传播、为社会文化科学研究工作者服务的文化使命,提升自身的专业化和学术化水平,创办有价值的高校文科学报。     

高校学报编辑审稿工作中存在的问题及改进思路

审稿是编辑工作的中心环节,本文以高校学报责任编辑为主体,总结提出近年来高校学报编辑审稿过程中存在的一些问题及现象,分析问题原因,并提出相应的对策措施,以深化对高校学报编辑审稿问题的认识。     

Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?

Publication in the social sciences appears to have evolved into a game, played by four parties: the author, the reviewers, the editor and the bureaucrats using the simple criterion that a quality researcher publishes in quality journals. Acceptance rates for top quality journals now hover around the 10% mark. Something cannot be right with a system which creates so much apparent waste. Either too many authors are submitting substandard articles or too many reviewers are setting unrealistically high hurdles over which authors have to jump. Most of the literature has focussed on the unrealistically high hurdle rate explanation and also on the fallibility of reviewers and editors. The aim of this paper is to explore the issues of low acceptance rates as well as an increasingly lengthy publication process. The paper considers what is the purpose of publishing in academic journals and what are the motivations of authors, reviewers and editors. In order to inform both authors and reviewers of best practice, a summary of the extensive literature is given in the Appendix. The paper concludes with a survey of the suggestions that have been made to improve the publishing process in order to link back to the original purpose of publishing, that of communicating important results to inform public debate on major issues.     

Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations

Using detailed publication and citation data for over 50,000 articles from 30 major economics and finance journals, we investigate whether network proximity to an editor influences research productivity. During an editor's tenure, his current university colleagues publish about 100% more papers in the editor's journal, compared to years when he is not editor. In contrast to editorial nepotism, such “inside” articles have significantly higher ex post citation counts, even when same-journal and self-cites are excluded. Our results thus suggest that despite potential conflicts of interest faced by editors, personal associations are used to improve selection decisions.     

Creativity and the role of the leader

In today's innovation-driven economy, understanding how to generate great ideas has become an urgent managerial priority. Suddenly, the spotlight has turned on the academics who've studied creativity for decades. How relevant is their research to the practical challenges leaders face? To connect theory and practice, Harvard Business School professors Amabile and Khaire convened a two-day colloquium of leading creativity scholars and executives from companies such as Google, IDEO, Novartis, Intuit, and E Ink. In this article, the authors present highlights of the research presented and the discussion of its implications. At the event, a new leadership agenda began to take shape, one rooted in the awareness that you can't manage creativity--you can only manage for creativity. A number of themes emerged: The leader's job is not to be the source of ideas but to encourage and champion ideas. Leaders must tap the imagination of employees at all ranks and ask inspiring questions. They also need to help their organizations incorporate diverse perspectives, which spur creative insights, and facilitate creative collaboration by, for instance, harnessing new technologies. The participants shared tactics for enabling discoveries, as well as thoughts on how to bring process to bear on creativity without straitjacketing it. They pointed out that process management isn't appropriate in all stages of creative work; leaders should apply it thoughtfully and manage the handoff from idea generators to commercializers deftly. The discussion also examined the need to clear paths through bureaucracy, weed out weak ideas, and maximize the organization's learning from failure. Though points of view varied, the theories and frameworks explored advance the understanding of creativity in business and offer executives a playbook for increasing innovation.     

Creativity under the gun

If you're like most managers, you've worked with people who swear they do their most creative work under tight deadlines. You may use pressure as a management technique, believing it will spur people on to great leaps of insight. You may even manage yourself this way. If so, are you right? Not necessarily, these researchers say. There are instances where ingenuity flourishes under extreme time pressure--for instance, a NASA team within hours comes up with a primitive but effective fix for the failing air filtration system aboard Apollo 13. But when creativity is under the gun, it usually ends up getting killed, the authors say. They recently took a close look at how people experience time pressure, collecting and analyzing more than 9,000 daily diary entries from individuals who were working on projects that required high levels of creativity and measuring their ability to innovate under varying levels of time pressure. The authors describe common characteristics of time pressure and outline four working environments under which creativity may or may not flourish. High-pressure days that still yield creativity are full of focus and meaningful urgency--people feel like they are on a mission. High-pressure days that yield no creativity lack such focus--people feel like they are on a treadmill, forced to switch gears often. On low-pressure days that yield creativity, people feel like they are on an expedition--exploring ideas rather than just identifying problems. And on low-pressure days that yield no creative thinking, people work on autopilot--doing their jobs without engaging too deeply. Managers should avoid extreme time pressure when possible; after all, complex cognitive processing takes time. For when they can't, the authors suggest ways to mollify its effects.     

转型期应用型本科院校税法课程教学改革研究

当今社会发展需要高素质的应用型人才,在全国高等教育转型期,应用型本科院校税法课程教学改革是必然趋势。必须以教材建设、教学方法、实训教学和师资队伍建设等为改革的突破点,不断提高税法课程教学质量,以满足我国经济社会发展对高素质应用型人才的需求。     

Creativity, the corporate curriculum and the future: a case study

This paper explores the proposition that the successful companies of the future will be those that find the means to help their employees to think and act creatively. Based on a case study of British managers’ perceptions of creativity and how it can be nurtured in a large US-based manufacturing company, the study shows that prevailing models of creativity in the organization are inadequate. Firstly, the structure of management in the organization and many features of the culture and corporate curriculum of the company, inhibit creative thinking and action. It is not the intention of the company to do this. The company has developed many methods of problem-solving and team-working intended to release the creative energy of employees. The organizational culture of the company is not, however, as supportive of creative endeavour as it needs to be. Secondly, the models of creativity in the minds of managers and supervisors reflect a wider cultural misunderstanding of the phenomenon. Creativity is perceived in highly individual terms. It is thought of as something which expresses itself fully in non-work areas and it is not seen as a process that can be facilitated through new ways of working and thinking within the organization. To have a successful future, this company, like many others, must change the ways in which its managers perceive the creative potential of their employees.