从文献计量角度分析中国生物多样性研究现状

以汤森路透科技集团的WEB OF KNOWLEDGE信息平台提供的Science Citation Index Expanded数据库为数据源,检索到从1997年至2009年期间国际生物多样性研究论文文献219773篇,其中11182篇来自于中国学者。利用NoteExpress软件,对这13a间生物多样性研究论文发表的国家分布、年度分布、研究机构、引用情况、期刊分布和学科分类等做的分析与比较表明:1)全球生物多样性研究的论文数量一直呈增长趋势,中国13年间每年发文量占当年全球生物多样性论文总量的百分率逐年增加;2)从论文总被引频次、篇均引用次数和h-index三项论文影响力特征参数分析,中国与国际其他国家相比有一定差距;3)从学科分类来看,与国际相比,中国在生物多样性保护领域、进化生物学和海洋与淡水生物学领域研究略显不足,昆虫学和真菌学研究领域活跃。     

中国动物行为学研究现状的文献计量学分析

采用文献计量学的方法,在《中国学术期刊网络出版总库》和《Science Citation Index》数据库中,以“动物行为”、“animal behavior”、“ethology”作为检索词,检索了中国学者在国内外期刊上发表的中英文文献,并对中国动物行为学领域发文的年代、期刊、研究单位、作者、被引频次、国际合作、基金项目、研究对象和领域等内容进行了定量分析。结果表明：中国动物行为学研究起步较晚,近三十多年来相关动物行为学文献在波动中增长,并在近几年有从中文向英文转移的趋势;平均每篇文献被引2.81次;作者和研究单位虽然分散,但已经形成了专门从事动物行为研究的核心作者群、研究机构群;国内外均存在动物行为学文献的主要期刊分布区,但国内迫切需要一种动物行为学的专业期刊;动物行为研究的基金来源广泛,其中国家自然科学基金占重要地位;有国外作者参与的英文文献比例远大于中文文献,主要合作国家是美国;中国动物行为研究对象主要为哺乳动物,鸟类是中文文献第二位研究对象而昆虫是英文文献的第二位研究对象;繁殖行为是中国动物行为主要研究领域,中文文献在行为观察记录和行为谱、活动节律和时间分配方面的比例远远大于英文文献。总体上看,中国动物行为学文献发展符合科学文献逻辑增长曲线;整体研究水平偏低,国际影响力有待提高;中国动物行为学已步入新的发展阶段。     

基于文献计量分析的生态系统服务研究现状及热点

生态系统服务是生态学研究的核心和热点议题。近年来,各国和各相关机构对生态系统服务的研究力度不断加大。基于SCI-E和CNKI数据库,利用文献计量方法,分析了国内外生态系统服务研究的发展特征和变化趋势。研究结果表明:(1)国内外生态系统服务研究的发文量不断增加,发展态势良好。(2)发达国家是生态系统服务领域的主要研究力量,美国占据绝对领先地位;美国的加利福尼亚大学是主要研究机构;总体来看,国家和机构间的合作正在不断增强。(3)当前该领域的8类研究热点分别是生态系统服务机理研究,保护管理及可持续性、生物多样性、脆弱性、土地利用及景观变化、评估与模型、气候变化、政策与决策分析。从各个时期国内外研究热点整体分布情况来看,国际更侧重于生态系统服务及生态系统服务与人类福祉的依存关系的研究,国内则更加关注生态系统服务评估。(4)近年来中国在生态系统服务研究领域的国际地位有所提升,科研产出量显著增加,累积发文量居世界第5位,中国科学院是全球主要研究机构之一,但论文被引频次相对偏低,国际合作亟待加强和提升。     

2016年中国植物科学若干领域重要研究进展

2016年中国植物科学持续稳步发展, 表现在中国植物科学家在国际主流高影响力学术期刊发表文章的数量稳中有升, 中国植物科学领域的期刊逆风出行, 进入研究性期刊世界前三甲行列。中国科学家在植物学诸多领域取得了丰硕的成果。水稻(Oryza sativa)产量性状杂种优势的分子遗传机制解析入选2016年中国科学十大进展; 植物受精过程中雌雄配子体信号识别机制的研究和独脚金内酯的受体感知机制入选2016年生命科学十大进展。我国植物科学, 特别是以水稻为代表的作物研究在国际学术界已占有一席之地。例如, 在水稻组学(如基因组和转录组等)资源和技术平台的建立、重测序的开发及功能基因的克隆和调控网络的解析方面取得了系列重要成果(如揭示了独脚金内酯信号转导的“去抑制化激活”机制、从分子水平上阐释了水稻籼粳杂种不育和广亲和性基因S5的作用机理及发现了控制水稻耐冷的基因组位点), 已经引领世界水稻乃至作物科学研究。该文对2016年中国本土植物科学若干领域取得的重要研究进展进行了概括性评述, 旨在全面追踪当前中国植物科学领域的发展前沿和研究热点, 与读者共享我国科学家所取得的杰出成就。     

2020年中国植物科学若干领域重要研究进展

2020年中国植物科学家在国际综合性学术期刊及植物科学主流期刊发表的论文数量比上一年显著增加,在植物发育、耐逆、系统进化和作物生物学等领域取得了重要研究进展。其中,“小麦抗赤霉病基因Fhb7的克隆、机理解析及育种利用”和“提高作物品种氮肥利用效率的新机制”两项成果入选2020年度“中国生命科学十大进展”。该文总结了20...     

2019年中国植物科学若干领域重要研究进展

2019年中国植物科学家在国际综合性学术期刊及植物科学主流期刊发表的论文数量大幅增加, 在光生物学、植物抗逆和分子进化等若干领域取得了重要成果。其中, 硅藻光合膜蛋白超分子结构和功能研究入选2019年度中国科学十大进展和中国生命科学十大进展; 植物抗病小体的结构与功能研究入选2019年度中国生命科学十大进展。该文评述了2019年中国科学家在植物科学若干领域取得的重要研究进展, 以期追踪和报道当前中国植物科学领域发展的前沿和热点及展示中国科学家所取得的辉煌成果。     

2021年中国植物科学重要研究进展

2021年中国植物科学家在国际综合性学术期刊及植物科学主流期刊发表的论文数量相比2020年显著增加, 在雌雄细胞识别与受精、干细胞命运决定、菌根共生、光合膜蛋白复合体、氮磷养分利用、先天免疫、作物从头驯化与基因组设计等方面取得了重要研究进展,“异源四倍体野生稻快速从头驯化”入选2021年度“中国生命科学十大进展”。该文总结了2021年度我国植物科学研究取得的成绩, 简要介绍了30项重要进展, 以帮助读者了解我国植物科学的发展态势, 思考如何更好地将植物科学研究与国家重大需求有效衔接。     

学术双交流有利于我国真菌学迈向科技创新之巅

本文回顾了我国现代真菌学的奠基和发展壮大历程及其奠基人戴芳澜之功绩.简述了《Mycosystema》在改革开放与中国科学院面向全国、面向世界、面向未来的国内国际学术双交流中的积极贡献.分析了国际学术单交流的国内科技评价体系有碍迈向世界科技创新强国之弊.积极建议创办有利于国内国际学术双交流的菌物学中英文双语刊物,以促进我...     

广东省水域生态学研究发展状况

广东省的水域生态学研究在近几十年取得了长足的发展。目前广东省拥有一批在水域生态学研究上颇具优势的科研单位,如中国水产科学研究院南海水产研究所、中国科学院南海海洋研究所、中国水产科学研究院珠江水产研究所、广东海洋大学、暨南大学水生生物研究中心以及其他省内或驻粤各高校的相关研究所或研究中心,取得了一系列重大的创新性成果。利用文献计量学方法,分析《生态科学》发表的与水域生态学相关的论文,可以看出广东省近年越来越重视水域生态学的相关研究,涉及海洋生态、淡水生态、河口与湿地生态、水域养殖生态等。广东省水域生态学研究中的一些课题仍需进一步地深化与加强,以缩短与国际研究先进水平之间的差距,为我国水域生态学的发展做出更多开创性的贡献。     

中国兽类行为学和行为生态学研究进展与展望

行为学与行为生态学通常研究动物的行为特征、行为方式和行为机制,以及适应环境变化而采取的行为策略。本文回顾了我国近40年来主要哺乳动物行为学和行为生态学的研究进展,发现随着近20年来新技术和新方法的广泛应用,野外数据收集和实验设计更加科学有效,产生出很多有代表性和创新性的成果,标志着我国在这一领域研究取得了长足的进步和发展。其中大熊猫的行为生态研究已处于国际领先水平,啮齿类的种间互作关系和行为适应机制研究、灵长类的社会行为和觅食行为生态研究以及蝙蝠的回声定位行为研究等已达到国际水平,然而关于食肉目、有蹄类和海兽类的行为生态学研究相对较少。随着国家对基础学科研究重视不断提升,更多高水平研究基地的建设和科研人才队伍的壮大,以及交叉学科和先进信息技术的应用,将助力我国行为学和行为生态学未来研究蓬勃发展。     

国际景观生态学研究新进展

20世纪90年代中期以来,国际景观生态学发展迅速.景观生态学研究最为活跃的地区集中在北美、欧洲、大洋洲(澳大利亚)、东亚(中国),表明景观生态学理论、方法和应用的广泛性和越来越高的认知度.从研究内容上看,景观生态评价、规划和模拟一直占居主导地位,其次是景观生态保护与生态恢复、景观生态学的理论探讨.随着景观生态学研究的深入,以科学和实践问题为导向的学科交叉与融合不断加强,促进了景观生态学新的学科生长点的形成和发展,主要包括水域景观生态学、景观遗传学、多功能景观研究、景观综合模拟、景观生态与可持续性科学.在全球化背景下,中国的景观生态学研究也已经取得了长足进展,国际同行开始关注并在重要学术刊物上评介中国的景观生态学研究,标志着中国景观生态学已逐步走上国际舞台.然而,中国景观生态学进一步发展的挑战和机遇并存.中国科学家需要抓住人类对可持续发展和可持续性科学的共同夙求,放眼国际前沿、服务本土需求,从中国自身的特色出发,关注受人类干扰的和以人为主导的景观,以景观格局与生态过程的多尺度、多维度耦合研究为核心,区域综合与区内分异并重,推动综合整体性景观生态学的建立和完善.     

基于Web of Science的国际海草研究文献计量评价

海草及其与周围环境形成的海草场是近海海洋生态系统的重要组成部分,具有多种重要的生态服务功能。相较于红树林和珊瑚礁,国内外学者和公众对海草的关注度偏低,至今对国际海草研究的现状、趋势和热点等的认识还较为有限。检索了1983-2017年Web of Science的SCI-E数据库中收录的海草研究相关文献,借助文献计量信息可视化分析方法,从年度发文量、研究力量和研究热点与主题等方面进行了较为系统的文献计量评价,以期阐明国内外海草研究的态势与热点。结果表明:1983-2017年间国际海草研究的文献数量总体呈明显上升趋势,该领域发文量排前3位的国家是美国、澳大利亚和西班牙;全球发文量最多的机构是佛罗里达州立大学,其次是西班牙高等科学研究理事会与美国国家海洋和大气管理局;发文总量较多的作者是Duarte CM、Marba N和Fourqurean JW,近3年发文量最高的是学者Santos R;刊文量最多的期刊分别是《Marine Ecology Progress Series》、《Aquatic Botany》和《Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science》,刊文量前15期刊中影响因子最高的是《Limnology and Oceanography》(3.969)。在国家、机构与作者合作方面,西班牙、丹麦、荷兰、墨西哥4个国家形成了关系密切的合作网络,西班牙高等科学研究理事会和美国国家海洋和大气管理局是海草研究机构合作网络中的两个中心,Duarte CM、Marba N等较多学者间有紧密的学术合作关系。通过高频关键词的关联关系分析,表明该领域的3个热点研究主题,即环境(污染)胁迫对海草场的影响、海草的生长与生理生态和海草及其相关生态系统的结构与功能。中国科学院、中国海洋大学等机构为我国海草研究做出了重要贡献,但由于研究起步较晚,我国学者的发文量、篇均被引频次等与欧美国家学者存在一定差距,但近几年的发文量增长迅速,预计未来的发展趋势良好。     

氮肥农学效应与环境效应国际研究发展态势

分析国内外农田氮素农学效应和环境效应研究的发展动态、研究热点,为以后研究农田氮素效应提供参考。基于ISI Web of Science数据库,检索出以"农田氮肥施用"为主题的所有SCI论文(1957—2014年8月),并分别提取出与"农学效应"、"环境效应"、"适宜施氮量"相关的文献,采用计量学方法,分析各研究方向的主要热点、研究机构、发文期刊和高被引论文等。共检索出关于农田施氮研究的SCI文献7460篇,其中与"农学效应"研究相关的文献2773篇,主要涉及到施氮肥对小麦、玉米、水稻、大豆等作物产量、氮素利用率和土壤有机碳的影响;与"环境效应"研究相关的文献1609篇,主要涉及到氮肥施用对氨挥发、硝化反硝化、温室气体排放、硝酸盐淋失、地下水水质等环境因素的影响;与"适宜施氮量"研究相关的文献408篇,主要涉及氮肥施用量、氮肥管理等。刊发各类研究成果最多的机构主要来自欧美发达国家,影响力大的期刊与高被引论文也主要来自欧美国家,中国在该领域的研究发展迅速,以中国科学院、中国农业大学、南京农业大学和中国农业科学院等为代表的中国研究机构的研究水平逐渐进入世界前列。文献计量学可用于分析农田氮素效应主题的研究热点和发展态势,目前氮素农学效应仍是研究的重点,随着当前环境污染问题日益突出,农田氮素环境效应研究越来越多,特别是氮流失对水体水质的影响备受关注,而基于氮素综合效应确定农田适宜施氮量是同时保障粮食安全和环境安全的有效措施。中国在相关研究领域的研究起步较晚,高影响力论文偏少,优秀国际期刊不足,但研究实力不断增加,研究成果也逐渐被国际社会所认可。     

Editorial

Launched by the Oxford University Press on behalf of the BotanicalSociety of China and the Institute of Botany of Chinese Academyof Sciences, the new Journal of Plant Ecology (JPE) publishesoriginal research articles, reviews and forum pieces coveringthe entire field of plant ecology. We feel there is a greatneed for this journal in a time when many other journals     

中国植物名称数据库的建设及若干问题的探讨

中国植物物种信息数据库是中国科学院科学数据库参考型数据库,中国植物名称数据库（CPNI）是中国植物物种信息数据库最重要的组成部分,是中国植物物种信息数据库收录植物的目录和索引,也是其他数据库的参考和联系的桥梁。以《中国植物志》和《Flora of China》为基础数据来源,加上少量参考数据作为补充,设计建设了中国植物名称数据库,并从现有已建成同类数据库的评价、数据来源和数据组成,以及建库策略实现对中国植物名称数据库建设进行了分析和探讨。中国植物名称数据库是植物名称的参考型数据库,能够辅助植物学相关学科研究中关于植物名称的研究和利用。     

Comparison of Journal Self-Citation Rates between Some Chinese and Non-Chinese International Journals

Background

The past 3 decades have witnessed a boost in science development in China; in parallel, more and more Chinese scientific journals are indexed by the Journal Citation Reports issued by Thomson Reuters (SCI). Evaluation of the performance of these Chinese SCI journals is necessary and helpful to improve their quality. This study aimed to evaluate these journals by calculating various journal self-citation rates, which are important parameters influencing a journal impact factor.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We defined three journal self-citation rates, and studied these rates for 99 Chinese scientific journals, almost exhausting all Chinese SCI journals currently available. Likewise, we selected 99 non-Chinese international (abbreviated as ‘world’) journals, with each being in the same JCR subject category and having similar impact factors as their Chinese counterparts. Generally, Chinese journals tended to be higher in all the three self-citation rates than world journal counterparts. Particularly, a few Chinese scientific journals had much higher self-citation rates.

Conclusions/Significance

Our results show that generally Chinese scientific journals have higher self-citation rates than those of world journals. Consequently, Chinese scientific journals tend to have lower visibility and are more isolated in the relevant fields. Considering the fact that sciences are rapidly developing in China and so are Chinese scientific journals, we expect that the differences of journal self-citation rates between Chinese and world scientific journals will gradually disappear in the future. Some suggestions to solve the problems are presented.     

论文引用率影响因素——中外生态学期刊比较

本文选择8种有代表性中外生态学期刊,对其一定发表周期内的论文引用率进行分析,探讨生态学论文引用率的影响因素及中外生态学期刊的差异.结果表明：4种英文期刊的年均被引次数均远大于4种中文期刊;英文期刊1位作者的论文数量百分比相对较高;所有期刊的合著论文比例均较高,体现了合作性在现代生态学研究中的重要性;论文作者数量与引用率之间有一定的正相关关系,但不显著;英文期刊论文的长度显著高于中文论文;随着论文长度的增加,年均被引次数增多.对中外期刊论文的引用率变化动态进行分析表明,英文期刊中总被引次数高的论文其增长速率也较快,表明其持续影响力强于中文生态学论文.我们希望这些结果会对生态学者以及相关期刊工作者有所裨益.     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.