信任视角下学术出版中同行评审的信任危机及其应对策略
|
摘要
【目的】从系统论视角出发,分析学术出版过程中出现的信任危机,提出应对危机的策略,从理论和技术上提高同行评审工作质量,提升同行评审的信任度。【方法】以文献调查和案例分析为主要方法,综述已有的关于同行评审现状和问题研究以及信任危机的相关理论,结合案例,从社会、经济、文化等不同角度剖析同行评审体系存在信任危机的原因,最后针对同行评审体系的问题和各方面原因,结合目前国内外的创新尝试,提出应对策略。【结果】社会转型时期,同行评审主体之间缺乏完全信任,传媒影响加剧了同行评审参与主体之间的信任危机,同行评审客观性与审稿人主观性之间矛盾不可调和使同行评审信任危机无法消除。【结论】通过设立同行评审内部的监督机制、重视传媒影响、完善网络同行评审系统平台,巩固同行评审信任,促进学术出版的长远发展。
[Purposes]This paper aims to analyze the trust crisis in academic publishing process and put forward coping strategies in order to improve the peer review quality and enhance the sense of trust in peer review. [Methods]Based on literature review and case study,relevant theories about peer review and trust crisis were summarized. Reasons for trust crisis in peer review,together with cases,were explored from the perspectives of society,economy,culture,etc. Finally,we raised the coping strategies with innovative attempts targeting at crisis in peer review and relations among several parties. [Findings] During the social transformation era,participants in peer review process cannot trust each other completely. Media impact aggravates the trust crisis in peer review process. The trust crisis cannot be avoided due to the contradiction between the objectivity of peer review and reviewers' subjectivity. [Conclusions]Chinese scientific journals can set up supervisory mechanism,focus on media impact,and improve the peer review platforms to consolidate trust in peer review process and promote the future development of academic publishing.
[Purposes]This paper aims to analyze the trust crisis in academic publishing process and put forward coping strategies in order to improve the peer review quality and enhance the sense of trust in peer review. [Methods]Based on literature review and case study,relevant theories about peer review and trust crisis were summarized. Reasons for trust crisis in peer review,together with cases,were explored from the perspectives of society,economy,culture,etc. Finally,we raised the coping strategies with innovative attempts targeting at crisis in peer review and relations among several parties. [Findings] During the social transformation era,participants in peer review process cannot trust each other completely. Media impact aggravates the trust crisis in peer review process. The trust crisis cannot be avoided due to the contradiction between the objectivity of peer review and reviewers' subjectivity. [Conclusions]Chinese scientific journals can set up supervisory mechanism,focus on media impact,and improve the peer review platforms to consolidate trust in peer review process and promote the future development of academic publishing.
引文
[1]新华社.107篇中国作者论文撤稿事件:101篇是同行虚假评议[EB/OL].(2017-07-17)[2018-04-04].http://news.cctv.com/2017/07/27/ARTIa BliRDMe7o OTlx7a Jq QM170727.shtml.
[2]Burnham J C.The evolution of editorial peerreview[J].Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263(10):1323-1329.
[3]Benedek E P.Editorial practices of psychiatric and related journals:Implications for women[J].American Journal of Psychiatry,1976,133(1):89-92.
[4]Xie Y,Shauman K A.Sex differences in research productivity:New evidence about an old puzzle[J].American Sociological Review,1998,63(6):847-870.
[5]Lee C J,Sugimoto C R,Zhang G,et al.Bias in peer review[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science&Technology,2013,64(1):2-17.
[6]宋歌,孙建军.科研项目学术质量评价关键问题研究[J].图书与情报,2016(5):105-109.
[7]耿艳辉,王立新,朱晓华.期刊同行评议研究综述[J].编辑之友,2015(5):48-52.
[8]Moossy J,Moossy Y R.Anonymous authors,anonymous referees:An editorial exploration[J].Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology,1985,44(3):225-228.
[9]Rodríguez-Bravo B,Nicholas D,Herman E,et al.Peer review:The experience and views of early career researchers[J].Learned Publishing,2017,30(4):269-277.
[10]Nature.Overview:Nature's peer review trial[EB/OL].(2006-12-21)[2018-07-19].https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html#top.
[11]贾婧.基于信任的同行评议制度无漏洞,但被人操纵了[N].科技日报,2015-08-21(1).
[12]许洁,邵萍,殷梦羚.信任视角下的网络学术期刊质量提升策略[J].出版科学,2015,23(2):80-84.
[13]顾海良.关于学术规范与学术道德建设的思考[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2005,58(5):517-519.
[14]张春莉.信任危机呼唤科技评价体系改革[N].人民政协报,2005-03-02(A05).
[15]陈晓峰,云昭洁.区块链在学术出版领域的创新应用及展望[J].情报工程,2017,3(2):4-12.
[16]许洁,王嘉昀.基于区块链技术的学术出版信任建设[J].出版科学,2017,25(6):19-24.
[17]杨中芳,彭泗清.中国人人际信任的概念化:一个人际关系的观点[J].社会学研究,1999(2):3-23.
[18]Misztal B.Trust in Modern Society[M].Cambridge:Polity Press,1996.
[19]西美尔.货币哲学[M].陈戎女,耿开君,文聘元,译.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[20]周治伟.西美尔信任理论述评[J].中共长春市委党校学报,2006(4):15-17.
[21]尼克拉斯·卢曼.信任[M].瞿铁鹏,李强,译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[22]周怡.信任模式的社会建构[N].光明日报,2013-08-31(11).
[23]郑也夫.信任:溯源与定义[J].北京社会科学,1999(4):118-123.
[24]舒远招.当代中国社会信任危机的征候及其主体根源[J].湖湘论坛,2012,25(2):7-10.
[25]雷鸣.社会转型期的信任危机[J].甘肃教育学院学报(社会科学版),2003,19(4):75-77.
[26]冯志宏.风险社会视域中的信任危机[J].学术交流,2010(5):113-116.
[27]郭飞,盛晓明.专家信任的危机与重塑[J].科学学研究,2016,34(8):1131-1136.
[28]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].田禾,译.南京:译林出版社,2000:84-86.
[29]弗雷赛斯.现在,你还有什么理由要为论文被拒而懊恼:盘点那些曾经被拒稿的诺奖[EB/OL].(2017-10-03)[2018-07-19].http://www.sohu.com/a/196182343_419916.
[30]Science前沿.“掠夺性”出版商和期刊名单即将重出江湖?[EB/OL].(2017-06-27)[2018-04-04].http://www.sohu.com/a/152443814_450839.
[31]台海网.台湾曝论文造假丑闻“教育部长”震惊命彻[EB/OL].(2014-07-14)[2018-04-04].http://news.ifeng.com/a/20140712/41131134_0.shtml.
[32]Ferguson C,Marcus A,Oransky I.Publishing:The peer-review scam[EB/OL].(2014-11-26)[2018-04-04].https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400.
[33]新京报.英国出版商撤刊43篇涉假论文41篇为中国作者[EB/OL].(2015-04-04)[2018-04-04].http://www.xinhuanet.com/overseas/2015-04/04/c_127656621.htm.
[34]焦玉良.道德真空,抑或规范冲突——对当前信任危机研究的评述[J].教育学术月刊,2014(8):21-26.
[35]马克斯·舍勒.价值的颠覆[M].罗悌伦,译.北京:三联书店,1997:126.
[36]Cameron Shepherd.Peerwith Partners with IWA Publishing[EB/OL].(2018-02-05)[2018-07-19].https://www.digitalscience.com/blog/news/peerwith-partners-iwa-publishing/.
[37]田欣,马瀚青,郑军卫,等.国内外5种主要网络同行评议系统平台对比研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(11):1363-1368.
[2]Burnham J C.The evolution of editorial peerreview[J].Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263(10):1323-1329.
[3]Benedek E P.Editorial practices of psychiatric and related journals:Implications for women[J].American Journal of Psychiatry,1976,133(1):89-92.
[4]Xie Y,Shauman K A.Sex differences in research productivity:New evidence about an old puzzle[J].American Sociological Review,1998,63(6):847-870.
[5]Lee C J,Sugimoto C R,Zhang G,et al.Bias in peer review[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science&Technology,2013,64(1):2-17.
[6]宋歌,孙建军.科研项目学术质量评价关键问题研究[J].图书与情报,2016(5):105-109.
[7]耿艳辉,王立新,朱晓华.期刊同行评议研究综述[J].编辑之友,2015(5):48-52.
[8]Moossy J,Moossy Y R.Anonymous authors,anonymous referees:An editorial exploration[J].Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology,1985,44(3):225-228.
[9]Rodríguez-Bravo B,Nicholas D,Herman E,et al.Peer review:The experience and views of early career researchers[J].Learned Publishing,2017,30(4):269-277.
[10]Nature.Overview:Nature's peer review trial[EB/OL].(2006-12-21)[2018-07-19].https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html#top.
[11]贾婧.基于信任的同行评议制度无漏洞,但被人操纵了[N].科技日报,2015-08-21(1).
[12]许洁,邵萍,殷梦羚.信任视角下的网络学术期刊质量提升策略[J].出版科学,2015,23(2):80-84.
[13]顾海良.关于学术规范与学术道德建设的思考[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2005,58(5):517-519.
[14]张春莉.信任危机呼唤科技评价体系改革[N].人民政协报,2005-03-02(A05).
[15]陈晓峰,云昭洁.区块链在学术出版领域的创新应用及展望[J].情报工程,2017,3(2):4-12.
[16]许洁,王嘉昀.基于区块链技术的学术出版信任建设[J].出版科学,2017,25(6):19-24.
[17]杨中芳,彭泗清.中国人人际信任的概念化:一个人际关系的观点[J].社会学研究,1999(2):3-23.
[18]Misztal B.Trust in Modern Society[M].Cambridge:Polity Press,1996.
[19]西美尔.货币哲学[M].陈戎女,耿开君,文聘元,译.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[20]周治伟.西美尔信任理论述评[J].中共长春市委党校学报,2006(4):15-17.
[21]尼克拉斯·卢曼.信任[M].瞿铁鹏,李强,译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[22]周怡.信任模式的社会建构[N].光明日报,2013-08-31(11).
[23]郑也夫.信任:溯源与定义[J].北京社会科学,1999(4):118-123.
[24]舒远招.当代中国社会信任危机的征候及其主体根源[J].湖湘论坛,2012,25(2):7-10.
[25]雷鸣.社会转型期的信任危机[J].甘肃教育学院学报(社会科学版),2003,19(4):75-77.
[26]冯志宏.风险社会视域中的信任危机[J].学术交流,2010(5):113-116.
[27]郭飞,盛晓明.专家信任的危机与重塑[J].科学学研究,2016,34(8):1131-1136.
[28]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].田禾,译.南京:译林出版社,2000:84-86.
[29]弗雷赛斯.现在,你还有什么理由要为论文被拒而懊恼:盘点那些曾经被拒稿的诺奖[EB/OL].(2017-10-03)[2018-07-19].http://www.sohu.com/a/196182343_419916.
[30]Science前沿.“掠夺性”出版商和期刊名单即将重出江湖?[EB/OL].(2017-06-27)[2018-04-04].http://www.sohu.com/a/152443814_450839.
[31]台海网.台湾曝论文造假丑闻“教育部长”震惊命彻[EB/OL].(2014-07-14)[2018-04-04].http://news.ifeng.com/a/20140712/41131134_0.shtml.
[32]Ferguson C,Marcus A,Oransky I.Publishing:The peer-review scam[EB/OL].(2014-11-26)[2018-04-04].https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400.
[33]新京报.英国出版商撤刊43篇涉假论文41篇为中国作者[EB/OL].(2015-04-04)[2018-04-04].http://www.xinhuanet.com/overseas/2015-04/04/c_127656621.htm.
[34]焦玉良.道德真空,抑或规范冲突——对当前信任危机研究的评述[J].教育学术月刊,2014(8):21-26.
[35]马克斯·舍勒.价值的颠覆[M].罗悌伦,译.北京:三联书店,1997:126.
[36]Cameron Shepherd.Peerwith Partners with IWA Publishing[EB/OL].(2018-02-05)[2018-07-19].https://www.digitalscience.com/blog/news/peerwith-partners-iwa-publishing/.
[37]田欣,马瀚青,郑军卫,等.国内外5种主要网络同行评议系统平台对比研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(11):1363-1368.