中国科技期刊引入开放同行评议机制的思考与建议
|
摘要
【目的】为促进科学传播、提升期刊影响力,探讨中国科技期刊试验开放同行评议的可能方式。【方法】首先,从公开内容、参与范围、公开时间3个维度对同行评议机制的开放程度进行界定;然后,从同行评议本身的目标和需求出发,利用象限分析法对传统同行评议和开放同行评议进行分析;最后,提出支持措施以增强开放同行评议的积极作用,提出规避措施以消减其消极作用。【结果】提出中国科技期刊试验开放同行评议的实践建议:在继续优化传统同行评议机制的同时,引入某些开放同行评议的做法,从而提高同行评议的综合质量和影响。【结论】研究成果能够为开放同行评议制度的制定以及实践提供借鉴。
[Purposes] This paper proposes practice guidelines of open peer reviewfor Chinese scientific journals,aiming to promote the dissemination of science and enhance the influence of journal. [Methods] First,we defined the openness degree of open peer reviewfrom the three aspects of content,participation scope,and timing. Then,based on the goals and needs of the peer review,we did a contrastive analysis to compare the traditional reviewmechanism and open peer reviewby dimensional quadrant method. Finally,some suggestions were proposed to intensify positive effect and counteract negative effect of open peer reviewin China. [Findings]We propose some practical guidelines of the open peer reviewfor Chinese scientific journals,such as optimizing the traditional reviewmechanism,introducing some open peer reviewpractices to improve the overall quality and impact of peer review. [Conclusions] The proposed suggestions could provide an effective way to practice open peer review.
[Purposes] This paper proposes practice guidelines of open peer reviewfor Chinese scientific journals,aiming to promote the dissemination of science and enhance the influence of journal. [Methods] First,we defined the openness degree of open peer reviewfrom the three aspects of content,participation scope,and timing. Then,based on the goals and needs of the peer review,we did a contrastive analysis to compare the traditional reviewmechanism and open peer reviewby dimensional quadrant method. Finally,some suggestions were proposed to intensify positive effect and counteract negative effect of open peer reviewin China. [Findings]We propose some practical guidelines of the open peer reviewfor Chinese scientific journals,such as optimizing the traditional reviewmechanism,introducing some open peer reviewpractices to improve the overall quality and impact of peer review. [Conclusions] The proposed suggestions could provide an effective way to practice open peer review.
引文
[1] Babbit V. Taylor&Francis open access survey:Exploring authors views of Taylor&Francis and Routledge[C]∥Proceeding of the8th Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing 2013—Entering the Next Stage,2013.
[2]孟美任,彭希珺.基于VSM和余弦相似度的稿件精准送审方法[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(10):982-986.
[3] Taylor&Francis Group. Peer reviewin 2015:A global view[R/OL]. London:Taylor&Francis Group,2015[2018-10-15].https:∥authorservices. taylorandfrancis. com/peer-review-globalview/.
[4] Maharg P,Duncan N. Black box,pandora's box or virtual toolbox? An experiment in a journal's transparent peer reviewon the web[J]. International Reviewof Law,Computers&Technology,2007,21(2):109-128.
[5]刘丽萍,刘春丽.开放同行评议利弊分析与建议[J].中国科技期刊研究,2017,28(5):389-395.
[6] Siler K,Lee K,Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2015,112(2):360-365.
[7] Wicherts J M. Peer reviewquality and transparency of the peerreviewprocess in open access and subscription journals[J]. PLoS ONE,2016,11(1):e0147913.
[8] Godlee F. Making reviewers visible:Openness,accountability,and credit[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association,2002,287(21):2762-2765.
[9] Walker R,da Silva P R. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey[J]. Frontiers in Neuroscience,2015,9:169.
[10] Armstrong J S. Barriers toscientific contributions:The author's formula[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1982,5(2):197-199.
[11] van Rooyen S,Godlee F,Evans S,et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association,1998,280(3):234-237.
[12] Godlee F,Gale C R,Martyn C N. Effect on the quality of peer reviewof blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association,1998,280(3):237-240.
[13]张学颖,罗萍. Web 3.0时代学术期刊开放同行评议的实质和审稿模型构建[J].编辑学报,2016,28(3):220-223.
[14]张春丽,商丽娜,倪四秀.科技期刊开放同行评议模式探索[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(11):1151-1155.
[15]王凤产.科技期刊开放性同行评议可行性探究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(1):14-19.
[16]李金珍,庄景春,邱炳武.《心理学报》开放性同行评审方式探索及初步成效[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(2):139-142.
[17] Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review[J]. F1000Resarch,2017,6:588.
[18] Ford E. Defining andcharacterizing open peer review:A reviewof the literature[J]. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2013,44(4):311-326.
[19] Peer J. Who's afraid of open peer review?[EB/OL].[2018-05-23]. https:∥peerj. com/blog/post/100580518238/whosafraid-of-open-peer-review/.
[20] CC BY License[EB/OL].[2018-03-20]. https:∥creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
[21] Armstrong J S. Barriers to scientific contributions:The author's formula[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1982,5(2):197.
[22] Frontiers. Collaborativepeer review[EB/OL].[2018-05-15].https:∥www.frontiersin.org/about/review-system.
[23] Boldt A. Extending Ar Xiv. org to achieve open peer reviewand publishing[J]. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2011,42(2):238-242.
[24] F1000Resarch[EB/OL].[2018-01-23]. https:∥f1000research.com/about.
[25] Cyranoski D. Acid-bath stem-cell study under investigation[EB/OL].(2014-02-17)[2018-05-23]. https:∥www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738.
[26] Schroter S,Black N,Evans S,et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review:Randomised controlled trial[J]. British Medical Journal,2004,328(7441):673.
[27] Kovanis M,Porcher R,Ravaud P,et al. The global burden of journal peer reviewin the biomedical literature:Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise[J]. PLoS ONE,2016,11(11):e0166387.
[28] Hu C,Zhang Y,Chen G. Exploring a newmodel for preprint server:A case study of CSPO[J]. Journal of Academic Librarianship,2010,36(3):257-262.
[29] P9schl U. Interactive open access peer review:The atmospheric chemistry and physics model[J]. Against the Grain,2009,21(3):26-32.
[30] Lipworth W,Kerridge I H,Carter S M,et al. Should biomedical publishing be“opened up”? Toward a values-based peer-reviewprocess[J]. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry,2011,8(3):267-280.
[31]杜杏叶,李贺,王玲,等.中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度研究[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(2):73-81.
[32] Lin J. Getting ready to run with preprints,any day now[EB/OL].(2016-08-16)[2017-11-02]. https:∥www. crossref. org/blog/getting-ready-to-run-with-preprints-any-day-now/.
[33] PLoS ONE. Editorial and peer reviewprocess[EB/OL].[2018-05-08]. http:∥journals. plos. org/plosone/static/editorialboard.
[34] Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Aims and scope[EB/OL].[2018-05-15]. https:∥www. atmospheric-chemistry-andphysics.net/about/aims_and_scope.html.
[35] Academic editor[EB/OL].(2017-01-23)[2018-05-23].http:∥journals.plos.org/plosone/static/editorial-board.
[36] COPE. COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers[EB/OL].[2018-03-21]. https:∥publicationethics. org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.
[37] PeerJ. Howto become good at peer-review[EB/OL].[2018-05-24]. https:∥peerj. com/blog/post/73296165864/how-tobecome-good-at-peer-review.
[38]论文写作与审核要求[EB/OL].[2018-05-21]. http:∥manu44. magtech. com. cn/Jwk_infotech_wk3/attached/file/20161213/20161213170225_737.pdf.
[39] Reviewcheck list[EB/OL].[2018-01-23]. http:∥journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file? id=t6Vo/plosone-reviewer-form.pdf.
[40] Ford E. Open peer reviewat four STEMjournals:An observational overview[J]. F1000Resarch,2015,4:6.
[41] BMJ Journal. Recognition for reviewers[EB/OL].[2018-03-21]. http:∥authors. bmj. com/for-reviewers/reviewerrecognition/.
(1)本研究将单盲评议和双盲评议统称为传统同行评议。
[2]孟美任,彭希珺.基于VSM和余弦相似度的稿件精准送审方法[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(10):982-986.
[3] Taylor&Francis Group. Peer reviewin 2015:A global view[R/OL]. London:Taylor&Francis Group,2015[2018-10-15].https:∥authorservices. taylorandfrancis. com/peer-review-globalview/.
[4] Maharg P,Duncan N. Black box,pandora's box or virtual toolbox? An experiment in a journal's transparent peer reviewon the web[J]. International Reviewof Law,Computers&Technology,2007,21(2):109-128.
[5]刘丽萍,刘春丽.开放同行评议利弊分析与建议[J].中国科技期刊研究,2017,28(5):389-395.
[6] Siler K,Lee K,Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2015,112(2):360-365.
[7] Wicherts J M. Peer reviewquality and transparency of the peerreviewprocess in open access and subscription journals[J]. PLoS ONE,2016,11(1):e0147913.
[8] Godlee F. Making reviewers visible:Openness,accountability,and credit[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association,2002,287(21):2762-2765.
[9] Walker R,da Silva P R. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey[J]. Frontiers in Neuroscience,2015,9:169.
[10] Armstrong J S. Barriers toscientific contributions:The author's formula[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1982,5(2):197-199.
[11] van Rooyen S,Godlee F,Evans S,et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association,1998,280(3):234-237.
[12] Godlee F,Gale C R,Martyn C N. Effect on the quality of peer reviewof blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association,1998,280(3):237-240.
[13]张学颖,罗萍. Web 3.0时代学术期刊开放同行评议的实质和审稿模型构建[J].编辑学报,2016,28(3):220-223.
[14]张春丽,商丽娜,倪四秀.科技期刊开放同行评议模式探索[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(11):1151-1155.
[15]王凤产.科技期刊开放性同行评议可行性探究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(1):14-19.
[16]李金珍,庄景春,邱炳武.《心理学报》开放性同行评审方式探索及初步成效[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(2):139-142.
[17] Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review[J]. F1000Resarch,2017,6:588.
[18] Ford E. Defining andcharacterizing open peer review:A reviewof the literature[J]. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2013,44(4):311-326.
[19] Peer J. Who's afraid of open peer review?[EB/OL].[2018-05-23]. https:∥peerj. com/blog/post/100580518238/whosafraid-of-open-peer-review/.
[20] CC BY License[EB/OL].[2018-03-20]. https:∥creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
[21] Armstrong J S. Barriers to scientific contributions:The author's formula[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1982,5(2):197.
[22] Frontiers. Collaborativepeer review[EB/OL].[2018-05-15].https:∥www.frontiersin.org/about/review-system.
[23] Boldt A. Extending Ar Xiv. org to achieve open peer reviewand publishing[J]. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2011,42(2):238-242.
[24] F1000Resarch[EB/OL].[2018-01-23]. https:∥f1000research.com/about.
[25] Cyranoski D. Acid-bath stem-cell study under investigation[EB/OL].(2014-02-17)[2018-05-23]. https:∥www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738.
[26] Schroter S,Black N,Evans S,et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review:Randomised controlled trial[J]. British Medical Journal,2004,328(7441):673.
[27] Kovanis M,Porcher R,Ravaud P,et al. The global burden of journal peer reviewin the biomedical literature:Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise[J]. PLoS ONE,2016,11(11):e0166387.
[28] Hu C,Zhang Y,Chen G. Exploring a newmodel for preprint server:A case study of CSPO[J]. Journal of Academic Librarianship,2010,36(3):257-262.
[29] P9schl U. Interactive open access peer review:The atmospheric chemistry and physics model[J]. Against the Grain,2009,21(3):26-32.
[30] Lipworth W,Kerridge I H,Carter S M,et al. Should biomedical publishing be“opened up”? Toward a values-based peer-reviewprocess[J]. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry,2011,8(3):267-280.
[31]杜杏叶,李贺,王玲,等.中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度研究[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(2):73-81.
[32] Lin J. Getting ready to run with preprints,any day now[EB/OL].(2016-08-16)[2017-11-02]. https:∥www. crossref. org/blog/getting-ready-to-run-with-preprints-any-day-now/.
[33] PLoS ONE. Editorial and peer reviewprocess[EB/OL].[2018-05-08]. http:∥journals. plos. org/plosone/static/editorialboard.
[34] Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Aims and scope[EB/OL].[2018-05-15]. https:∥www. atmospheric-chemistry-andphysics.net/about/aims_and_scope.html.
[35] Academic editor[EB/OL].(2017-01-23)[2018-05-23].http:∥journals.plos.org/plosone/static/editorial-board.
[36] COPE. COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers[EB/OL].[2018-03-21]. https:∥publicationethics. org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.
[37] PeerJ. Howto become good at peer-review[EB/OL].[2018-05-24]. https:∥peerj. com/blog/post/73296165864/how-tobecome-good-at-peer-review.
[38]论文写作与审核要求[EB/OL].[2018-05-21]. http:∥manu44. magtech. com. cn/Jwk_infotech_wk3/attached/file/20161213/20161213170225_737.pdf.
[39] Reviewcheck list[EB/OL].[2018-01-23]. http:∥journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file? id=t6Vo/plosone-reviewer-form.pdf.
[40] Ford E. Open peer reviewat four STEMjournals:An observational overview[J]. F1000Resarch,2015,4:6.
[41] BMJ Journal. Recognition for reviewers[EB/OL].[2018-03-21]. http:∥authors. bmj. com/for-reviewers/reviewerrecognition/.
(1)本研究将单盲评议和双盲评议统称为传统同行评议。