学术期刊同行评议的历史演进
|
摘要
【目的】厘清同行评议历史演进脉络,把握学术期刊同行评议未来发展趋势。【方法】结合纵向历史法和过程-事件分析法,在理解学术期刊同行评议与科学、社会背景之间关系的基础上,梳理学术期刊同行评议的发展历程,确定其历史演进中的关键节点,并据此划分为不同阶段,进而剖析各阶段的主要特征。【结果】学术期刊同行评议演进过程中出现了两个关键历史节点:科学政策的奠基性文件布什报告的发布和预印本网站的诞生,前后大致经历了个体化、制度化和社会化3个发展阶段。【结论】在个体化阶段中,由小部分早期学术期刊采用的同行评议尚不被科学共同体广泛认可;及至制度化阶段,同行评议被大量采用并得到广泛认可,成为学术文化的一部分;同行评议进入社会化阶段后,即步入了创新变革的新时代。未来的学术期刊同行评议将朝着更透明、更智能、更多元的方向发展。
[Purposes] This paper aims to clarify the historical evolution of peer review of academic journals and grasp the development trend of it. [Methods]Based on the longitudinal history method and the process-event analysis method,on the basis of understanding the relationship between peer review and scientific and social background,we combed the development history of peer review of academic journals and determined the key nodes to its historical evolution,divided it into different periods according to the nodes,and then analyzed the main features of each period. [Findings]After analyzing the characteristics of three historical periods divided by the two nodes,i.e.,the Report to the President submitted by Vannevar Bush and the advent of preprint server,we find that three features,individuation,institutionalization,and socialization,mark the three historical periods of the peer review of academic journals in retrospect. [Conclusions] In the period of individuation,the peer review system was developed by a small number of early academic journals independently and had not been widely recognized by scientific community; in the period of institutionalization,the peer review had been widely adopted and recognized as a part of academic culture; and in the period of socialization,the peer review entered a new era of innovation and transformation. In the future,the peer review of academic journals will move toward being more transparent,more intelligent,and more pluralistic.
[Purposes] This paper aims to clarify the historical evolution of peer review of academic journals and grasp the development trend of it. [Methods]Based on the longitudinal history method and the process-event analysis method,on the basis of understanding the relationship between peer review and scientific and social background,we combed the development history of peer review of academic journals and determined the key nodes to its historical evolution,divided it into different periods according to the nodes,and then analyzed the main features of each period. [Findings]After analyzing the characteristics of three historical periods divided by the two nodes,i.e.,the Report to the President submitted by Vannevar Bush and the advent of preprint server,we find that three features,individuation,institutionalization,and socialization,mark the three historical periods of the peer review of academic journals in retrospect. [Conclusions] In the period of individuation,the peer review system was developed by a small number of early academic journals independently and had not been widely recognized by scientific community; in the period of institutionalization,the peer review had been widely adopted and recognized as a part of academic culture; and in the period of socialization,the peer review entered a new era of innovation and transformation. In the future,the peer review of academic journals will move toward being more transparent,more intelligent,and more pluralistic.
引文
[1]罗伯特·默顿.科学社会学[M].鲁旭东,林聚任.译.北京:商务印书馆,2017.
[2] Bush V.科学———没有止境的前沿[M].范岱年,解道华.译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[3]龚旭.科学政策与同行评议———中美科学制度与政策比较研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2009.
[4] Kuhn T S.科学革命的结构[M].李宝恒,纪树立.译.上海:上海科学技术出版社,1980.
[5] Barnes B.科学知识与社会学理论[M].鲁旭东.译.北京:东方出版社,2001.
[6] Latour B.科学在行动:怎样在社会中跟随科学家和工程师[M].刘文旋,郑开.译.北京:东方出版社,2005.
[7] Knorr-Cetina K D.制造知识:建构主义与科学的与境性[M].王善博,译.北京:东方出版社,2001:273.
[8]习近平.努力造就一支忠诚干净担当的高素质干部队伍[J].当代党员,2019(3):4-6.
[9] Burnham J C. The evolution of editorial peer review[J]. Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263(10):1323-1329.
[10] Tennant J P,Dugan J M,Graziotin D,et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review[J]. F1000 Research,2017,6:1151.
[11]万昊,谭宗颖,朱相丽.同行评议与文献计量在科研评价中的作用分析比较[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(1):134-152.
[12] Walker R,da Silva P R. Emerging trends in peer review:A survey[J]. Frontiers in Neuroscience,2015,9:169.
[13]常唯,李自乐,王成,等.开放评议与双盲评议在国际科技期刊质量控制中的价值[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):18-24.
[14]黄雪梅,张红,张晓.学术研究成果同行评议模式的分析与研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(6):592-597.
[15] Bruce R,Chauvin A,Trinquart L,et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals:A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMC Medicine,2016,14:85.
[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]张劼圻.国外科技期刊开放式同行评议中参与者积极性研究[J].编辑学报,2015,27(4):319-322.
[18]郭伟.群审稿———一种专家主动审稿模式的探索[J].编辑学报,2018,30(3):222-226.
[19] Bornmann L,Daniel H D. Reliability of reviewers'ratings when using public peer review:A case study[J]. Learned Publishing,2010,23(2):124-131.
[20]常唯,曹会聪,曹金,等.国际科技期刊同行评议的实践与特点[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):10-17.
[21] Adams J. Therise of research networks[J]. Nature,2012,490(7420):335-336.
[22]乌尔里希·贝克,伊丽莎白·贝克-格恩塞姆.全球热恋[M].樊荣,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2014.
[23] Chubin D E,Hackett E J. Peerless science:Peer review and U.S.science policy[M]. New York:State University of New York Press,1990.
[24]毛莉莉.论同行评议的公平、公正原则[D].上海:东华大学,2007.
[25] Ben-David J.科学家在社会中的角色[M].赵佳苓,译.成都:四川人民出版社,1988:147-148.
[26]张勇刚.中西科学期刊比较研究[D].合肥:中国科学技术大学,2018.
[27] Kronick D A. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism[J]. Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263(10):1321-1322.
[28] Spier R. The history of the peer-review process[J]. Trends in Biotechnology,2002,20(8):357-358.
[29] Kronick D A. Anonymity and identity:Editorial policy in the early scientific journal[J]. The Library Quarterly,1988,58(3):221-237.
[30] Fox R. Pluralism please[M]∥The future of medical journals.London:BMJ Publishing Group,1991:62-66.
[31] Baldwin M. In referees we trust?[J]. Physics Today,2017,70(2):44-49.
[32]施郁.从引力波谈爱因斯坦的幸运[EB/OL].(2016-02-14)[2018-06-27].http:∥blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-4395-956018.html.
[33] Bruce L R Smith. The United States:The formation and breakdown of the post-war government-science compat[M]∥Solingen E. Scientists and state,domestic structures and the international context. Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press,1994:33-61.
[34]龚旭.政府与科学:说不尽的布什报告[J].科学与社会,2015,5(4):82-101.
[35] Curry B K. Institutionalization:The final phase of the organizational change process[J]. Administrator's Notebook,1991,35(1):312.
[36] de Solla Price D J. Little science,big science[M]. New York:Columbia University Press,1963.
[37] Conseil International des Unions Scientifiques. A tentative study of the publication of original scientific literature[R]. Paris:[s. n.],1962.
[38] Stamps A E III. Advances in peer review research:An introduction[J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,1997,3(1):3-10.
[39] Merton R K. The Matthew effect in science:The reward and communication systems of science are considered[J]. Science,1968,159(3810):56-63.
[40] Gustafson T. The controversy over peer review[J]. Science,1975,190(4219):1060-1066.
[41] Mahoney M J. Publication prejudices:An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system[J]. Cognitive Therapy and Research,1977,1(2):161-175.
[42] Crane D. The gatekeepers of science:Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals[J]. American Sociologist,1967,2(4):195-201.
[43] Lock S. A difficult balance:Editorial peer review in medicine[M]. London:Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust,1985:213.
[44] Guarding the guardians. Research on editorial peer review[J].Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263:1317-1441.
[45] St Martin J."Socialization":The politics and history of a psychological concept, 1900-1970[D]. Middletown, USA:Wesleyan University,2007.
[46] The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.Online submission and peer review systems[R]. Bristol:Mark Ware Consulting Ltd.,2005.
[47]白林林,祝忠明. ar Xiv可持续发展计划的运营与管理机制剖析[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(11):55-62.
[48] Odlyzko A M. Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,1995,42(1):71-122.
[49] Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review[J]. British Medical Journal,1999,318(7175):4.
[50] Shanahan D. A peerless review? Automating methodological and statistical review[EB/OL].(2016-05-23)[2019-01-18].https:∥blogs. biomedcentral. com/bmcblog/2016/05/23/peerless-review-automating-methodological-statistical-review/.
[51] ACP. Interactive public peer review[EB/OL].[2018-06-10].https:∥www. atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics. net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html.
[52] PLoS ONE. Editorial and peer review process[EB/OL].[2018-06-10]. https:∥journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peerreview-process.
[53] Frontiers. Frontiers Open Science Platform enables scientific excellence at scale[EB/OL].(2017-12-05)[2018-07-20].https:∥blog. frontiersin. org/2017/12/05/frontiers-open-scienceplatform-enables-scientific-excellence-at-scale/? blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog.
[54] e Life. The editorial process[EB/OL].[2018-06-10]. https:∥submit. elifesciences. org/html/elife_author_instructions. html#process.
[55] Stern B M,O'Shea E K. Scientific publishing in the digital age[EB/OL].(2018-06-26)[2018-07-20]. http:∥asapbio.org/digital-age.
[56] Parrish D M,Bruns D E. US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process[J]. Journal of the American Medical Association,2002,287:2839-2841.
[57] Enserink M. European science funders ban grantees from publishing in paywalled journals[EB/OL].(2018-09-04)[2018-11-01].https:∥www. sciencemag. org/news/2018/09/european-sciencefunders-ban-grantees-publishing-paywalled-journals.
[58] Castelvecchi D. Google unveils search engine for open data[J].Nature,2018,561(7722):161-162.
[2] Bush V.科学———没有止境的前沿[M].范岱年,解道华.译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[3]龚旭.科学政策与同行评议———中美科学制度与政策比较研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2009.
[4] Kuhn T S.科学革命的结构[M].李宝恒,纪树立.译.上海:上海科学技术出版社,1980.
[5] Barnes B.科学知识与社会学理论[M].鲁旭东.译.北京:东方出版社,2001.
[6] Latour B.科学在行动:怎样在社会中跟随科学家和工程师[M].刘文旋,郑开.译.北京:东方出版社,2005.
[7] Knorr-Cetina K D.制造知识:建构主义与科学的与境性[M].王善博,译.北京:东方出版社,2001:273.
[8]习近平.努力造就一支忠诚干净担当的高素质干部队伍[J].当代党员,2019(3):4-6.
[9] Burnham J C. The evolution of editorial peer review[J]. Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263(10):1323-1329.
[10] Tennant J P,Dugan J M,Graziotin D,et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review[J]. F1000 Research,2017,6:1151.
[11]万昊,谭宗颖,朱相丽.同行评议与文献计量在科研评价中的作用分析比较[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(1):134-152.
[12] Walker R,da Silva P R. Emerging trends in peer review:A survey[J]. Frontiers in Neuroscience,2015,9:169.
[13]常唯,李自乐,王成,等.开放评议与双盲评议在国际科技期刊质量控制中的价值[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):18-24.
[14]黄雪梅,张红,张晓.学术研究成果同行评议模式的分析与研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(6):592-597.
[15] Bruce R,Chauvin A,Trinquart L,et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals:A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMC Medicine,2016,14:85.
[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]张劼圻.国外科技期刊开放式同行评议中参与者积极性研究[J].编辑学报,2015,27(4):319-322.
[18]郭伟.群审稿———一种专家主动审稿模式的探索[J].编辑学报,2018,30(3):222-226.
[19] Bornmann L,Daniel H D. Reliability of reviewers'ratings when using public peer review:A case study[J]. Learned Publishing,2010,23(2):124-131.
[20]常唯,曹会聪,曹金,等.国际科技期刊同行评议的实践与特点[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):10-17.
[21] Adams J. Therise of research networks[J]. Nature,2012,490(7420):335-336.
[22]乌尔里希·贝克,伊丽莎白·贝克-格恩塞姆.全球热恋[M].樊荣,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2014.
[23] Chubin D E,Hackett E J. Peerless science:Peer review and U.S.science policy[M]. New York:State University of New York Press,1990.
[24]毛莉莉.论同行评议的公平、公正原则[D].上海:东华大学,2007.
[25] Ben-David J.科学家在社会中的角色[M].赵佳苓,译.成都:四川人民出版社,1988:147-148.
[26]张勇刚.中西科学期刊比较研究[D].合肥:中国科学技术大学,2018.
[27] Kronick D A. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism[J]. Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263(10):1321-1322.
[28] Spier R. The history of the peer-review process[J]. Trends in Biotechnology,2002,20(8):357-358.
[29] Kronick D A. Anonymity and identity:Editorial policy in the early scientific journal[J]. The Library Quarterly,1988,58(3):221-237.
[30] Fox R. Pluralism please[M]∥The future of medical journals.London:BMJ Publishing Group,1991:62-66.
[31] Baldwin M. In referees we trust?[J]. Physics Today,2017,70(2):44-49.
[32]施郁.从引力波谈爱因斯坦的幸运[EB/OL].(2016-02-14)[2018-06-27].http:∥blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-4395-956018.html.
[33] Bruce L R Smith. The United States:The formation and breakdown of the post-war government-science compat[M]∥Solingen E. Scientists and state,domestic structures and the international context. Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press,1994:33-61.
[34]龚旭.政府与科学:说不尽的布什报告[J].科学与社会,2015,5(4):82-101.
[35] Curry B K. Institutionalization:The final phase of the organizational change process[J]. Administrator's Notebook,1991,35(1):312.
[36] de Solla Price D J. Little science,big science[M]. New York:Columbia University Press,1963.
[37] Conseil International des Unions Scientifiques. A tentative study of the publication of original scientific literature[R]. Paris:[s. n.],1962.
[38] Stamps A E III. Advances in peer review research:An introduction[J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,1997,3(1):3-10.
[39] Merton R K. The Matthew effect in science:The reward and communication systems of science are considered[J]. Science,1968,159(3810):56-63.
[40] Gustafson T. The controversy over peer review[J]. Science,1975,190(4219):1060-1066.
[41] Mahoney M J. Publication prejudices:An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system[J]. Cognitive Therapy and Research,1977,1(2):161-175.
[42] Crane D. The gatekeepers of science:Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals[J]. American Sociologist,1967,2(4):195-201.
[43] Lock S. A difficult balance:Editorial peer review in medicine[M]. London:Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust,1985:213.
[44] Guarding the guardians. Research on editorial peer review[J].Journal of the American Medical Association,1990,263:1317-1441.
[45] St Martin J."Socialization":The politics and history of a psychological concept, 1900-1970[D]. Middletown, USA:Wesleyan University,2007.
[46] The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.Online submission and peer review systems[R]. Bristol:Mark Ware Consulting Ltd.,2005.
[47]白林林,祝忠明. ar Xiv可持续发展计划的运营与管理机制剖析[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(11):55-62.
[48] Odlyzko A M. Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,1995,42(1):71-122.
[49] Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review[J]. British Medical Journal,1999,318(7175):4.
[50] Shanahan D. A peerless review? Automating methodological and statistical review[EB/OL].(2016-05-23)[2019-01-18].https:∥blogs. biomedcentral. com/bmcblog/2016/05/23/peerless-review-automating-methodological-statistical-review/.
[51] ACP. Interactive public peer review[EB/OL].[2018-06-10].https:∥www. atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics. net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html.
[52] PLoS ONE. Editorial and peer review process[EB/OL].[2018-06-10]. https:∥journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peerreview-process.
[53] Frontiers. Frontiers Open Science Platform enables scientific excellence at scale[EB/OL].(2017-12-05)[2018-07-20].https:∥blog. frontiersin. org/2017/12/05/frontiers-open-scienceplatform-enables-scientific-excellence-at-scale/? blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog.
[54] e Life. The editorial process[EB/OL].[2018-06-10]. https:∥submit. elifesciences. org/html/elife_author_instructions. html#process.
[55] Stern B M,O'Shea E K. Scientific publishing in the digital age[EB/OL].(2018-06-26)[2018-07-20]. http:∥asapbio.org/digital-age.
[56] Parrish D M,Bruns D E. US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process[J]. Journal of the American Medical Association,2002,287:2839-2841.
[57] Enserink M. European science funders ban grantees from publishing in paywalled journals[EB/OL].(2018-09-04)[2018-11-01].https:∥www. sciencemag. org/news/2018/09/european-sciencefunders-ban-grantees-publishing-paywalled-journals.
[58] Castelvecchi D. Google unveils search engine for open data[J].Nature,2018,561(7722):161-162.