科技期刊实施开放式同行评议策略研究
|
摘要
【目的】调研国内外科技期刊实施开放式同行评议(Open Peer Review,OPR)的策略,并对其进行比较分析,以期为OPR相关理论和实践研究提供参考。【方法】通过在30种科技期刊官方网站收集数据,总结OPR期刊的特点,比较各期刊在采取审稿模式、公开审稿人身份、公开审稿意见和给审稿人认可等方面采取的不同策略。【结果】所调研期刊中绝大多数是出版集团拥有的开放获取期刊,其中50%是生物医学类期刊。在所调查的3种OPR模式中,70%期刊采取模式2,即公开评审结果模式; 23%采用模式1,即审稿中增加公众评议环节; 7%采用非主流模式3,即通过出版"同行评议书"的方式公开稿件评审过程。即使采用同一种OPR模式的期刊,其具体做法也不尽相同。71%的期刊采取自愿署名或匿名审稿政策,只有29%的期刊要求审稿人实名审稿。小部分期刊采取给评审报告添加DOI方式激励审稿人审稿。【结论】当前国内外科技期刊对OPR的研究和实践还处在初级阶段,实施OPR的期刊总体数量偏少,今后还需要各期刊根据自己的特点探索适合自己实施OPR的策略。
[Purposes]This paper aims to investigate the strategies used by open peer review( OPR) journals,and to compare and analyze these strategies in order to provide references for relevant theoretical research and practice on open peer review. [Methods]Data were collected from the official websites of 30 OPR journals. The content of these journal publishers' websites was analyzed to find the characteristics of these scientific journals,and their different strategies were compared in managing the peer review process including adoption of OPR models,disclosure of reviewers' identity,publication of review report,and recognition of reviewers.[Findings] Most OPR journals are open access journals owned by the publishing groups,and half of OPR journals focus on biological and medical subjects. Among the three OPR models,model 2,i.e.,publication of peer review reports,model 1,i.e.,peer review combined with interactive public discussion,and model 3,i. e.,featuring the open peer commentary are adopted by70%,23%,and 7% of all the journals investigated,respectively. Even if using the same OPR model,the journals made various policies. Regarding disclosure of reviewer identity,71% of the journals allow referees to choose to sign their comments or remain anonymous,and only 29% of journals require reviewers to submit real names for review. A small number of journals assign digital object identifiers( DOI) to reviews in an effort to encourage reviews. [Conclusions] Development of peer review is still at an elementary stage with not so many researches or practical experiences published and explained. Scientific journals need to develop their OPR strategies according to their own characteristics.
[Purposes]This paper aims to investigate the strategies used by open peer review( OPR) journals,and to compare and analyze these strategies in order to provide references for relevant theoretical research and practice on open peer review. [Methods]Data were collected from the official websites of 30 OPR journals. The content of these journal publishers' websites was analyzed to find the characteristics of these scientific journals,and their different strategies were compared in managing the peer review process including adoption of OPR models,disclosure of reviewers' identity,publication of review report,and recognition of reviewers.[Findings] Most OPR journals are open access journals owned by the publishing groups,and half of OPR journals focus on biological and medical subjects. Among the three OPR models,model 2,i.e.,publication of peer review reports,model 1,i.e.,peer review combined with interactive public discussion,and model 3,i. e.,featuring the open peer commentary are adopted by70%,23%,and 7% of all the journals investigated,respectively. Even if using the same OPR model,the journals made various policies. Regarding disclosure of reviewer identity,71% of the journals allow referees to choose to sign their comments or remain anonymous,and only 29% of journals require reviewers to submit real names for review. A small number of journals assign digital object identifiers( DOI) to reviews in an effort to encourage reviews. [Conclusions] Development of peer review is still at an elementary stage with not so many researches or practical experiences published and explained. Scientific journals need to develop their OPR strategies according to their own characteristics.
引文
[1]方卿.中国学术期刊同行评审的实践与研究[J].图书情报知识,2007(6):89-92.
[2]王志娟,法志强,郭洪波.科技期刊同行评议形式的不足与完善[J].中国科技期刊研究,2012,23(2):300-302.
[3]赵艳静,王新英,何静菁.防止同行评议造假的可行性措施[J].编辑学报,2017,29(2):142-144.
[4] Godlee F,Jefferson T(Eds). Peer review in health sciences(second edition)[M]. London:BMJ Books,2003.
[5]徐志英.科学文章同行评议研究进展[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(11):1355-1359.
[6] Bornmann L,Schier H,Marx W,et al. Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of atmospheric chemistry and physics by using percentile rank classes[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2010,62(1):61-71.
[7] Kowalczuk M,Dudbridge F,Nanda S,et al. A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models[C]//International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication,2013,4:1252.
[8] Matthews D. Open peer review‘better quality’than traditional process.[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/cn/news/open-peer-review-betterquality-than-traditional-process.
[9] Vrana R. Acceptance of open peer review by scientific publishers[C]//The 28th International Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems. Vara6din,Croatia,2017:221-228.
[10]刘春丽,何钦成.开放同行评审的产生、发展、成效与可行性[J].中国科技期刊研究,2013,24(1):40-44.
[11]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.
[12] Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review[J]. F1000 Research,2017,6:588.
[13]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.
[14] Ford E. Defining and characterizing open peer review:A review of the literature[J]. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2013,44(4):311-326.
[15] Tennant J. Advances in peer review[EB/OL].[2018-08-12].http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/advances-in-peerreview/.
[16] Tennant J. Peer review:Open sesame?[EB/OL].[2018-08-12]. http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/peer-reviewopen-sesame/.
[17] Tennant J. Credit given where credit is due[EB/OL].[2018-08-12]. http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/credit-givenwhere-credit-is-due/.
[18] F1000 Research. Referee Guidelines[EB/OL].[2018-08-12].https://f1000research.com/for-referees/guidelines.
[19] P9schl U. Multi-stage open peer review:scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation[J]. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience,2012,6(1):33.
[20]郑辛甜,张斯龙.学术期刊公开同行评议的发展现状及发展趋势[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(2):133-138.
[21] Walsh E,Rooney M,Appleby L,et al. Open peer review:A randomised controlled trial[J]. The British Journal of Psychiatry,2000,176(1):47-51.
[22] Ross-hellauer T,Deppe A,Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review:Attitudes and experience amongst editors,authors and reviewers[J]. PLoS ONE,2017,12(12):e0189311.
[23] Kulkarni S. How authors,reviewers,and editors perceive peer review:An overview of the Taylor&Francis report[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www. editage. com/insights/howauthors-reviewers-and-editors-perceive-peer-review-anoverview-of-the-taylor-francis-report.
[24] Amsen E. What is open peer review?[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://blog. f1000. com/2014/05/21/w22hat-is-openpeer-review/.
[25] Ford E. Open peer review at four STEM journals:An observational overview[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://f1000research.com/articles/4-6/v2.
[26]王凤产.科技期刊开放性同行评议案例研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(3):242-247.
[27]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.
[28]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.
[29]李军纪,阮爱萍,王沁萍.多媒介融合出版条件下学术期刊同行评审制度的发展[J].编辑学报,2016,28(6):539-543.
[30] Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics(ACP),Interactive public peer review[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics. net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html.
[31] BMJ Group. Advancing peer review at BMC[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www. biomedcentral. com/about/advancingpeer-review.
[32] Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Calls for commentary[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www. cambridge. org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/information/calls-forcommentary.
[33] Federation of European Microbilogical Societies(FEMS). Open peer review-Evolution and experimentation[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://fems-microbiology. org/open-peer-reviewevolution-experimentation/.
[34]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.
[35] Tennant J. Should peer review reports be published[EB/OL].[2018-08-12]. http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/should-peer-review-reports-be-published/.
[36] Agha R,Rosin D. Peer-review developments at the IJSpublishing reviewer reports[J]. International Journal of Surgery,2014,12(9):1003-1004.作者贡献声明:彭琳:提出研究选题,采集数据,撰写和修改论文;杜杏叶:设计研究框架,修订论文并定终稿。
[2]王志娟,法志强,郭洪波.科技期刊同行评议形式的不足与完善[J].中国科技期刊研究,2012,23(2):300-302.
[3]赵艳静,王新英,何静菁.防止同行评议造假的可行性措施[J].编辑学报,2017,29(2):142-144.
[4] Godlee F,Jefferson T(Eds). Peer review in health sciences(second edition)[M]. London:BMJ Books,2003.
[5]徐志英.科学文章同行评议研究进展[J].中国科技期刊研究,2014,25(11):1355-1359.
[6] Bornmann L,Schier H,Marx W,et al. Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of atmospheric chemistry and physics by using percentile rank classes[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2010,62(1):61-71.
[7] Kowalczuk M,Dudbridge F,Nanda S,et al. A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or closed peer review models[C]//International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication,2013,4:1252.
[8] Matthews D. Open peer review‘better quality’than traditional process.[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/cn/news/open-peer-review-betterquality-than-traditional-process.
[9] Vrana R. Acceptance of open peer review by scientific publishers[C]//The 28th International Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems. Vara6din,Croatia,2017:221-228.
[10]刘春丽,何钦成.开放同行评审的产生、发展、成效与可行性[J].中国科技期刊研究,2013,24(1):40-44.
[11]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.
[12] Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review[J]. F1000 Research,2017,6:588.
[13]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.
[14] Ford E. Defining and characterizing open peer review:A review of the literature[J]. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2013,44(4):311-326.
[15] Tennant J. Advances in peer review[EB/OL].[2018-08-12].http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/advances-in-peerreview/.
[16] Tennant J. Peer review:Open sesame?[EB/OL].[2018-08-12]. http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/peer-reviewopen-sesame/.
[17] Tennant J. Credit given where credit is due[EB/OL].[2018-08-12]. http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/credit-givenwhere-credit-is-due/.
[18] F1000 Research. Referee Guidelines[EB/OL].[2018-08-12].https://f1000research.com/for-referees/guidelines.
[19] P9schl U. Multi-stage open peer review:scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation[J]. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience,2012,6(1):33.
[20]郑辛甜,张斯龙.学术期刊公开同行评议的发展现状及发展趋势[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(2):133-138.
[21] Walsh E,Rooney M,Appleby L,et al. Open peer review:A randomised controlled trial[J]. The British Journal of Psychiatry,2000,176(1):47-51.
[22] Ross-hellauer T,Deppe A,Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review:Attitudes and experience amongst editors,authors and reviewers[J]. PLoS ONE,2017,12(12):e0189311.
[23] Kulkarni S. How authors,reviewers,and editors perceive peer review:An overview of the Taylor&Francis report[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www. editage. com/insights/howauthors-reviewers-and-editors-perceive-peer-review-anoverview-of-the-taylor-francis-report.
[24] Amsen E. What is open peer review?[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://blog. f1000. com/2014/05/21/w22hat-is-openpeer-review/.
[25] Ford E. Open peer review at four STEM journals:An observational overview[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://f1000research.com/articles/4-6/v2.
[26]王凤产.科技期刊开放性同行评议案例研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(3):242-247.
[27]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.
[28]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.
[29]李军纪,阮爱萍,王沁萍.多媒介融合出版条件下学术期刊同行评审制度的发展[J].编辑学报,2016,28(6):539-543.
[30] Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics(ACP),Interactive public peer review[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics. net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html.
[31] BMJ Group. Advancing peer review at BMC[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www. biomedcentral. com/about/advancingpeer-review.
[32] Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Calls for commentary[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://www. cambridge. org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/information/calls-forcommentary.
[33] Federation of European Microbilogical Societies(FEMS). Open peer review-Evolution and experimentation[EB/OL].[2018-05-12]. https://fems-microbiology. org/open-peer-reviewevolution-experimentation/.
[34]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.
[35] Tennant J. Should peer review reports be published[EB/OL].[2018-08-12]. http://blog. scienceopen. com/2016/02/should-peer-review-reports-be-published/.
[36] Agha R,Rosin D. Peer-review developments at the IJSpublishing reviewer reports[J]. International Journal of Surgery,2014,12(9):1003-1004.作者贡献声明:彭琳:提出研究选题,采集数据,撰写和修改论文;杜杏叶:设计研究框架,修订论文并定终稿。