科技期刊开放性同行评议可行性探究
|
摘要
【目的】进一步推动科技期刊开放性同行评议的研究、变革与实践。【方法】将开放性同行评议与传统的封闭式同行评议进行比较,对开放性同行评议的优势进行论述。【结果】开放性同行评议的评议过程具有透明性、公开性、公平性和公正性的特点;使同行评议系统的层次性质平坦化;提高期刊内容的传播速度;为评议人员赢得声誉与尊重;进一步提高稿源质量和期刊质量;有助于科技期刊吸引更多的开创性、冒险性的作者;创造自由讨论的公共学术研究环境。【结论】开放性同行评议给作者、评审人员、科技期刊、读者和学术界都带来大量的利益,科技期刊应该更新办刊理念,尝试探索开放性同行评议。
[Purposes] This paper aims to promote the research,reform,and practice of open peer reviewof scientific journals in China. [Methods] We compared the open peer reviewwith the traditional blind peer review,and discussed the advantages of open peer review. [Findings] The process of open peer reviewof scientific journals has the characteristics of transparency,openness,fairness,and impartiality,flattens the hierarchical nature of peer reviewsystems,speeds up the propagation of the journal contents,wins academic reputation and respect for reviewers,improves the quality of journal articles,attracts more risk taking and innovative authors,and creates a free public academic research environment. [Conclusions]Open peer reviewof scientific journals has brought a great deal of benefits to authors,reviewers,scientific journals,readers,and scholarly communities. Scientific journals should update the concept and try to explore open peer review.
[Purposes] This paper aims to promote the research,reform,and practice of open peer reviewof scientific journals in China. [Methods] We compared the open peer reviewwith the traditional blind peer review,and discussed the advantages of open peer review. [Findings] The process of open peer reviewof scientific journals has the characteristics of transparency,openness,fairness,and impartiality,flattens the hierarchical nature of peer reviewsystems,speeds up the propagation of the journal contents,wins academic reputation and respect for reviewers,improves the quality of journal articles,attracts more risk taking and innovative authors,and creates a free public academic research environment. [Conclusions]Open peer reviewof scientific journals has brought a great deal of benefits to authors,reviewers,scientific journals,readers,and scholarly communities. Scientific journals should update the concept and try to explore open peer review.
引文
[1]吴锦雅.同行评议面临的问题与可行性措施[J].编辑学报,2011,23(3):238-240.
[2]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.
[3]张春丽,商丽娜,倪四秀.科技期刊开放式同行评议模式探索[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(11):1151-1155.
[4]Ford E.Defining and characterizing open peer review:A review of the literature[J].Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2013,44(4):311-326.
[5]Perakakis P,Taylor M,Mazza M G,et al.Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles[J].Scientometrics,2011,88(2):669-673.
[6]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.
[7]Ford E.Open peer review at four STEM journals:An observational overview[J].F1000Research,2015,4:6.
[8]Binfield P.PLo S One:New approaches and initiatives in the evolution of the academic journal[J].Against the Grain,2013,21(3):24-26.
[9]Janowicz K,Hitzler P.Open and transparent:The review process of the Semantic Web journal[J].Learned Publishing,2012,25(1):48-55.
[10]Poschl U.Interactive open access peer review:The atmospheric chemistry and physics model[J].Against the Grain,2009,21(3):26-32.
[11]Nikita R.What is open peer review?[EB/OL].[2017-04-02].http://bilg.editeon.com//What is open peer review?
[12]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.
[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]Tony R.What is open peer review?A systematic review[J].F1000Research,2017(6):588.
[15]Smith R.Peer review:A flawed process at the heart of science and journals[J].Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,2006,99(4):178-182.
[16]Toni P.Open-process academic publishing[J].Ephemera,2010,10(1):40-63.
[17]於维樱.提高学术性同行评议的质量和时效性:一个针对学术出版商的报告[J].图情领域发展战略扫描,2011(3):1-11.
[18]Cope B,Kalantzis M.Signs of epistemic disruption:Transformations in the knowledge[J].The Future of the Academic Journal,2009,14(4):13-61.
[19]An open,two-stage peer-review journal[EB/OL].[2017-06-23].http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html.
[20]李政军.塔洛克寻租理论开创性论文的遭遇和所引发的思考[J].经济社会体制比较,2001(1):44-46.
[21]Armstrong J S.Peer review for journals:Evidence on quality control,fairness,and innovation[J].Science and Engineering Ethics,1997,3(1):63-84.
[22]Nentwich M.Quality control in academic publishing:Challenges in the age of cyberscience[J].Poiesis&Praxis,2004,3(3):181-198.
[23]Greaves S,Scott J,Clarke M,et al.Nature's trial of open peer review[J].Nature,2006,444(7122):971-972.
[2]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.
[3]张春丽,商丽娜,倪四秀.科技期刊开放式同行评议模式探索[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(11):1151-1155.
[4]Ford E.Defining and characterizing open peer review:A review of the literature[J].Journal of Scholarly Publishing,2013,44(4):311-326.
[5]Perakakis P,Taylor M,Mazza M G,et al.Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles[J].Scientometrics,2011,88(2):669-673.
[6]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.
[7]Ford E.Open peer review at four STEM journals:An observational overview[J].F1000Research,2015,4:6.
[8]Binfield P.PLo S One:New approaches and initiatives in the evolution of the academic journal[J].Against the Grain,2013,21(3):24-26.
[9]Janowicz K,Hitzler P.Open and transparent:The review process of the Semantic Web journal[J].Learned Publishing,2012,25(1):48-55.
[10]Poschl U.Interactive open access peer review:The atmospheric chemistry and physics model[J].Against the Grain,2009,21(3):26-32.
[11]Nikita R.What is open peer review?[EB/OL].[2017-04-02].http://bilg.editeon.com//What is open peer review?
[12]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.
[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]Tony R.What is open peer review?A systematic review[J].F1000Research,2017(6):588.
[15]Smith R.Peer review:A flawed process at the heart of science and journals[J].Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,2006,99(4):178-182.
[16]Toni P.Open-process academic publishing[J].Ephemera,2010,10(1):40-63.
[17]於维樱.提高学术性同行评议的质量和时效性:一个针对学术出版商的报告[J].图情领域发展战略扫描,2011(3):1-11.
[18]Cope B,Kalantzis M.Signs of epistemic disruption:Transformations in the knowledge[J].The Future of the Academic Journal,2009,14(4):13-61.
[19]An open,two-stage peer-review journal[EB/OL].[2017-06-23].http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html.
[20]李政军.塔洛克寻租理论开创性论文的遭遇和所引发的思考[J].经济社会体制比较,2001(1):44-46.
[21]Armstrong J S.Peer review for journals:Evidence on quality control,fairness,and innovation[J].Science and Engineering Ethics,1997,3(1):63-84.
[22]Nentwich M.Quality control in academic publishing:Challenges in the age of cyberscience[J].Poiesis&Praxis,2004,3(3):181-198.
[23]Greaves S,Scott J,Clarke M,et al.Nature's trial of open peer review[J].Nature,2006,444(7122):971-972.