图书情报工作 ›› 2021, Vol. 65 ›› Issue (1): 128-139.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.01.018

• 图书情报与档案管理前沿热点专辑 • 上一篇    下一篇

国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评

索传军1, 于淼1,2   

  1. 1. 中国人民大学信息资源管理学院 北京 100872;
    2. 中国人民大学图书馆 北京 100872
  • 收稿日期:2020-08-25 修回日期:2020-12-14 出版日期:2021-01-05 发布日期:2021-01-05
  • 通讯作者: 于淼(ORCID:0000-0003-2864-9381),馆员,博士研究生,通讯作者,E-mail:yumiao@ruc.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:索传军(ORCID:0000-0002-7416-1531),教授,博士。
  • 基金资助:
    本文系国家社会科学基金项目"体育学期刊论文同行评议的实践困境和创新路径研究"(项目编号:20BTY004)研究成果之一。

On the Innovative Practice of Editorial Peer Review Abroad

Suo Chuanjun1, Yu Miao1,2   

  1. 1. School of Information Resource Management, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872;
    2. Renmin University of China Libraries, Beijing 100872
  • Received:2020-08-25 Revised:2020-12-14 Online:2021-01-05 Published:2021-01-05
  • Supported by:
     

摘要: [目的/意义] 综述国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践,以期为国内学术出版提供参考。[方法/过程] 通过对国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践加以述评,分析其优势和挑战,总结创新实践的整体趋势。[结果/结论] 预印本和发表后同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更快捷的期待,非选择性同行评议和注册报告反映了人们对同行评议更客观的期待,开放同行评议和协作同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更公平的期待,而这些创新实践具有各自的优势及挑战。国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践总体上呈现出加快发表速度、拓宽发文范围、弱化以刊评文、促进科学民主和认证审稿贡献的趋势。

 

关键词: 同行评议, 学术评价, 审稿模式, 创新实践

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] This paper observes and summarizes the innovative practice of editorial peer review as applied abroad, in order to create a guide for domestic academic publishing. [Method/process] Specifically, we reviewed the foreign innovative practices of editorial peer review, analyzed their advantages and challenges, and summarized the overall trends. [Result/conclusion] Preprint archive and post-publication peer review indicates the need for a faster peer review process, while nonselective peer review processes and registered reports suggests that peer review objectivity needs to be improved. Furthermore, open and collaborative peer review reflects the expectation of greater fairness in the peer review process. Therefore, we have concluded that, although these innovative practices have advantages and challenges, there is a clear tendency to accelerate academic communication, broaden the publication scope, reduce the evaluation of articles based on periodicals, promote the democratization of science, and verify the contributions of referees.

Key words: peer review, academic evaluation, review model, innovative practice

中图分类号: