国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.01.018

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

所属专题：图书情报与档案管理前沿热点专辑

• 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. 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 Miao^1,2

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/Abstract

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:

G237.5

索传军, 于淼. 国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(1): 128-139.

Suo Chuanjun, Yu Miao. On the Innovative Practice of Editorial Peer Review Abroad[J]. LIS, 2021, 65(1): 128-139.

参考文献

[1] WILSON J D. Peer review and publication[J]. Journal of clinical investigation, 1978, 61(6):1697-1701.
[2] ZIMAN J M. Public knowledge:an essay concerning the social dimension of science[M]. London:Cambridge University Press, 1968.
[3] BORNMANN L. Scientific peer review[J]. Annual review of information science and technology, 2011, 45(1):197-245.
[4] 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.
[5] WARE M, MONKMAN M. Peer review in scholarly journals:perspective of the scholarly community-an international study[EB/OL].[2020-02-20]. http://www.markwareconsulting.com/articles-reports/peer-review-in-scholarly-journals-perspective-of-the-scholarly-community-an-international-survey/.
[6] HERMAN E, AKEROYD J, BEQUET G, et al. The changed-and changing-landscape of serials publishing:review of the literature on emerging models[J]. Learned publishing, 2020, 33(3):213-229.
[7] HORBACH S P J M, HALFFMAN W W. The changing forms and expectations of peer review[J]. Research integrity and peer review, 2018, 3:e8.
[8] PONTILLE D, TORNY D. From manuscript evaluation to article valuation:the changing technologies of journal peer review[J]. Human studies, 2015, 38(1):57-79.
[9] LARIVIÈRE V, SUGIMOTO C R, MACALUSO B, et al. arXiv E-prints and the journal of record:an analysis of roles and relationships[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(6):1157-1169.
[10] ARXIV. Monthly Submissions[EB/OL].[2020-04-22]. https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions.
[11] 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.
[12] 张彤,周云霞,蔡斐,等. 学术期刊同行评议的历史演进[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 30(6):588-595.
[13] DAVIS P M, FROMERTH M J. Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles?[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 71(2):203-215.
[14] MOED H F. The effect of "open access" on citation impact:an analysis of ArXiv's condensed matter section[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(13):2047-2054.
[15] LUZI D. Trends and evolution in the development of grey literature:a review[J]. International journal on grey literature, 2000, 1(3):106-116.
[16] WANG L, ZHAN Y. A conceptual peer review model for arXiv and other preprint databases[J]. Learned publishing, 2019, 32(3):213-219.
[17] BOLDT A. Extending ArXiv.org to achieve open peer review and publishing[J]. Journal of scholarly publishing, 2011, 42(2):238-242.
[18] SIGMA. SIGMA is arXiv overlay[EB/OL].[2020-04-23]. http://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/about.html#overlay.
[19] GIBNEY E. Toolbox:low-cost journals piggyback on arXiv[J]. Nature, 2016, 530(7588):117-118.
[20] 于淼,赵金环. 出版后同行评议及其对国内学术出版的启示[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2020, 31(1):45-50.
[21] PÖSCHL 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:e33.
[22] FITZPATRICK K. Peer-to-peer review and the future of scholarly authority[J]. Soc epistemol, 2010, 24(3):161-179.
[23] DICKERSIN K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence[J]. JAMA:the journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263(10):1385-1389.
[24] FOX S T. Crisis in communication:the functions and future of medical publication[M]. London:Athlone Press, 1965.
[25] 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.
[26] HAMES I. The changing face of peer review[J]. Science editing, 2014, 1(1):9-12.
[27] SPEZI V, WAKELING S, PINFIELD S, et al. Open-access mega-journals[J]. Journal of documentation, 2017, 73(2):263-283.
[28] SPEZI V, WAKELING S, PINFIELD S, et al. "Let the community decide"? the vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals[J]. Journal of documentation, 2018, 74(1):137-161.
[29] BARDY A H. Bias in reporting clinical trials[J]. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2002, 46(2):147-150.
[30] DICKERSIN K. Factors influencing publication of research results. follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards[J]. JAMA:The journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 267(3):374-378.
[31] FANELLI D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? an empirical support from US states data[J]. Plos one, 2010, 5(4):e10271.
[32] IOANNIDIS J P A. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials[J]. JAMA:the journal of the American Medical Association, 1998, 279(4):281-286.
[33] IOANNIDIS J P A. Why most published research findings are false[J]. Plos medicine, 2005, 2(8):e124.
[34] PALMER A R. Quasi-replication and the contract of error:lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry[J]. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 2000, 31(1):441-480.
[35] CHAN A, HRÓBJARTSSON A, HAAHR M T, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials[J]. JAMA:the journal of the American Medical Association, 2004, 291(20):2457-2465.
[36] GERBER A S, MALHOTRA N. Publication bias in empirical sociological research[J]. Sociological methods & research, 2008, 37(1):3-30.
[37] BJÖRK B C. Have the ‘mega-journals’ reached the limits to growth[J]. PeerJ, 2015, 3:e981.
[38] SUGIMOTO C R, LARIVIÈRE V, NI C, et al. Journal acceptance rates:a cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2013, 7(4):897-906.
[39] SPEZI V, WAKELING S, PINFIELD S, et al. Open-access mega-journals the future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? a review[J]. 2017, 73(2):263-283.
[40] 陈秀娟,陈雪飞,郭进京,等. 巨型开放获取期刊发展现状及未来影响分析[J]. 编辑学报, 2017, 29(5):505-510.
[41] BOHANNON J. Who's afraid of peer review?[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154):60-65.
[42] SPEZI V, WAKELING S, PINFIELD S, et al. "Let the community decide"? the vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals[J]. Journal of documentation, 2018, 74(1):137-161.
[43] CHAMBERS C D. Registered reports:a new publishing initiative at Cortex[J]. Cortex, 2013, 49(3):609-610.
[44] NOSEK B A, LAKENS D. Registered reports[J]. Social psychology, 2014, 45(3):137-141.
[45] COS, Center for open science. Registered reports:peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices[EB/OL].[2020-04-23]. https://cos.io/rr/.
[46] CLARK A. Results-free review:impressions from the first published articles[EB/OL].[2020-04-16]. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/2017/06/12/results-free-revie w-impressions-from-the-first-published-article/.
[47] PLoS ONE. Submit your registered report to PLoS ONE![EB/OL].[2020-04-19]. https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2020/01/submit-your-registered-report-to-plos-one/.
[48] JELICIC M, MERCKELBACH H. Peer-review:let's lmitate the lawyers![J]. Cortex, 2002, 38(3):406-407.
[49] LEE C J, SUGIMOTO C R, ZHANG G, et al. Bias in peer review[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(1):2-17.
[50] PETERS D P, CECI S J. Peer-review research:objections and obligations[J]. Behavioral and brain sciences, 1982, 5(2):246-255.
[51] COPE B, KALANTZIS M. Signs of epistemic disruption:transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal[M]//COPE B, PHILLIPS A. The future of the academic journal. Oxford:Chandos Publishing, 2009:13-61.
[52] SMITH R. Opening up BMJ peer review-a beginning that should lead to complete transparency[J]. British medical journal, 1999, 318(7175):4-5.
[53] WARE M. Peer review:recent experience and future directions[J]. New review of information networking, 2011, 16(1):23-53.
[54] WOLFRAM D, WANG P, HEMBREE A, et al. Open peer review:promoting transparency in open science[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 125(2):1033-1051.
[55] MORRISON J. The case for open peer review[J]. Medical education, 2006, 40(9):830-831.
[56] WICHERTS J M. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals[J]. PLoS ONE, 2016, 11(1):e147913.
[57] WALSH E, ROONEY M, APPLEBY L, et al. Open peer review:a randomised controlled trial[J]. British journal of psychiatry, 2000, 176(1):47-51.
[58] LEEK J T, TAUB M A, PINEDA F J. Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy[J]. PLoS ONE, 2011, 6(11):e26895.
[59] NICHOLSON J, ALPERIN J P. A brief survey on peer review in scholarly communication[J]. The winnower, 2016:e4659.
[60] BORNMANN L, WOLF M, DANIEL H. Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts:how far do comments differ in language use?[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(3):843-856.
[61] HARNAD S. Creative disagreement[J]. The sciences, 1979, 19(7):18-20.
[62] ZONG Q, XIE Y, LIANG J. Does open peer review improve citation count? evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 125(1):607-623.
[63] ALMQUIST M, von ALLMEN R S, CARRADICE D, et al. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science[J]. Plos one, 2017, 12(6):e179031.
[64] MELERO R, LÓPEZ-SANTOVEÑA F. Referees' attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers[J]. Food science and technology international, 2016, 7(6):521-527.
[65] KRAVITZ D J, BAKER C I. Toward a new model of scientific publishing:discussion and a proposal[J]. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2011, 5:e55.
[66] HULL D. Science as a process[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1988.
[67] 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):e189311.
[68] SCHEKMAN R, WATT F, WEIGEL D. The eLife approach to peer review[J]. eLife, 2013, 2:e00799.
[69] FRONTIERS. Frontiers is a community-rooted, open-access academic publisher[EB/OL].[2020-04-22]. https://www.frontiersin.org/about/review-system.
[70] EMBO Press. About:cross peer review:EMBO Press[EB/OL].[2020-04-16]. https://www.embopress.org/page/journal/14602075/about#Cross_peer_review.
[71] 程磊,汪劼,徐晶,等. eLife期刊特点及其学术质量[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2015, 26(3):244-251.
[72] CLARKE M. Game of papers:eLife, BMC, PLoS and EMBO announce new peer review consortium[EB/OL].[2020-12-03]. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/15/game-of-papers-elife-bmc-plos-and-embo-announce-new-peer-review-consortium/.
[73] JENNINGS C G. Quality and value:the true purpose of peer review. what you can't measure, you can't manage:the need for quantitative indicators in peer review[EB/OL].[2020-12-30]. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05032.html.
[74] 索传军,盖双双,周志超. 认知计算——单篇学术论文评价的新视角[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2018, 44(1):50-61.
[75] 谢岩岩,孙继林. F1000的文献评价功能浅议[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2011, 30(4):38-42, 47.
[76] COLE S, COLE J R, SIMON G A. Chance and consensus in peer review[J]. Science, 1981, 214(4523):881-886.
[77] CSISZAR A. Troubled from the start[J]. Nature, 2016, 532(21):306-308.
[78] D'ANDREA R, O'DWYER J P. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?[J]. Plos one, 2017, 12(10):e186111.
[79] JEFFERSON T, RUDIN M, BRODNEY FOLSE S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies[J]. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007, (2):MR000016.
[80] WANG W, KONG X, ZHANG J, et al. Editorial behaviors in peer review[J]. Springerplus, 2016, 5(1):903-913.
[81] WARNE V. Rewarding reviewers-sense or sensibility? a Wiley study explained[J]. Learned publishing, 2016, 29(1):41-50.
[82] PUBLONS. Track more of your research impact[EB/OL].[2020-12-04]. https://publons.com/about/home.
[83] DAPPERT A, FARQUHAR A, KOTARSKI R, et al. Connecting the persistent identifier ecosystem:building the technical and human infrastructure for open research[J]. Data science journal, 2017, 16:e28.
[84] 吴述尧. 同行评议简议[J]. 科技导报, 1993(2):44-45.
[85] 秦卫波. 我国学术期刊同行评议的运行困境及改革趋向[J]. 东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版), 2020(3):178-183.
[86] 胡克兴,刘徽,卢珊,等. 开放科学环境中的科技期刊同行评议研究[J]. 编辑学报, 2019, 31(6):610-613.

国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评

On the Innovative Practice of Editorial Peer Review Abroad

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	姜育彦, 刘雪立. 绝对颠覆性指数与同行评议指标及CNCI的关系：基于病毒学论文的研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2023, 67(3): 96-105.
[2]	黄国彬, 白旭, 王涛. 实证视角下同行评议对审定预印本在期刊发表的影响研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(21): 57-66.
[3]	杨瑞仙, 高鑫宁, 董克. 我国学术代表作评价研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(17): 129-140.
[4]	张光耀, 谢维熙, 姜春林, 王贤文. 科学计量视角下的论文同行评议研究综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(14): 137-149.
[5]	秦成磊, 韩茹雪, 周昊旻, 仲江涛, 章成志. 同行评审意见类型识别及其在不同被引频次下的分布研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(13): 102-117.
[6]	黄国彬, 刘磊, 陈丽. 注册式研究报告的同行评议机制研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(18): 24-35.
[7]	黄国彬, 初景利, 崔瑞琴, 李景, 魏来, 李睿, 周倩, 符绍宏. 修身立学化知行言传身教育良才——孟连生图书情报学术思想与研究生培养概述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 12-21.
[8]	王欣, 李宏, 宛玲. 业精于勤行成于思——孟连生在数字图书馆理论与实践领域的探索[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 44-50.
[9]	刘春丽, 臧东宇, 张连生. 开放同行评议期刊论文的引文与社会关注度优势研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(1): 110-119.
[10]	撒旭, 王健, 范智萱, 刘建平, 张贵兰, 徐波. 数据期刊同行评议视角下科学数据质量评价指标识别[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(17): 123-130.
[11]	李铮, 邓三鸿, 孔嘉, 张艺炜. 学者学术影响力识别研究——基于引文全数据的视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(12): 87-94.
[12]	刘晓娟, 韦娱, 赵卓婧. Altmetrics中的社交媒体事件分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(19): 112-118.
[13]	张立彬, 郝群, 杨梦. 美国高校图书馆社会服务拓展创新实践的调研与思考[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(6): 125-133.
[14]	杜杏叶, 李贺, 王玲, 刘远颖, 易飞, 徐健, 王传清, 王善军, 刘晶晶. 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.
[15]	宋丽萍, 王建芳. 基于学科规范引文影响力与同行评议相关性的科学评价实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(18): 122-128.