[目的/意义]同行评议作为一种评审制度一直受到"主观"而不够"客观"的批评。公开同行评议可以在一定程度上缓解这个问题。学者对公开同行评议的接受度如何是学术期刊实施该制度首要考虑的问题。[方法/过程]首先通过文献调研对学术论文公开同行评议的概念、相比传统同行评议的优势和不足进行论述，接着就公开评审流程中的公开内容对来自中国各个学科及研究领域的研究人员进行问卷调查，获得中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度数据，并对中国学者对论文开放同行评议的接受度进行分析。[结果/结论]问卷调查对象来自不同的学科领域，其中100%有发文经历，70%以上具有审稿经历，40%以上曾为国际期刊审过稿。调查结果表明，半数（占50.33%）中国学者对学术论文公开评审是接受的，在学术论文评审的不同阶段，中国学者的接受度不同。经过非参数统计检验，不同学科同行评议者接受度有所差异；是否具有国际期刊审稿经验的同行评议专家接受度差异不明显。论文相关分析数据可为中文学术期刊实施公开同行评议制度提供支持。
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
.
DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2018.02.011
[Purpose/significance] As the "gatekeeper" of scholarly journals, the peer review has been criticized for lacking the transparency quality assurance. The open peer review, to some extent, could overcome the limitation and live up to the demands of open science and giving reviewers credit. Thus, it is critical for journals to investigate the attitudes of researchers towards the open peer review before it is implemented.[Method/process]Based on the literature review, we firstly defined the concept, the pros and cons of the open peer review; then, we conducted an online survey focusing on the information disclosure willingness during the open review process of respondents, and analyzed the collected data.[Result/conclusion]304 valid questionnaires from China have been received. All respondents have authored papers and 70% of them have peer review experience, including 40% have review experience for international journals. The result indicates that about half (50.33%) of the Chinese researchers maintain a positive attitude towards the open peer review, and the degree of acceptance varies at different stages of the open peer review process. While the discipline of researchers affects their attitudes towards the open peer review, the peer review experience for international journals makes little difference on the results. The results and analysis in this study could serve as a reference for Chinese journals to put the open peer review into practice.
[1] 盖斯勒.科学技术测度体系[M].周萍,黄军英,刘娅,等译.北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004.
[2] MARSH H W, JAYASINGHE U W, BOND N W. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications:reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability[J]. American psychologist, 2008, 63(3):160-168.
[3] 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.
[4] 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比较分析[J].图书情报工作,2017,61(1):134-152.
[5] ROSS-HELLAUER T.Defining open peer review:part two-seven traits of OPR[EB/OL].[2017-02-16].https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410.
[6] SHEMA H. An introduction to open peer review[EB/OL].[2017-02-16].https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/an-introduction-to-open-peer-review.
[7] GOODMAN S N,BERLIN J,FLETCHER S W. Evidence supports the view that peer review improves the quality of the reporting of research results[M]. Pierie:Walvoort & Overbeke,1996.
[8] SMITH R. Opening up BMJ peer review:a beginning that should lead to complete transparency[J].BMJ, 1999,318:4-5.
[9] VAN ROOYEN S, GODLEE F, EVANS S, et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations:a randomised trial[J].BMJ, 1999,318:23-27.
[10] 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.
[11] 刘益东. 开放式评价:替代同行评议的新方案[J]. 甘肃社会科学,2015(4):27-31.
[12] 贺郝钰,马瀚青,侯春梅,等. PeerJ全新出版模式核心竞争力分析[J]. 中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(12):1330-1335.
[13] Comments[EB/OL].[2017-02-09].http://www.plosone.org/static/commentGuidelines.
[14] MULLIGAN A,HALL L, RAPHAEL E. Peer review in a changing world:an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2013,64(1):132-161.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] BORDIER J. Open peer review:from an experiment to a model:a narrative of an open peer review experimentation[EB/OL].[2017-02-16].https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01302597.
[19] Defining open peer review[EB/OL].[2017-03-24].https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410.
[20] 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. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.
[21] 杜杏叶.学术论文公开评审逻辑流程图[EB/OL].[2017-02-16].http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=453577&do=blog&id=1068871.
