[1] BORNMANN L. Scientific peer review[J]. Annual review of information science and technology, 2011, 45(1):197-245.
[2] MATSUI A, CHEN E, WANG Y, et al. The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers[J]. Peerj, 2021, 9:e11999.
[3] FERREIRA C, BASTILLE-ROUSSEAU G, BENNETT A M, et al. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication:directional selection towards a robust discipline?[J]. Biological reviews, 2016, 91(3):597-610.
[4] GRIMALDO F, MARUIC'A, SQUAZZONI F. Fragments of peer review:a quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)[J]. Plos one, 2018, 13(2):e0193148.
[5] DALTON M S. Refereeing of scholarly works for primary publishing[J]. Annual review of information science and technology, 1995, 30:213-250.
[6] 付伟棠.我国学术期刊同行评议研究综述[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 30(8):819-826.
[7] 常唯,袁境泽.国际学术出版中的同行评议进展与展望[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2020, 31(10):1181-1192.
[8] 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.
[9] 秦成磊,章成志.大数据环境下同行评议面临的问题与对策[J].情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(4):99-112.
[10] BATAGELJ V, FERLIGOJ A, SQUAZZONI F. The emergence of a field:a network analysis of research on peer review[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1):503-532.
[11] RENNIE D. Let's make peer review scientific[J]. Nature, 2016, 535(7610):31-33.
[12] LABAND D N. Is there value-added from the review process in economics?:preliminary evidence from authors[J]. Quarterly journal of economics, 1990, 105(2):341-352.
[13] CASNICI N, GRIMALDO F, GILBERT N, et al. Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal:an empirical analysis[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(7):1763-1771.
[14] BIANCHI F, GRIMALDO F, SQUAZZONI F. The F-3-index. valuing reviewers for scholarly journals[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2019, 13(1):78-86.
[15] 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.
[16] ZHANG G, XU S, SUN Y, et al. Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2022, 16(2):101264.
[17] BULJAN I, GARCIA-COSTA D, GRIMALDO F, et al. Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports[J]. Elife, 2020, 9:e53249.
[18] ZHANG L, SHANG Y, HUANG Y, et al. Gender differences among active reviewers:an investigation based on Publons[J]. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(1):145-179.
[19] BRAVO G, GRIMALDO F, LÓPEZ-IÑESTA E, et al. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals[J]. Nature communications, 2019, 10(1):322.
[20] GARCIA-COSTA D, SQUAZZONI F, MEHMANI B, et al. Measuring the developmental function of peer review:a multi-dimensional, cross-disciplinary analysis of peer review reports from 740 academic journals[J]. Ssrn:10.2139/ssrn.3912607, 2021.
[21] BORNMANN L, WOLF M, DANIEL H D. Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts:how far do comments differ in language use?[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(3):843-856.
[22] CHETTY R, SAEZ E, SANDOR L. What policies increase prosocial behavior?an experiment with referees at the journal of public economics[J]. Journal of economic perspectives, 2014, 28(3):169-188.
[23] SALINAS S, MUNCH S B. Where should i send it?optimizing the submission decision process[J]. Plos one, 2015, 10(1):e0115451.
[24] BILALLI B, MUNIR R F, ABELLÓ A. A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals:case study in computer science[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 126(1):545-563.
[25] XU S, AN M, AN X. Do scientific publications by editorial board members have shorter publication delays and then higher influence?[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(8):6697-6713.
[26] SARIGOEL E, GARCIA D, SCHOLTES I, et al. Quantifying the effect of editor-author relations on manuscript handling times[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1):609-631.
[27] MROWINSKI M J, FRONCZAK A, FRONCZAK P, et al. Review time in peer review:quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(1):271-286.
[28] DAVO M del C, VIVES C, ÁLVAREZ-DARDET C. Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process?[J]. Journal of epidemiology&community health, 2003, 57(12):936-937.
[29] SCHMALING K B, BLUME A W. Gender differences in providing peer review to two behavioural science journals, 2006-2015[J]. Learned publishing, 2017, 30(3):221-225.
[30] HUISMAN J, SMITS J. Duration and quality of the peer review process:the author's perspective[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1):633-650.
[31] PAUTASSO M, SCHÄFER H. Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 84(2):307-315.
[32] OKIKE K, KOCHER M S, NWACHUKWU B U, et al. The fate of manuscripts rejected by the journal of bone and joint surgery (American volume)[J]. The journal of bone&joint surgery, 2012, 94(17):e130.
[33] DECULLIER E, LHÉRITIER V, CHAPUIS F. Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France:retrospective cohort study[J]. BMJ, 2005, 331(7507):19.
[34] CHAREN D A, MAHER N A, ZUBIZARRETA N, et al. Evaluation of publication delays in the orthopedic surgery manuscript review process from 2010 to 2015[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 124(2):1127-1135.
[35] HORBACH S P J M. Pandemic publishing:medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2020, 1(3):1056-1067.
[36] DELGADO A F, GARRETSON G, FALK DELGADO A. The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014-2017:an observational study[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 120(3):1225-1235.
[37] ZHANG G, WANG L, XIE W, et al. "This article is interesting, however":exploring the language use in peer review comment of articles published in the BMJ[J]. Aslib journal of information management, 2022, 74(3):399-416.
[38] 张明阳,王刚,彭起,等.学术论文公开评审平台数据分析[J].计算机科学, 2021, 48(6):63-70.
[39] HORBACH S P J M. No time for that now!qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic[J]. Research evaluation, 2021, 30(3):231-239.
[40] HUA X, NIKOLOV M, BADUGU N, et al. Argument mining for understanding peer reviews[C]//2019 conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:human language technologies. Minneapolis:Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019:2131-2137.
[41] QIN C, ZHANG C. Exploring the distribution regularities of referees'comments in IMRAD structure of academic articles[C]//18th International conference on scientometrics and informetrics conference.Leuven:International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2021:1527-1528.
[42] MENG M, WANG Y, ZHANG C. Building multi-level aspects of peer reviews for academic articles[C]//18th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics conference.Leuven:International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2021:1519-1520.
[43] KANG D, AMMAR W, DALVI B, et al. A dataset of peer reviews (PeerRead):collection, insights and NLP applications[C]//Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:human language technologies. New Orleans:Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018:1647-1661.
[44] 林原,王凯巧,丁堃,等.学术论文的定性评价定量化研究[J].情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(8):28-34.
[45] RASHIDI K, SOTUDEH H, MIRZABEIGI M, et al. Determining the informativeness of comments:a natural language study of F1000Research open peer review reports[J]. Online information review, 2020, 44(7):1327-1345.
[46] VINCENT-LAMARRE P, LARIVIōRE V. Textual analysis of artificial intelligence manuscripts reveals features associated with peer review outcome[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2021, 2(2):662-677.
[47] JIANG S. Understanding authors'psychological reactions to peer reviews:a text mining approach[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(7):6085-6103.
[48] BORDIGNON F. Self-correction of science:a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 124(2):1225-1239.
[49] ORTEGA J L. The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in pubpeer:errata, expressions of concern, and retractions[J]. Learned publishing, 2021, 34(2):164-174.
[50] ORTEGA J L. Classification and analysis of pubpeer comments:how a web journal club is used[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73(5), 655-670.
[51] WOLFRAM D, WANG P, ABUZAHRA F. An exploration of referees'comments published in open peer review journals:the characteristics of review language and the association between review scrutiny and citations[J]. Research evaluation, 2021, 30(3):314-322.
[52] LUO J, FELICIANI T, REINHART M, et al. Analysing sentiments in peer review reports:evidence from two science funding agencies[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2022, 2(4):1271-1295.
[53] 姜春林,张立伟,刘盛博.图书情报学期刊"联锁编委"的社会网络分析[J].情报学报, 2014, 33(5):481-490.
[54] 张丽华,曲建升.期刊编委比非编委论文作者能更早探测出研究前沿吗[J].情报杂志, 2017, 36(8):113-119.
[55] YOUK S, PARK H S. Where and what do they publish?editors'and editorial board members'affiliated institutions and the citation counts of their endogenous publications in the field of communication[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 120(3):1237-1260.
[56] 王兴.国际学术期刊编委数量与科研产出评价指标的相关性研究——以经济学学科世界984所大学为例[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2017, 23(1):61-70.
[57] 卢小莉,李晶,吴登生.基于期刊编委指数的科研机构学术影响力评价研究:以地质学为例[J].情报学报, 2018, 37(1):14-24.
[58] XIE Y, WU Q, LI X. Editorial team scholarly index (ETSI):an alternative indicator for evaluating academic journal reputation[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 120(3):1333-1349.
[59] 李江.认可审稿人的学术贡献[J].图书情报知识, 2018(5):2.
[60] ORTEGA J L. Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance?a scientometric analysis of Publons[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(2):947-962.
[61] 刘丽萍,刘春丽.基于Publons平台的审稿人贡献认可与评价研究[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2020, 31(1):99-107.
[62] 雷燕.英文科技期刊学术影响力与审稿人学术及审稿表现关系研究与启示——Publons医学领域期刊实证分析[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2021, 32(2):206-213.
[63] WEI C, BU Y, KANG L, et al. Directionality of paper reviewing and publishing of a scientist:a Granger causality inference[J]. Data science and informetrics, 2021, 1(1):68-80.
[64] SQUAZZONI F, BRAVO G, FARJAM M, et al. Peer review and gender bias:a study on 145 scholarly journals[J]. Science advances, 2021, 7(2):eabd0299.
[65] FOX C W. Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1):465-477.
[66] GARCIA J A, RODRIGUEZ-SÁNCHEZ R, FDEZ-VALDIVIA J. The interplay between the reviewer's incentives and the journal's quality standard[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(4):3041-3061.
[67] COPIELLO S. On the money value of peer review[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 115(1):613-620.
[68] BIANCHI F, SQUAZZONI F. Is three better than one?simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review[C]//2015 winter simulation conference. New York:IEEE, 2015:4081-4089.
[69] KALMUKOV Y. An algorithm for automatic assignment of reviewers to papers[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 124(3):1811-1850.
[70] CHUGHTAI G R, LEE J, SHAHZADI M, et al. An efficient ontology-based topic-specific article recommendation model for best-fit reviewers[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(1):249-265.
[71] GARCIA J A, RODRIGUEZ-SÁNCHEZ R, FDEZ-VALDIVIA J. The author-reviewer game[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 124(3):2409-2431.
[72] FELICIANI T, LUO J, MA L, et al. A scoping review of simulation models of peer review[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 121(1):555-594.
[73] 梁玉成,贾小双.数据驱动下的自主行动者建模[J].贵州师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2016(6):31-34.
[74] SOBKOWICZ P. Innovation suppression and clique evolution in peer-review-based, competitive research funding systems:an agent-based model[J]. Journal of artificial societies and social simulation, 2015, 18(2):13.
[75] RIGHI S, TAKÁCS K. The miracle of peer review and development in science:an agent-based model[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1):587-607.
[76] BIANCHI F, GRIMALDO F, BRAVO G, et al. The peer review game:an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(3):1401-1420.
[77] SQUAZZONI F, GANDELLI C. Saint Matthew strikes again:an agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2012, 6(2):265-275.
[78] BAUTISTA CABOTA J, GRIMALDO F, SQUAZZONI F. When competition is pushed too hard. an agent-based model of strategic behaviour of referees in peer review[C]//Proceedings 27th european conference on modelling and simulation. Nottingham:European council modeling&simulation, 2013.
[79] MARSH H W, BORNMANN L, MUTZ R, et al. Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals:a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches[J]. Review of educational research, 2009, 79(3):1290-1326.
[80] PINHO-GOMES A C, VASSALLO A, THOMPSON K, et al. Representation of women among editors in chief of leading medical journals[J]. Jama network open, 2021, 4(9):e2123026.
[81] FOX C W, DUFFY M A, FAIRBAIRN D J, et al. Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution[J]. Ecology and evolution, 2019, 9(24):13636-13649.
[82] HELMER M, SCHOTTDORF M, NEEF A, et al. Gender bias in scholarly peer review[J]. Elife, 2017, 6:e21718.
[83] SQUAZZONI F, BRAVO G, GRIMALDO F, et al. Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the covid-19 pandemic. a study on 2329 Elsevier journals[J]. Plos one, 2021, 16(10):e0257919.
[84] MURRAY D, SILER K, LARIVIÉRE V, et al. Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review[J]. Biorxiv:10.1101/400515, 2018.
[85] DEMAREST B, FREEMAN G, SUGIMOTO C R. The reviewer in the mirror:examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(1):717-735.
[86] FOX C W, PAINE C E T. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution[J]. Ecology and evolution, 2019, 9(6):3599-3619.
[87] CARD D, DELLAVIGNA S, FUNK P, et al. Are referees and editors in economics gender neutral?[J]. The quarterly journal of economics, 2020, 135(1):269-327.
[88] FOX C W, BURNS C S, MEYER J A. Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal[J]. Functional ecology, 2016, 30(1):140-153.
[89] BURNS C S, FOX C W. Language and socioeconomics predict geographic variation in peer review outcomes at an ecology journal[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(2):1113-1127.
[90] ZHU H. Home country bias in academic publishing:a case study of the new England journal of medicine[J]. Learned publishing, 2021, 34(4):578-584.
[91] ZHANG X. Effect of reviewer's origin on peer review:China vs. non-China[J]. Learned publishing, 2012, 25(4):265-270.
[92] CAMPOS-ARCEIZ A, PRIMACK R B, KOH L P. Reviewer recommendations and editors'decisions for a conservation journal:is it just a crapshoot?and do Chinese authors get a fair shot?[J]. Biological conservation, 2015, 186:22-27.
[93] WEI Y, LEI L. Institution bias in the new england journal of medicine?a bibliometric analysis of publications (1997-2016)[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(3):1771-1775.
[94] 郭峰,李欣.编辑部偏爱、关系稿与引用率贴水——来自中国经济学权威期刊的证据[J].经济学(季刊), 2017, 16(4):1237-1260.
[95] BLANK R. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing-experimental-evidence from the American-economic-review[J]. American economic review, 1991, 81(5):1041-1067.
[96] TOMKINS A, ZHANG M, HEAVLIN W D. Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017, 114(48):12708-12713.
[97] SEEBER M, BACCHELLI A. Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1):567-585.
[98] FOX C W, BURNS C S, MUNCY A D, et al. Author-suggested reviewers:gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal[J]. Functional ecology, 2017, 31(1):270-280.
[99] SHOPOVSKI J, BOLEK C, BOLEK M. Characteristics of peer review reports:editor-suggested versus author-suggested reviewers[J]. Science and engineering ethics, 2020, 26(2):709-726.
[100] TEPLITSKIY M, ACUNA D, ELAMRANI-RAOULT A, et al. The sociology of scientific validity:how professional networks shape judgement in peer review[J]. Research policy, 2018, 47(9):1825-1841.
[101] BRAVO G, FARJAM M, GRIMALDO MORENO F, et al. Hidden connections:network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2018, 12(1):101-112.
[102] 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.
[103] CICCHETTI D V. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions:a cross-disciplinary investigation[J]. Behavioral and brain sciences, 1991, 14(1):119-135.
[104] BORNMANN L, MUTZ R, DANIEL H D. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews:a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants[J]. Plos one, 2010, 5(12):e14331.
[105] 王颖,孔爱英,朱蓓,等.科技期刊审稿标准一致性的影响因素及对策[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2014, 25(12):1470-1472.
[106] ROTHWELL P M, MARTYN C N. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience-is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?[J]. Brain, 2000, 123(9):1964-1969.
[107] 张光耀,谢维熙,夏鑫璐,等.非共识研究的影响力更高还是更低呢?——基于中文开放同行评议审稿意见的分析[EB/OL].[2022-06-21].http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1762.G3.20220329.1252.002.html
[108] 刘欣,李江,吴金闪.同行评议一致性研究[J].信息资源管理学报, 2022, 11(6):10-16.
[109] 岳名亮,李富山,汤宏波,等.期刊审稿专家一致性评价方法及其有效性验证[J].数据分析与知识发现, 2021, 5(4):115-122.
[110] YUE M, TANG H, LIU F, et al. Consistency index:measuring the performances of scholar journal reviewers[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(8):7183-7195.
[111] KRAVITZ R L, FRANKS P, FELDMAN M D, et al. Editorial peer reviewers'recommendations at a general medical journal:are they reliable and do editors care?[J]. Plos one, 2010, 5(4):e10072.
[112] FYFE A, SQUAZZONI F, TORNY D, et al. Managing the growth of peer review at the royal society journals, 1865-1965[J]. Science technology&human values, 2020, 45(3):405-429.
[113] RESNIK D B, ELMORE S A. Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review:a possible role of editors[J]. Science and engineering ethics, 2016, 22(1):169-188.
[114] PETERSEN A M. Megajournal mismanagement:manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at plos one[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2019, 13(4):100974.
[115] PETERS D P, CECI S J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals:the fate of published articles, submitted again[J]. Behavioral and brain sciences, 1982, 5(2):187-195.
[116] FRANCOIS O. Arbitrariness of peer review:a bayesian analysis of the NIPS experiment[J]. Arxiv:1507.06411.2015.
[117] BREZIS E S, BIRUKOU A. Arbitrariness in the peer review process[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 123(1):393-411.
[118] CORTES C, LAWRENCE N D. Inconsistency in conference peer review:revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS experiment[J]. Arxiv:2109.09774.2021.
[119] SEEBER M. How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers?reviewer guidelines in the field of management[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(3):1387-1405.
[120] SAKAI D. Who is peer reviewed?comparing publication patterns of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers in Japanese political science[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 121(1):65-80.
[121] HORBACH S P J M, HALFFMAN W. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 118(1):339-373.
[122] 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.
[123] SODERBERG C, ERRINGTON T, SCHIAVONE S, et al. Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model[J]. Nature human behaviour, 2021, 5(8):1-8.
[124] 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.
[125] CHUBIN D E, HACKETT E J. Peerless science:peer review and U.S. science policy[M]. New York:State University of New York Press, 1990.
[126] ABRAMO G, D'ANGELO C A, REALE E. Peer review versus bibliometrics:which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 121(1):537-554.
[127] SMOLINSKY L, SAGE D S, LERCHER A J, et al. Citations versus expert opinions:citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(5):3853-3870.
[128] DU J, TANG X, WU Y. The effects of research level and article type on the differences between citation metrics and F1000 recommendations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(12):3008-3021.
[129] JIRSCHITZKA J, OEBERST A, GÖLLNER R, et al. Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(2):1059-1092.
[130] 谢维熙,张光耀,王贤文.开放同行评议视角下学术论文同行评议得分与被引频次的关系[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2022, 33(1):113-121.
[131] RIGBY J, COX D, JULIAN K. Journal peer review:a bar or bridge?an analysis of a paper's revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(3):1087-1105.
[132] SIKDAR S, MARSILI M, GANGULY N, et al. Influence of reviewer interaction network on long-term citations:a case study of the scientific peer-review system of the journal of high energy physics[C]//2017 ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries. Toronto:IEEE, 2017:1-10.
[133] CASNICI N, GRIMALDO F, GILBERT N, et al. Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts:the case of the journal of artificial societies and social simulation[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(1):533-546.
[134] SILER K, LEE K, BERO L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(2):360-365.
[135] FU D Y, HUGHEY J J. Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article[J]. Elife, 2019, 8:e52646.
[136] XU F, OU G, MA T, et al. The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2021, 15(2):101153.
[137] 刘瑞明,赵仁杰.匿名审稿制度推动了中国的经济学进步吗?——基于双重差分方法的研究[J].经济学(季刊), 2017, 16(1):173-204.
[138] 刘瑞明,赵仁杰.政府支持、制度变革与学术期刊进步——来自中国"名刊工程"的经验证据[J].经济学(季刊), 2020, 19(2):473-498.
[139] NI J, ZHAO Z, SHAO Y, et al. The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(12):9393-9404.
[140] 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.
[141] SQUAZZONI F, AHRWEILER P, BARROS T, et al. Unlock ways to share data on peer review[J]. Nature, 2020, 578(7796):512-514.
[142] VAN ROOYEN S, DELAMOTHE T, EVANS S J W. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the Web:randomised controlled trial[J]. BMJ, 2010, 341:c5729.
[143] BERG J, DICKHAUT J, MCCABE K. Trust, reciprocity, and social-history[J]. Games and economic behavior, 1995, 10(1):122-142.
[144] SQUAZZONI F, BRAVO G, TAKACS K. Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review?an experimental study[J]. Research policy, 2013, 42(1):287-294.
[145] RODRIGUEZ-SÁNCHEZ R, GARCÍA J A, FDEZ-VALDIVIA J. Editorial decisions with informed and uninformed reviewers[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(1):25-43.
[146] 彭琳,杜杏叶.科技期刊实施开放式同行评议策略研究[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2018, 29(11):1114-1121.
[147] 姜春林,张光耀,郭琪琴.复印报刊资料科技哲学卷文献计量分析[J].自然辩证法研究, 2019, 35(12):69-75.
[148] 姜春林,贾龙川,张光耀.人大复印报刊资料《创新政策与管理》文献计量研究[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 22(1):31-39.作者贡献说明:张光耀:提出研究思路,论文撰写和论文修改;谢维熙:文献收集和论文修改;姜春林:论文修改;王贤文:提出研究思路,论文修改与审定。
