图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2022 , Vol. 66 >Issue 21: 57 - 66

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2022.21.007

工作研究

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

  • 黄国彬 ,
  • 白旭 ,
  • 王涛
展开
  • 1 北京大学信息管理系 北京 100871;
    2 北京师范大学政府管理学院 北京 100875
黄国彬,长聘副教授,博士;王涛,硕士研究生。

收稿日期: 2022-06-05

  修回日期: 2022-09-14

  网络出版日期: 2022-11-25

基金资助

本文系国家社会科学基金重点项目"开放科学视野下新型学术出版物的著作权保护与共享机制研究"（项目编号：22ATQ003）研究成果之一。

收起

An Empirical Study of the Impact of Peer Review on Journal Publishing of Refereed Preprints

  • Huang Guobin ,
  • Bai Xu ,
  • Wang Tao
Expand
  • 1 Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871;
    2 School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875

Received date: 2022-06-05

  Revised date: 2022-09-14

  Online published: 2022-11-25

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 国外审定预印本同行评议平台的实践经验，为探索我国预印本平台同行评议模式的优化方向提供实证支持。[方法/过程] 从评议流程、运行模式两方面对比3家审定预印本同行评议平台，借助逻辑回归模型实证研究同行评议模式差异对审定预印本发表到学术期刊的影响，结论通过稳健性检验。[结果/结论] 相比于社区交流型同行评议模式，以Review Commons和Peer Community In平台为代表的同行评议后推荐出版模式有显著正向影响，这为探索我国科研成果发表新模式提供成功经验。Mendeley读者数和Altmetric Attention Score （AAS）呈持续正向作用，验证了审定预印本发表到期刊的学术价值与社会价值。研究结论为深化我国预印本平台与学术期刊之间的学术交流提供一定的参考。

关键词： 审定预印本; 同行评议; 学术交流

本文引用格式

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 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2022.21.007

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] In order to provide empirical findings for exploring the optimization directions for the peer-review model of preprint platforms in China, this paper summarizes the practical experience of foreign peer-review platforms for refereed preprints.[Method/Process] This paper compared three peer-review platforms of refereed preprints in terms of the peer-review process and the operating model, and used a logistic regression model to empirically investigate the impact of differences in the peer-review model on the publication of refereed preprints to academic journals. Conclusions passed the robustness test.[Result/Conclusion] Compared with the community communication-based peer-review model, the post peer-review recommendation publication model represented by Review Commons and Peer Community In has a significant positive impact, which provides successful experience in exploring new models for publishing research findings. Mendeley readers and Altmetric Attention Score(AAS) show a sustained positive effect, which verifies the academic and social value of refereed preprints published in academic journals. The research conclusions are important for deepening the academic communication between preprint platforms and academic journals in China.

Key words： refereed preprints; peer review; academic communication

参考文献

[1] BERG J M, BHALLA N, BOURNE P E, et al. Preprints for the life sciences[J].Science, 2016, 352(6288):899-901.
[2] Review Commons. Refereed preprints[EB/OL].[2022-03-22]. https://www.reviewcommons.org/refereed-preprints/.
[3] 杨硕.预印本库与传统期刊合作的典型模式研究[J].科技与出版,2020(7):130-136.
[4] 张智雄,黄金霞,王颖,等.国际预印本平台的主要发展态势研究[J].数字图书馆论坛,2017(10):2-7.
[5] 刘静羽,张智雄,黄金霞,等.预印本服务中的质量控制方法研究[J].数字图书馆论坛,2017(10):15-19.
[6] 王凌峰,杜艳玲,杨硕."中国科技论文在线"15年回顾、瓶颈与发展策略[J].图书情报导刊,2018,3(7):67-72.
[7] RODRIGUEZ E G. Preprints and preprint servers as academic communication tools[J]. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 2019,30(1):1-27.
[8] 王凌峰,韩子晴.知识创新加速器"预印本2.0":概念、设计与实现路径[J].情报杂志,2021,40(6):171-177.
[9] 郭碧坚,韩宇.同行评议制——方法、理论、功能、指标[J].科学学研究,1994(3):63-73,2.
[10] 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):128-13.
[11] CASSEY P, BLACKBURN T M. Publication rejection among ecologists[J]. Trends in ecology & evolution, 2003, 18(8):375-376.
[12] HAMES I. The changing face of peer review[J]. Science editing, 2014, 1(1):9-12.
[13] Review Commons. About[EB/OL].[2022-03-22]. https://www.reviewcommons.org/about/.
[14] VINES T H. The core inefficiency of peer review and a potential solution[J]. Limnology and oceanography bulletin, 2015, 24(2):36-38.
[15] 刘丽萍,刘春丽.eLife开放同行评审模式研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2019,30(9):949-955.
[16] 王凌峰.欧美期刊同行评议模式发展趋势分析[J].情报探索,2021(2):68-73.
[17] 占莉娟,李牧,叶珊珊.期刊开放同行评议的概念界定、类型构建及专家接受度再探[J].中国科技期刊研究,2022,33(1):31-39.
[18] BARROGA E F. Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining ‘rational cheating’ in peer review[J]. Journal of Korean medical science, 2014,29(11):1450-1452.
[19] 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.
[20] 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.
[21] 解贺嘉,刘筱敏.预印本平台开放评议运行模式实证研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2021,32(10):1227-1233.
[22] 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.
[23] 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.
[24] LIN J, YU Y, ZHOU Y, et al. How many preprints have actually been printed and why:a case study of computer science preprints on arXiv[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 124(1):555-574.
[25] BRIERLEY L, NANNI F, POLKA J K, et al. Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic[J]. PLoS biology, 2022, 20(2):e3001285.
[26] ABDILL R J, BLEKHMAN R. Meta-Research:tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints[J]. Elife, 2019, 8:e45133.
[27] NI J, ZHAO Z, SHAO Y, et al. The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles[J]. Sci entometrics, 2021, 126(12):9393-9404.
[28] FRASER N, MOMENI F, MAYR P, et al. The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2020, 1(2):618-638.
[29] 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.
[30] ASAPBIO. Launching ReimagineReview, a registry of peer review experiments[EB/OL].[2022-03-24]. https://asapbio.org/launching-reimaginereview.
[31] LEMBERGER T, PULVERER B. Review commons-pre-journal peer review[J]. EMBO reports, 2019, 20(12):e49663.
[32] GUILLEMAUD T, FACON B, BOURGUET D. Peer community in:a free process for the recommendation of unpublished scientific papers based on peer review[C]/Proceedings of 23d international conference on electronic publishing. Marseille:OpenEdition Press, 2019.
[33] Peer Community Journal. What is peer community journal[EB/OL].[2022-05-18]. https://peercommunityjournal.org/page/about/#What_is_PCJ.
[34] REIMAGINEREVIEW. Rapid reviews COVID-19[EB/OL].[2022-03-24]. https://reimaginereview.asapbio.org/listing/rapid-reviews-covid-19in-progress/.
[35] ASAPBIO. Introducing PReF:preprint review features[EB/OL].[2022-03-24]. https://asapbio.org/introducing-pref-preprint-review-features.
[36] REIMAGINEREVIEW. Glossary[EB/OL].[2022-03-24]. https://reimaginereview.asapbio.org/glossary/.
[37] EMBO. Open science organizations collaborate on DocMaps-the foundation for a distributed peer review[EB/OL].[2022-03-24]. https://www.embo.org/features/open-science-organizations-collaborate-on-docmaps/.
[38] ALTMETRICl. The donut and altmetric attention score[EB/OL].[2022-03-22]. https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/the-donut-and-score/.
[39] GIANOLA S, JESUS T S, BARGERI S, et al. Publish or perish:reporting characteristics of peer-reviewed publications, pre-prints and registered studies on the COVID-19 pandemic[EB/OL].[2022-03-20]. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.14.20130823v1.
[40] 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.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉