[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.
