[Purpose/significance] The frequent "academic scandals" in recent years have posed new challenges to my country's scientific research review mechanism. The Registered Report that emerged in the open science movement can effectively improve the transparency of the research process and evaluation process, reduce the publication bias in the review process, and ensure academic rigor and scientific research quality due to its unique peer review mechanism, to put an end to academic fraud. The paper attempts to conduct an in-depth study of the peer review mechanism of registered reports, analyze and summarize its characteristics, in order to provide a reference for the innovative development and scientific improvement of peer review in my country.[Method/process] Comprehensive used of online research methods and content analysis methods to analyze the review process, review form, review efficiency, review ethics guidelines, reviewer expert database construction and other aspects of the registration report peer review. Explored the relationship between authors, reviewers, and editors in the peer review mechanism of registered reports and related rights, and summarized the characteristics of the peer review mechanism of registered reports.[Result/conclusion] The innovative features of the peer-review mechanism of registered research reports are mainly reflected in the following aspects:① The optimization of review process and standards:the new mode of peer-review for registered research is implemented twice, which is no longer only based on subjective judgment of experts, and the process of selection of review experts and treatment of expert opinions is scientific and reasonable;② The improvement of anonymity and interactivity:the diversification of peer review forms and the pursuit of maximum flexibility while maintaining basic checks and balances;③ The improvement of review efficiency:the parallel review information transmission mode, the regulation of Ming culture and the systematic supervision and punishment mechanism contribute to the high efficiency of peer review. The advanced features of the peer-review mechanism of registered research reports are as follows;① It establishes a strict and meticulous moral code system for reviewers;② Pay attention to the construction of the peer review expert database, and form a complete reviewer incentive mechanism.
Huang Guobin
,
Liu Lei
,
Chen Li
. Research on the Peer Review Mechanism of Registered Reports[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021
, 65(18)
: 24
-35
.
DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.18.003
[1] 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):2, 63-73.
[2] 胡明铭, 黄菊芳. 同行评议研究综述[J]. 中国科学基金, 2005(4):251-253.
[3] 陈秀娟, 张志强. 开放科学的驱动因素、发展优势与障碍[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(6):77-84.
[4] 黄国彬, 郑霞. 推进开放科学发展的注册式研究报告及其价值研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(7):73-83.
[5] 黄国彬, 郑霞. 开放科学环境下"预注册式研究设计"的产生与影响[J]. 图书馆论坛, 2020, 40(8):103-112.
[6] 黄国彬, 郑霞. 注册式研究报告的内容构成剖析[J]. 信息资源管理学报, 2020, 10(5):85-95.
[7] 黄敏聪. 注册报告制对科技期刊论文发表的变革性影响分析[J]. 编辑学报, 2020, 32(2):232-236.
[8] 李潇丽, 潘云涛, 马峥, 等. 注册报告的兴起及其对传统出版模式的挑战[J]. 科技与出版, 2020(10):114-120.
[9] CLARKE P, BUCKELL J, BARNETT A. Registered reports:time to radically rethink peer review in health economics[J]. Pharmacoeconomics-open, 2020, 4(1):1-4.
[10] MUNAFO M R. Improving the efficiency of grant and journal peer review:registered reports funding[J]. Nicotine & tobacco research, 2017, 19(7):773.
[11] CHAMBERS C D, FORSTMANN B, PRUSZYNSKI J A. Registered reports at the European journal of neuroscience:consolidating and extending peer-reviewed study pre-registration[J]. European journal of neuroscience, 2017, 45(5):627-628.
[12] JONES C W, ADAMS A, WEAVER M A, et al. Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the pre-report study):protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial[J]. BMJ open, 2019, 9(5):e028694.
[13] 张昊, 朱小玉, 龙军, 等. 开放式同行评议模式的介绍与思考[J]. 世界科技研究与发展, 2011, 33(4):746-748.
[14] 刘晶晶. 国外开放获取期刊的同行评议方式研究[J]. 编辑学报, 2017, 29(2):200-203.
[15] 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.
[16] 王瑞, 曾广翘. 国外期刊小组同行评议与协作同行评议模式研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2021, 32(3):353-359.
[17] 贺颖, 付江阳. 透明性同行评议:产生、内涵与建构[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2021, 32(3):332-336.
[18] 钟茜韵. 语言学视角下的同行评议研究[J]. 海外英语, 2019, 403(15):252-253.
[19] 撒旭, 王健, 范智萱, 等. 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.
[20] 苏金燕. 政策视角下同行评议研究现状与问题[J]. 现代情报, 2020, 40(9):127-132.
[21] 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.
[22] FERGUSON C, MARCUS A, ORANSKY I. The peer-review scam[J]. Nature, 2014, 515(7528):480-482.
[23] BOHANNON J. Who's afraid of peer review?[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154):60-65.
[24] LEE J H, JEON J H, PARK K S, et al. The necessities for the transparent peer-review[J]. Iranian journal of public health, 2021, 50(4):831-832.
[25] MOUTINHO S. Journals to outsource peer review[J]. Science, 2021, 372(6541):441.
[26] SANTOS A, MORRIS D S, RATTAN R, et al. Double-blinded manuscript review:avoiding peer review bias[J]. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2021, 91(1):E39-E42.
[27] PARSONS C E, BAGLINI R B. Peer review:the case for neutral language.[J]. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2021, 25(8):639-641.
[28] XIONG Y, SCHUNN C D. Reviewer, essay, and reviewing-process characteristics that predict errors in web-based peer review[J]. Computers & education, 2021, 166:104146.
[29] CHECCHI D, CIOLFI A, DE FRAJA G, et al. Have you read this? an empirical comparison of the British REF peer review and the Italian VQR bibliometric algorithm[M]//CATALANO G, DARAIO C, GREGORI M, et al. 17th international conference on scientometrics & informetrics. Leuven:Int Soc Scientometrics & Informetrics-Issi, 2019:1847-1858.
[30] ABRAMO G, D'ANGELO C A. Evaluating research:from informed peer review to bibliometrics[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 87(3):499-514.
[31] Registered reports[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports.
[32] OSF|Registeredreportsguidelines_generic_v2.docx[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://osf.io/pukzy/.
[33] Cortex-journal-elsevier[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/cortex.
[34] Wellcome open research|Open Access Publishing Platform|Beyond a research journal[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/.
[35] Animal behavior and cognition[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/.
[36] Applied cognitive psychology-wiley online library[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10990720.
[37] International journal of eating disorders-wiley online library[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1098108x.
[38] PLOS biology:a peer-reviewed open-access journal[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/.
[39] Journal of child language|cambridge core[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-child-language.
[40] Journal of european psychology students[EB/OL]. [2021-03-01]. https://jeps.efpsa.org/about/editorialpolicies/.
[41] Registered reports[EB/OL]. [2021-03-02]. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports.
[42] Submission guidelines-animal behavior and cognition[EB/OL]. [2021-03-02]. http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/submissions.php.
[43] Finding article reviewers|wellcome open research[EB/OL]. [2021-03-02]. https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/for-authors/tips-for-finding-referees#prp.
[44] PLOS biology:a peer-reviewed open-access journal[EB/OL]. [2021-03-02]. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/reviewer-guidelines.
[45] Submission guidelines-animal behavior and cognition[EB/OL]. [2021-03-02]. http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/submissions.php.
[46] GSPR-Publons[EB/OL]. [2021-03-02]. https://publons.com/community/gspr.
[47] Guide for authors-cortex[EB/OL]. [2021-03-03]. https://www.elsevier.com/journals/cortex/0010-9452/guide-for-authors.
[48] PLOS biology:a peer-reviewed open-access journal[EB/OL]. [2021-03-03]. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/reviewer-guidelines.
[49] Journal of child language.peer reviewer guidelines[EB/OL]. [2021-03-04]. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-child-language/information/peer-reviewer-guidelines.
[50] Ethics in peer review[EB/OL]. [2021-03-04]. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/peer-review/ethics-in-peer-review.
[51] Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics|wiley[EB/OL]. [2021-03-04]. https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html.作者贡献说明:黄国彬:确定论文的选题与研究思路, 论文的修改与指导; 刘磊:素材收集与整理, 论文主要撰写人; 陈丽:协助论文的撰写和修改。
