文章摘要
彭琳,杜杏叶. 科技期刊实施开放式同行评议策略研究. 中国科技期刊研究, 2018, 29(11): 1114-1121
科技期刊实施开放式同行评议策略研究
Research on the implementation of open peer review strategy in scientific journals
投稿时间:2018-05-28  修订日期:2018-08-30
DOI:10.11946/cjstp.201805280475
中文关键词: 开放式同行评议  开放审稿  科技期刊  调查研究
英文关键词: Open peer review  Open review  Scientific journal  Investigation and research
摘要点击次数: 91
全文下载次数: 104
基金项目:
作者单位E-mail
彭琳 中国科学院文献情报中心《数据智能(英文)》编辑部,北京市中关村北四环西路33号 100190 pengl@mail.las.ac.cn 
杜杏叶 中国科学院文献情报中心《图书情报工作》杂志社,北京市中关村北四环西路33号 100190
吉林大学管理学院,吉林省长春市人民大街5988号 130022 
duxy@mail.las.ac.cn 
中文摘要:
      【目的】 调研国内外科技期刊实施开放式同行评议(Open Peer Review,OPR)的策略,并对其进行比较分析,以期为OPR相关理论和实践研究提供参考。【方法】 通过在30种科技期刊官方网站收集数据,总结OPR期刊的特点,比较各期刊在采取审稿模式、公开审稿人身份、公开审稿意见和给审稿人认可等方面采取的不同策略。【结果】 所调研期刊中绝大多数是出版集团拥有的开放获取期刊,其中50%是生物医学类期刊。在所调查的3种OPR模式中,70%期刊采取模式2,即公开评审结果模式;23%采用模式1,即审稿中增加公众评议环节;7%采用非主流模式3,即通过出版“同行评议书”的方式公开稿件评审过程。即使采用同一种OPR模式的期刊,其具体做法也不尽相同。71%的期刊采取自愿署名或匿名审稿政策,只有29%的期刊要求审稿人实名审稿。小部分期刊采取给评审报告添加DOI方式激励审稿人审稿。【结论】 当前国内外科技期刊对OPR的研究和实践还处在初级阶段,实施OPR的期刊总体数量偏少,今后还需要各期刊根据自己的特点探索适合自己实施OPR的策略。
英文摘要:
      [Purposes] This paper aims to investigate the strategies used by open peer review(OPR)journals, and to compare and analyze these strategies in order to provide references for relevant theoretical research and practice on open peer review. [Methods] Data were collected from the official websites of 30 OPR journals. The content of these journal publishers' websites was analyzed to find the characteristics of these scientific journals, and their different strategies were compared in managing the peer review process including adoption of OPR models, disclosure of reviewers' identity, publication of review report, and recognition of reviewers. [Findings] Most OPR journals are open access journals owned by the publishing groups, and half of OPR journals focus on biological and medical subjects. Among the three OPR models, model 2, i. e. , publication of peer review reports, model 1, i. e. , peer review combined with interactive public discussion, and model 3, i. e. , featuring the open peer commentary are adopted by 70%, 23%, and 7% of all the journals investigated, respectively. Even if using the same OPR model, the journals made various policies. Regarding disclosure of reviewer identity, 71% of the journals allow referees to choose to sign their comments or remain anonymous, and only 29% of journals require reviewers to submit real names for review. A small number of journals assign digital object identifiers(DOI)to reviews in an effort to encourage reviews. [Conclusions] Development of peer review is still at an elementary stage with not so many researches or practical experiences published and explained. Scientific journals need to develop their OPR strategies according to their own characteristics.
HTML   查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭
微信扫一扫看