中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 571-575. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202011250970

• 学术不端防范专题 • 上一篇    下一篇

国际同行评议中审稿意见造假现象及相关的学术不端防范

万志超1,2,3)(), 蔡静雯1,2,3)(), 姜海1,2,3), 郑颖1,2,3), 杜乾栋1,2,3)   

  1. 1)南瑞集团有限公司(国网电力科学研究院有限公司),江苏省南京市江宁区诚信大道19号 211106
    2)《现代电力系统与清洁能源学报》(英文)编辑部,江苏省南京市江宁区诚信大道19号 211106
    3)《电力系统自动化》编辑部,江苏省南京市江宁区诚信大道19号 211106
  • 收稿日期:2020-11-25 修回日期:2021-01-18 出版日期:2021-05-15 发布日期:2021-05-15
  • 通讯作者: 蔡静雯 E-mail:wanzhi27@126.com;caijingwen@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn
  • 作者简介:万志超(ORCID:0000-0002-0030-1191),学士,编辑,E-mail: wanzhi27@126.com;|姜 海,博士,教授级高级工程师;|郑 颖,硕士,编辑;|杜乾栋,硕士,编辑。
  • 基金资助:
    中国科技期刊卓越行动计划重点期刊类项目(B-017);江苏省科技期刊研究基金优秀面上资助项目“科技期刊国际化建设研究—电力与能源领域国际一流期刊办刊探索”(JSRFSTP2019B07)

Falsification of review comments in international peer review and related academic misconduct prevention

WAN Zhichao1,2,3)(), CAI Jingwen1,2,3)(), JIANG Hai1,2,3), ZHENG Ying1,2,3), DU Qiandong1,2,3)   

  1. 1) NARI Group Corporation (State Grid Electric Power Research Institute), 19 Chengxin Avenue, Jiangning District, Nanjing 211106, China
    2) Editorial Office of Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 19 Chengxin Avenue, Jiangning District, Nanjing 211106, China
    3) Editorial Office of Automation of Electric Power Systems, 19 Chengxin Avenue, Jiangning District, Nanjing 211106, China
  • Received:2020-11-25 Revised:2021-01-18 Online:2021-05-15 Published:2021-05-15
  • Contact: CAI Jingwen E-mail:wanzhi27@126.com;caijingwen@sgepri.sgcc.com.cn

摘要:

【目的】 提升英文科技期刊在国际同行评议中对于审稿专家审稿意见造假这一学术不端行为的防范意识和能力,进一步完善其对学术不端的防范举措。【方法】 针对英文科技期刊办刊实践中所发现的审稿专家批量捏造或制造审稿意见的现象,探析其外在存续条件与内在动机,阐述这类造假意见的主要表现形式,进而总结出发现和防范此类学术不端审稿专家的有效方式。【结果】 在国际同行评议中,审稿专家审稿意见造假的学术不端情况并非个例,所提出的方式可有效发现和防范此类审稿专家。【结论】 在国际同行评议中,英文科技期刊需要针对审稿专家审稿意见造假的情况,进一步完善学术不端防范措施。

关键词: 英文科技期刊, 同行评议, 科研诚信, 学术不端, 不当引用, 学术造假

Abstract:

[Purposes] The aim of this paper is to enhance the ability of English scienpngic journals to idenpngy and prevent the academic misconducts related to falsification of review comments in international peer review and further improve measures against the academic misconducts. [Methods] In view of the fabrication of a large number of review comments by some reviewers for English scienpngic journals, this paper analyzed the external causes and internal motivation, expounded the main forms of such review comments, and then put forward some effective measures to find and prevent such academic misconducts among reviewers. [Findings] In international peer review, falsification of review comments is common. The proposed measures can help effectively discover and prevent such phenomenon. [Conclusions] In international peer review, English scienpngic journals need to further improve measures against the academic misconducts regarding the falsification of review comments.

Key words: English scienpngic journal, Peer review, Research integrity, Academic misconduct, Improper citation, Academic falsification