中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2020, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (10): 1181-1192.doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202007200679

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

国际学术出版中的同行评议进展与展望

常唯(), 袁境泽   

  1. 中国科学院长春光学精密机械与物理研究所,吉林省长春市东南湖大路3888号 130033
  • 收稿日期:2020-07-20 修回日期:2020-08-16 出版日期:2020-10-15 发布日期:2020-11-18
  • 作者简介:常 唯(ORCID:0000-0002-6142-200X),博士,研究馆员,E-mail:changw@ciomp.ac.cn。|袁境泽,博士,高级工程师。
  • 基金资助:
    中国科技期刊卓越行动计划“领军期刊”项目(卓越计划-A-003);国家自然科学基金委科技活动项目“Light助力中国科研团队提升国际影响力”(61942503)

Progress of peer review in international scholarly publishing

CHANG Wei(), YUAN Jingze   

  1. Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 3888 Dongnanhu Road, Changchun 130033, China
  • Received:2020-07-20 Revised:2020-08-16 Published:2020-10-15 Online:2020-11-18

摘要:

【目的】 了解国际学术出版领域同行评议的现状、进展、发展特点,把握其发展方向与脉络,为国内学术期刊同行评议的发展提供参考和借鉴。【方法】 以案例分析为主线,辅之以文献调研、比较分析的方法,对国际学术出版领域同行评议实践进行探索,分析其发展特点,探究其趋势和规律。【结果】 国际学术出版领域同行评议呈现多样化发展的趋势,同行评议参与主体多元化、组织形式多样化,多边合作不断加深,人工智能等新技术的应用日益广泛,对同行评议的认证和激励机制日益完善,对审稿人的同行评议技能培训更加全面、系统,对同行评议中的学术失当行为的监督和惩戒力度不断增强。【结论】 同行评议各方参与者正协同努力,通过流程再造、理念渗透、智能技术应用、政策法规指导、专业技能培育,不断提高同行评议的质量、效率、透明度、公信力,使同行评议专家更好地发挥学术出版质量把关者的作用。未来,同行评议将继续扮演学术出版质量控制的重要角色。随着理念的提升、技术的进步、操作的规范、开放科学实践的深入发展,同行评议必将向着更加客观、公平、透明、智能的趋势发展。

关键词: 同行评议, 学术出版, 学术期刊, 科技期刊

Abstract:

[Purposes] The paper aims to study the status, characteristics, and trend of peer review in international scholarly publishing, and provide references and valuable practice for the development of peer review of Chinese academic journals. [Methods] Case analysis combined with the methods of literature research and comparison analysis was used in this study. By analyzing the practice of international peer reviews in scholarly publishing, we explored and summarized its trait, rule, and development. [Findings] At present peer review diversity in international scholarly publishing appears. More participants are involved. Forms of implementation are variable. Cooperation among different parties is deepening. More and more artificial intelligence technologies are applied for assistance. Measures for authentication and incentives for peer review become fruitful. There is more comprehensive reviewer training. Supervision and discipline for misconduct in peer review are reinforced. [Conclusions] All participants involved in peer review are more closely working together to improve the quality, the transparency, and the public trust of peer review by recreating workflow, application of artificial intelligence, guidance of standards and rules, and training on peer review skill. By doing so, peer reviewers can perform as quality gatekeeper in the scholarly publishing. Peer review has been and will be the most important tool for quality control in scholarly publishing. With the development of open science, peer review will be fairer, more open, transparent, and intelligent.

Key words: Peer review, Scholarly publishing, Academic journal, Scientific journal