中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (12): 1289-1295. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201907220520

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

同行评议中审稿人的知识隐藏行为及其控制策略

王景周   

  1. 《暨南大学学报》编辑部,广东省广州市天河区黄埔大道西601号 510632
  • 收稿日期:2019-07-22 修回日期:2019-10-07 出版日期:2019-12-15 发布日期:2019-12-30
  • 作者简介:王景周(ORCID:0000-0002-4651-4600),硕士,副编审,副主编,E-mail: jzwang@jnu.edu.cn。
  • 基金资助:
    广东省哲学社会科学规划项目“共建共享共治:学术诚信建设长效机制研究”(GD18XXW05);广州市哲学社科规划2019年度课题“逻辑视域下的同行评议研究”(2019GZYB19)

Knowledge hiding behavior of reviewers in peer review and its control strategy

WANG Jingzhou   

  1. Editorial Office of Journal of Jinan University, 601 West Huangpu Avenue, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510632, China
  • Received:2019-07-22 Revised:2019-10-07 Online:2019-12-15 Published:2019-12-30

摘要:

【目的】 为期刊编辑解释、预测、引导审稿人行为,抑制其知识隐藏,提高审稿的质量和效率提供参考。【方法】 基于知识隐藏理论,从组织行为管理学的视角,分析学术论文同行评议过程中审稿人的拒绝审理、拖延审理、无效评审、邀约无回应等行为与知识隐藏类型之间的对应关系,明晰审稿人知识隐藏的影响要素并进行有效干预。【结果】 构建抑制审稿人知识隐藏、激励审稿人知识贡献的“利益—情感—持续”策略框架:精准的任务匹配模式—恰当的激励措施—有效的沟通形式。【结论】 审稿专家的知识隐藏行为既有主体因素,也有客体和环境因素,编辑与审稿人的互动策略影响同行评议的效率、结果和质量。

关键词: 知识隐藏, 知识管理, 同行评议, 组织行为管理

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to provide reference for editors to explain, predict, and guide reviewers' behavior, restrain their knowledge hiding, and improve the quality and efficiency of reviewing manuscripts. [Methods] Based on the theory of knowledge hiding, from the perspective of organizational behavior management, we analyzed the corresponding relationship between reviewers' refusal, delay, invalid review, and non-response to the invitation in peer review of academic papers and types of knowledge hiding, clarified the influence factors of reviewers' knowledge hiding, and effectively intervened the reviewers' behavior. [Findings] A strategic framework of benefit—emotion—continuity is constructed to inhibit the reviewers' knowledge hiding and thus encourage the reviewers' knowledge contribution, i.e., accurate task matching mode—appropriate incentives—effective communication form. [Conclusions] The knowledge hiding behavior of reviewers has not only subjective factors, but also objective and environmental factors. The interactive strategy between editors and reviewers affects the efficiency, results, and quality of peer review.

Key words: Knowledge hiding, Knowledge management, Peer review, Management of organizational behavior