摘要：

【目的】 基于开放同行评议内涵及类型的理论分析,调研专家的接受度,提出专家接受度高且正面影响大的开放同行评议类型,以加快开放同行评议实践进程,并改变办刊主体对开放同行评议的认知偏差。【方法】 利用逻辑学的概念界定方法探析开放同行评议的理论内涵及类型;在此基础上,利用问卷调查揭示评审专家对不同类型开放同行评议的接受度及评价。【结果】 专家对开放同行评议接受度的差异较大。其中,向专家匿名公开审阅同篇稿件的其他专家意见、在网络平台以匿名身份公开评价稿件且可互动,期刊对外匿名公开专家全部审稿意见及各提交时间点三种类型的接受度较高,且被认为对审稿过程产生的正面影响大。公开专家身份尤其是向作者公开,被认为是负面影响大的模式。【结论】 学术期刊可尝试专家接受度高且可操作性强的开放同行评议类型,包括同篇稿件专家互相匿名公开意见,通过官网或社交媒体匿名公开全部意见,循序渐进扩展到开放特征更显著的其他类型,逐步增强同行评议的开放性,推进同行评议的高质量发展。

关键词: 专家接受度, 审稿模式, 公开意见, 同行评议质量, 开放科学, 开放平台

Abstract:

[Purposes] By analyzing the concept and classification of open peer review (OPR), this paper aims to identify what types of OPR are commonly accepted by reviewers and beneficial to the quality of peer review, so as to speed up the OPR practice of academic journals and reduce cognitive bias towards OPR. [Methods] We firstly defined the concept and classification of OPR from a logic perspective and then revealed reviewers' attitudes towards different OPR types by questionnaire. [Findings] There are large differences in reviewers' acceptance of different OPR types. Three types are commonly accepted by reviewers and considered as positive modes: disclosing other reviewers' comments of the same manuscript to reviewers anonymously, commenting on manuscripts on public platforms anonymously, and publicizing all review reports and submission time anonymously. However, the option of publicizing reviewers' identities, especially to authors is rejected by most reviewers. [Conclusions] Academic journals can adopt OPR types that are accepted by most reviewers, such as anonymously disclosing other reviewers' comments to reviewers for the same manuscript, or publicizing all manuscript comments on the journal website or social media. Then journals can gradually attempt other OPR types with more open features, so as to increase peer review transparency and promote high-quality peer review of academic journals.

Key words: Reviewers' acceptance, Review mode, Open comment, Peer review quality, Open science, Open platform