摘要：

【目的】 分析PubPeer网站有关中国作者发表学术论文的评论,为探索出版后开放同行评议提供参考。【方法】 按信息分类法归类网站评论,统计并比较针对中国、美国及英国作者论文的各类评论构成及作者对评论的反应。【结果】 网站评论均主要由质疑类、通告类和感想类构成,其中质疑类评论在3个国家中均占主导。中国被质疑论文的占比为93.9%,显著高于英美(68.0%、42.5%)(P<0.05),其中被质疑存在图片问题和涉及论文工厂的论文构成比分别为69.9%、12.6%,也高于英美。我国有20.9%的作者就质疑类评论进行回复,其中64.8%认可评论质疑内容,与英美类似;我国有7.3%的回复者就质疑类和感想类评论与读者进行交流,该比例低于英美。【结论】 PubPeer网站评论分析提示,我国被质疑的论文占比高,图片及论文工厂质疑突出;针对质疑评论,超六成的回复者认可质疑内容。鉴于实施出版后监督、反馈和促进交流的需求,我国应探索出版后开放同行评议网站的实践。

关键词: 出版后开放同行评议, 学术不端, PubPeer网站, 出版公平

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to analyze the comments on academic papers of Chinese scholars on PubPeer, which is expected to serve as a reference for the open peer review after publication. [Methods] The information classification method was used to classify the comments. The classification of the comments on papers of the Chinese, the American, and the English was compared and the responses of authors to the comments were summed up. [Findings] The comments were mainly categorized into questionings, notifications, and reflections (and recommendations), among which questionings accounted for a larger proportion. A total of 93.9% of the papers from China were questioned, higher than that of the papers from the UK and the US (68.0%, 42.5%, respectively) (P<0.05). For 69.9% and 12.6% of the papers questioned from China, respectively, the comments expressed concerns/issues about image and suggested the papers as the products of paper mills, and the proportions were higher than those of papers from the US and the UK. A total of 20.9% of the Chinese authors replied to the questionings, and 64.8% of them agreed on the questionings, similar to those of authors from the UK and the US. Among all respondents, 7.3% of Chinese authors discussed with readers about the questionings and the reflections, lower than that of the English and American authors. [Conclusions] According to the analysis of comments on PubPeer, China registered a high proportion of papers questioned, particularly the papers with issues about image and papers from paper mills. More than 60.0% of the authors agreed on the questionings. In response to the needs of supervision, exchange, and feedback after publication, China should seek for open peer review after publication actively.

Key words: Open peer review after publication, Academic misconduct, PubPeer website, Publishing equity