摘要：

【目的】 提升期刊内容质量、缩短论文发表周期和提升评审专家和作者的体验，探讨不同同行评议模式之间的差异和模式发展态势，以期为我国未来学术出版的同行评议模式转型提供参考。【方法】 通过案例调研和数据统计分析方法，在开放科学趋势的背景下分析以90种大气科学类期刊为例的地学领域期刊同行评议机制和推荐/屏蔽评审专家现状的基础上，总结地学主流机构同行评议的模式及特点，分析期刊同行评议模式、推荐/屏蔽评审专家情况与影响因子之间的关系。【结果】 盲审仍是地学领域期刊的主流同行评议形式，地学期刊具有开放同行评议选项与影响因子正相关。提出完善期刊评议制度的策略，探索适合中国地学期刊同行评议机制发展的具体路径。从同行评议角度提出加强审稿队伍和地学平台建设以促进期刊发展和学术交流的具体措施。【结论】 透明同行评议、协作/小组同行评议、评论式同行评议等新型开放同行评议对我国期刊同行评议的发展和创新有可借鉴之处，可在国内开展相关尝试和实践，促使我国科技期刊的同行评议向着复合化、公正、高效、透明、公开的方向发展。

关键词: 同行评议, 开放同行评议, 地学期刊, 同行评议类型, 评审专家

Abstract:

[Purposes] This study aims to enhance the quality of journal content, expedite the paper publication process, and improve the experience of reviewers and authors. It explores the differences and trends of various peer review models to provide insights into the transformation of peer review models in Chinese scientific journals. [Methods] We conducted case studies and statistical analysis to investigate the current state of peer review mechanisms and the practices of recommending or blocking reviewers in geoscience publications, using 90 meteorology journals as samples. We summarized the peer review models and characteristics of mainstream journals and examined the relationship between journal impact factors and peer review models, as well as the availability of options to recommend or block reviewers. [Findings] Single-blinded peer review remains prevalent in geoscience publications, and the use of open peer review is positively associated with journal impact factors. Concrete strategies are proposed to refine journal review systems and explore specific pathways for the development of peer review mechanisms in Chinese scientific journals. Measures to strengthen the reviewer pool and the construction of geoscience platforms are suggested to facilitate journal development and academic exchange. [Conclusions] New open peer review models such as transparent peer review, collaborative/group peer review, and interactive public peer review offer valuable insights for the development and innovation of peer review in Chinese journals. Concrete attempts and practices can be undertaken to steer the peer review in Chinese scientific journals towards a more comprehensive, fair, efficient, transparent, and open direction.

Key words: Peer review, Open peer review, Geoscience journal, Peer review model, Reviewer