摘要：

【目的】阐明学术前沿论文在同行评议中的独特需求，借鉴国际开放同行评议实践经验，研究学术前沿论文实施开放同行评议的必要性及推进路径，以期促使学术前沿成果得到科学评价与及时发布。【方法】 运用文献梳理、案例研究及逻辑论证等方法，对比学术前沿论文与非前沿研究论文的本质区别，剖析国际开放同行评议的先进经验，结合我国实际提出学术前沿论文开放同行评议的推进路径。【结果】 与非前沿研究论文相比，学术前沿论文在传统的封闭同行评议模式中更易遇到创新性衰减、观点被否决、评议不端等风险，需要公开透明的开放同行评议以获得评论包容性、交流畅通性、发表时效性等评价优势，方可满足其包容性、及时性、多领域性、开放性的评议需求。【结论】 借鉴国际开放同行评议先进做法，我国推进学术前沿论文开放同行评议实践，可尝试拓展同行评议系统功能、推进“预印本+开放评议”模式、优先试点交叉学科论文、鼓励专家匹配的多主体化，以满足学术前沿论文的评议需求，为学术前沿成果的科学评价与传播保驾护航。

Abstract:

[Purposes] This study aims to clarify the unique peer review needs of academic frontier papers, examining the necessity and implementation path for open peer review by drawing on international practices. The goal is to facilitate the scientific evaluation and timely dissemination of frontier research results. [Methods] Using literature review, case studies, and logical analysis, we compared the core distinctions between frontier and non-frontier research papers, analyzed international experiences with open peer review, and proposed a promotion path for open peer review tailored to China's actual context. [Findings] Compared to non-frontier papers, academic frontier papers face heightened risks of innovation stagnation, high rejection rates, and potential misconduct under traditional closed peer review. Open and transparent peer review is thus essential to foster inclusive feedback, open communication, and timely publication, meeting the peer review needs for inclusiveness, timeliness, multidisciplinarity, and openness. [Conclusions] Drawing on leading international practices in open peer review, China could expand peer review system functionalities, promote a "preprint + open review" mode, prioritize cross-disciplinary pilot studies, and encourage expert matching to enhance peer review for frontier papers. This approach would strengthen the scientific evaluation and dissemination of frontier research findings.

中图分类号: 

• 同行评议

• 开放评价

• 学术前沿论文

• 非共识研究

• 开放科学

• Peer review

• Open evaluation

• Academic frontier paper

• Non-consensus research

• Open science