摘要：

【目的】 研究化学期刊Synlett选择性众包同行评议模式,为我国科技期刊在同行评议中吸纳选择性众包同行评议的合理措施提供参考。 【方法】 通过对文献和Synlett选择性众包同行评议实践的调研,介绍其应用情况,梳理其流程与特点,并将其与传统同行评议模式进行对比。 【结果】 选择性众包同行评议具有审稿耗时短、审稿意见更详细与深入、审稿偏见减少、单个审稿人工作量降低等优势;但其也面临着审稿人积极性降低、易受群体思维影响、原稿版权保护难、仅适用于专业性期刊等挑战。 【结论】 我国科技期刊可以增强审稿人互动、探索多专家协作式审稿,以改进现有同行评议模式。同时,可以从改进审稿贡献评价与审稿人激励机制、完善作者知识产权保护措施等方面入手,优化选择性众包同行评议模式。

关键词: 选择性众包同行评议, 传统同行评议, 科技期刊, Synlett

Abstract:

[Purposes] This study aims to provide practical implications for China's scientific journals to incorporate reasonable measures of select crowd peer review by analyzing the practice of Synlett. [Methods] By investigating literature and the practice of select crowd peer review at Synlett, this study described its application, procedures, and features, and compared it with traditional peer review. [Findings] The select crowd peer review enjoys such advantages as shortened review time, more detailed comments, less bias, reduced workload of a single reviewer, etc. However, it also faces some challenges, such as lower enthusiasm for reviewers, susceptibility to group thinking, difficulty in manuscript copyright protection, and being only applicable to professional journals. [Conclusions] Scientific journals can enrich interactions of reviewers and encourage collaborative peer review to perfect the current peer review. Meanwhile, select crowd peer review can be optimized by innovating evaluation of reviewers' contributions and reviewers' incentive mechanism and making measures to protect authors' intellectual property rights better.

Key words: Select crowd peer review, Traditional peer review, Scientific journal, Synlett