中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (10): 1241-1245. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202107130555

• 专题:开放同行评议 • 上一篇    下一篇

探讨开放同行评议模式的试行策略

代小秋(), 殷宝侠, 王梅, 贺欢, 苏在明   

  1. 国家癌症中心 国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心 中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院《中华肿瘤杂志》编辑部,北京市朝阳区潘家园南里17号 100021
  • 收稿日期:2021-07-13 修回日期:2021-09-16 出版日期:2021-10-15 发布日期:2021-10-28
  • 作者简介:代小秋(ORCID:0000-0001-5867-417X),博士,副编审,E-mail: xiaoqiudai@163.com;|殷宝侠,硕士,编辑;|王梅,硕士,编辑;|贺欢,博士,副编审;|苏在明,硕士,编辑。

Strategies for implementing open peer review

DAI Xiaoqiu(), YIN Baoxia, WANG Mei, HE Huan, SU Zaiming   

  1. Editorial Office of Chinese Journal of Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, Beijiing 100021, China
  • Received:2021-07-13 Revised:2021-09-16 Online:2021-10-15 Published:2021-10-28

摘要:

【目的】 探讨开放同行评议对作者、评审专家和编辑的要求及其对策,提出适合我国期刊的初始开放同行评议模式。 【方法】 分析现行同行评议模式,从作者、评审专家以及编辑角度分析各个主体需要面对的问题以及解决策略,提出试行开放同行评议模式的流程。 【结果】 同行评议模式各有利弊,期刊可以采取开放同行评议模式,有效监督学术不端问题,避免人情稿、关系稿,也可以加大对作者、评审专家和编辑的监督力度,使评议模式透明化、公开化。试行开放同行评议时暂不透露评审专家和作者信息,仅公开稿件的审稿意见以及作者回复,然后逐步开放同行评议,并不断完善开放同行评议制度,最终形成适合中国实际情况的开放同行评议模式。 【结论】 在科技期刊繁荣的背景下,改革同行评议模式势在必行,中国学术期刊需要探索并试行适合我国实际情况的开放同行评议,以便不断提高学术质量。

关键词: 开放审稿, 同行评议, 科技期刊, 评审专家

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to discuss the requirements of open peer review for authors, reviewers, and editors and the strategies to meet the requirements, and thereby propose an open peer review mode suited to Chinese journals. [Methods] We analyzed the challenges of open peer review to authors, reviewers, and editors in view of the current peer review modes and the corresponding countermeasures, and on this basis, recommended a trial open peer review mode. [Findings] Conventional peer review modes have advantages and disadvantages. An open peer review mode can help reduce academic misconducts, avoid non-objective review as a result of human relationship, and supervise authors, reviewers, and editors, thus ensuring the transparent and open peer review process. However, open peer review should be implemented step-by-step. We suggest releasing only the review comments and authors' replies and covering the personal information of the two sides at the initial stage. Then more information can be made available for public access and the mode can be gradually tailored to China's situation. [Conclusions] Against the backdrop of promoting scientific journal development, it is imperative to reform peer review mode, and it is necessary for Chinese academic journals to explore and implement a suitable open peer review mode to improve the academic quality.

Key words: Open review, Peer review, Scientific journal, Reviewer