摘要：

目的 通过对大规模的期刊样本进行调查与分析，描绘当前国际上学术期刊开放同行评议（open peer review， OPR）的实践现状，旨在回答OPR期刊的基本特征以及OPR环节的采纳程度与策略，从而为我国期刊的相关实践提供实证参考。方法 以1111种OPR期刊及其发表的11110篇文献作为样本库，对其出版信息、学术影响力以及在周期、身份、内容公开等方面的具体实践进行调查和统计。结果 结果显示，OPR实践在欧洲、商业机构和医学健康学科上高度集中，非顶尖期刊主导，中低影响力期刊积极参与。各开放环节采纳策略不一，作为核心维度的审稿人署名、审稿报告公开较少，且以自愿模式为主导，审稿报告分配DOI等规范化实践缺失严重。结论 OPR实践呈现出策略性、差异化的特点，核心环节开放上较为保守，过度依赖自愿模式限制了其开放程度提高。为推动OPR从形式走向实质，期刊需逐步强化核心环节开放，并探索有效激励机制提升作者与审稿人在核心环节的主动性，克服自愿模式的局限。

关键词: 学术期刊, 开放同行评议, 实践现状

Abstract:

Purposes This study aims to depict the current international landscape of open peer review （OPR） practices in academic journals through a large-scale survey and analysis. It seeks to identify the basic characteristics of journals adopting OPR， as well as the extent and strategies of OPR implementation. The goal is to provide an empirical reference for the adoption of such practices by journals in China. Methods The study is based on a sample library of 1111 OPR journals and 11110 articles published within them. An investigation and statistical analysis were conducted on their publication information， academic impact， and specific practices concerning the openness of the review cycle， reviewer identities， and review content. Findings The results indicate a high concentration of OPR practices in Europe， within commercial publishing houses， and in the disciplines of medicine and health sciences. The adoption of OPR is primarily led by non-top-tier journals， with active participation from journals of medium to low impact. The implementation strategies for different open elements vary. The core dimensions of OPR， namely signed reviewer identities and open peer review reports， are adopted less frequently and are predominantly based on a voluntary model. Furthermore， there is a significant lack of standardized practices， such as assigning DOI to peer review reports. Conclusions OPR practices are characterized by strategic and differentiated adoption， with a conservative approach towards opening up the core elements of the review process. The heavy reliance on a voluntary model limits the potential for increasing the degree of openness. To advance OPR from a superficial to a substantive practice， journals need to progressively enhance the openness of core review stages. It is also crucial to explore effective incentive mechanisms to increase the willingness of authors and reviewers to participate in these core open practices， thereby overcoming the limitations of the voluntary model.

Key words: Academic journals, Open peer review, Current practices