摘要：

目的 针对学术期刊编辑在参考专家外审意见进行稿件决策时，面临专家领域匹配不足、认知偏见以及评审意见冲突等问题，提出一套基于论证型式理论的结构化评估方法，以提升编辑决策的合理性与公正性。方法 基于诉诸专家意见论证型式，构建“结构→质量→情境”3阶段评估框架：首先，对审稿意见进行论证解构，识别其“前提-结论”结构及论证层级；其次，围绕“专业性-可信度”2个维度，运用10个批判性问题对审稿意见进行评估；最后，结合跨学科投稿、评审意见分歧等具体情境，进行综合决策分析。结果 同行评审实例分析显示，该框架能够有效辅助编辑识别审稿意见中的推理跳跃、证据不足、领域错置及潜在偏见等问题。结论 论证型式理论可为同行评议中的编辑决策提供一种兼具结构性与批判性的分析工具，从而为优化学术评价体系提供理论依据与方法支撑。

关键词: 同行评议, 论证理论, 逻辑谬误, 诉诸专家意见, 认知偏见

Abstract:

Purposes In response to the challenges faced by academic journal editors when making manuscript decisions based on external expert reviews， such as insufficient expertise matching， cognitive biases， and conflicting reviewer opinions， this paper proposes a structured evaluation method grounded in the theory of argumentation schemes， aiming to enhance the rationality and fairness of editorial decision-making. Methods Based on the argumentation scheme of appeal to expert opinion， a three-stage “structure→quality→context” evaluation framework is developed. First， peer review comments are reconstructed to identify their premise–conclusion structure and argumentative layers. Second， review comments are evaluated through ten critical questions organized around two dimensions： professional competence and credibility. Third， comprehensive decision-making is conducted in specific situations， such as interdisciplinary submissions and conflicting reviewer opinions. Findings Analysis of a peer-review case demonstrates that the proposed framework helps editors identify problems in peer review comments， including inferential gaps， insufficient evidence， expertise mismatch， and potential biases. Conclusions Argumentation scheme theory provides a structured and critical analytical tool for editorial decision-making in peer review， offering both a theoretical foundation and a practical method for improving academic evaluation systems.

Key words: Peer review, Argumentation theory, Logical fallacy, Appeal to expert opinion, Cognitive bias