一位国际情报学期刊主编的工作量

武夷山

JASIST主编Blaise Cronin在该刊2011年第7期发表了题为“同行评议”的社评短文，他在社评中说：

《自然》杂志每年接到的投稿约1万份，60％不经过外审就直接退稿了。JASIST每年接到约600份投稿，其中30％不经过外审就被我本人退稿了。余下的稿子，每一篇我要找两三人审。很多来稿在最终被接受前都退修了两三次。

我们《情报学报》的威望当然无法与JASIST相比，但我们每年的来稿量要大得多。稿件初审（即决定哪些稿子被直接退稿），是由编辑部的同志完成的，不是我做的。换句话说，作为主编，我比Blaise Cronin的工作量要小得多（他每月要看50篇稿子呢）。我的工作是根据外审意见来确定每篇稿子最终是否录用和每一期的清样审读。

可别以为他是专职主编，所以有空。他是印第安纳大学图书情报学院著名教授，当主编只是他的兼职。他有很多高水平论文，其中The Citation Process（1984年发表）一文迄今已被引用400多次！

这篇社评全文如下：

More than a decade ago, Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal), wrote a thoughtful piece in which he identified the principal argument against closed peer review (secrecy) and the principal argument against open peer review (junior researchers' fear of reprisal). He went on to say that the BMJ would probably begin to experiment by listing reviewers at the end of articles and gradually moving to “a system where authors and readers can watch the peer review system on the World Wide Web as it happens and contribute their comments.” He foresaw a time when peer review might become a form of “scientific discourse rather than a summary judgment” (Smith, 1999). Overall, the adoption of new approaches has probably been slower than Smith expected—think, for example, of Nature's short-lived experiment with open peer review in 2006, which concluded that “there is a marked reluctance among researchers to offer open comments” (see http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html). Nonetheless, there is a growing population of early adopters, of which I'll mention just a few at random. Biology Direct's novel approach to open peer review (see http://www.biology-direct.com/info/about/) allows an author to select reviewers from the editorial board whose signed comments may be published along with the article. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is an interactive open access journal that incorporates community commentary into the review process and mandates that authors respond to public comments (see http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/review/review_process_and_interactive_public_discussion.html). As I write, Shakespeare Quarterly is experimenting with partial open peer review, a possible first for a major, traditional humanities journal (see http://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=542).

A recent announcement for a journal editors' webinar highlighted the statement that “32% of researchers believe the current peer review system is the best we can achieve.” The flyer followed up with the not unreasonable question “But what about the other 68%?” The figure of 32% comes from the Peer Review Survey 2009 (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/395). Among the others statistics generated by this study—“one of the largest ever international surveys of authors and reviewers”—were these: 58% would be less likely to review if their signed report was published; 76% favor the double-blind system; 73% say that technological advances have made it easier to review; 84% believe that without peer review there would be no control in science; 61% rejected an invitation to review an article in the last year; 86% say they enjoy reviewing and will continue to review. No great surprises, I'd have to say. Most researchers are reasonably content with the status quo (the least worst option, to resort to cliché) and despite the prevailing zeitgeist (openness, transparency, crowdsourcing, etc.), most remain somewhat cautious about radical change: a majority of reviewers still want anonymity. From an editor's perspective, it was heartening to read that 86% of respondents claimed to enjoy reviewing. I immediately felt less guilty. I was also intrigued to learn that the most common reason for declining an invitation to review was a mismatch between the subject of the paper and the reviewer's area of expertise, the blame for which must rest ultimately with the editor.

Nature receives roughly 10,000 papers every year, of which 60% are rejected without review; JASIST, a much more modest enterprise, receives about 600 submissions every year, of which I, as editor, reject approximately 30% without review. The remaining 70% go to either two or three external referees. Many papers undergo two rounds of revision (some three) such that a commitment to review may involve the referee in multiple interactions with the author (mediated) and editor (direct). The arithmetic is simple enough. Given 400 or so active submissions per year, we require roughly 1,000 reviewers, which in turn necessitates that we make roughly 3,000 approaches (in extreme cases we may need to approach 10–15 individuals to secure two willing reviewers). I am quite sure that I contribute to growing reviewer fatigue, especially when one bears in mind that many JASIST reviewers are also reviewing routinely for other journals and conferences. It is a fact of scholarly life that most authors are reviewers and that most reviewers are authors. As a result, most of us are willing to contribute to the common weal for the simple reasons that we stand to benefit if others act similarly: this is the Golden Rule of scholarly communication.

I need hardly say that members of the JASIST editorial board contribute enormously to the review process, but given the number of manuscripts and revisions to be scrutinized, and also the wide range of subjects covered by the Journal, we need to draw upon the help of hundreds of others in the course of a typical year. Some of these selfless individuals are members of ASIS&T, some members of the wider information science community, and some disciplinary outsiders. To all of them I extend my sincere thanks. Without their unsung contributions JASIST would not be what it is.

Reference

·          Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review. Retrieved from: http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7175/4.full