氢分子医学分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/孙学军 对氢气生物学效应感兴趣者。可合作研究:sunxjk@hotmail.com 微信 hydrogen_thinker

博文

从开放获取到开放同行评议

已有 4687 次阅读 2014-6-11 00:29 |个人分类:生活点滴|系统分类:海外观察

从开放获取到开放同行评议

学术界对开放获取已经很熟悉,但开放同行评议却是新鲜事物,这份材料来自F1000网站,对同行评议的历史,以及开放同行评议的历史进行了汇总,并对开放评议带来的各种好处进行了分析。值得阅读。

参考资料:

This is the second in a series of posts in which we go into more detailabout some of the concepts that F1000Research is based on. In the firstinstalment, we looked at open access. Here, we turn to open peer review. Whatis open peer review? What are the benefits and challenges? - See more at:http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/05/21/what-is-open-peer-review/#sthash.lkmjrOK9.dpuf

 

History of traditional (closed) peer review

 

Even though scientific publishing has been around since the 17thcentury, formal peer review of submitted articles by external academics isrelatively new. The journals Science and JAMA, for example, introduced formalpeer review in the 1940s, and Nature didn’t introduce it until 1967.(没有想到,正式同行评议出现的时间并不长,那么在同行评议前,杂志是如何评议论文的?)

 

The peer review system adopted in the 20th century has now becomethe norm for many journals. It involves an editor (usually a practisingresearcher, but sometimes a journal staff member in the case of journals likeNature) sending out a paper to a few experts in the field, who then providecomments for the paper’s authors. Although the reviewers can generally see whothe authors are, they themselves remain anonymous to the author, and only theeditor knows everyone’s identity.

 

 

 

Problems with traditional, semi-blind, peer review

 

This “single-blind” system is not without problems. Anonymousreviewers can be biased against the authors of the paper, and lean towardrejection or acceptance for unscientific reasons. Often, the closest “peers” insomeone’s area of research are also that researcher’s direct competitors! Onesolution is to remove the authors’ names from the manuscript, but thisdouble-blind system is not fool-proof, and a reviewer will still oftenrecognize which lab a paper comes from. In addition, any bias towards competitorsof the reviewer still remain, even if that competitor is anonymized.

 

Another drawback of traditional peer review is that the refereereports are visible only to the authors and the editor. Nobody else can seewhat the reviewers thought of the paper. Especially in situations wherereviewers disagree, and a single editor makes the final decision, it can bevery informative to see what the reviewers thought of an article, and whetherthe editor’s decision was in line with their opinion. Reviewers are usually ina position to put the work in a broader context of the field, and often mentionthis context in their reports. They can also point out where the work could beexpanded into new areas, and may still have some lingering questions. All ofthis is useful for everyone to read – not just the authors. It’s also importantto remember that not all journals use the same criteria for publication. Somejournals may turn a great paper down just because it doesn’t fit the scope ofthe journal. Other journals publish all sound science, including some papersthat get extremely high praise in the referee reports.

 

 

 

A timeline of open and transparent review

 

Within the life sciences in particular, several journals have openedtheir peer review process to address some of the issues discussed above.Sometimes this involves publicly naming reviewers and/or editors. Otherjournals publish some or all reviewer comments.

 

1999       After studyingvarious peer review models, BMJ starts revealing reviewer names to authors

2000       BioMed Centrallaunches, and soon after that starts including reviewer names andpre-publication history for published articles in all medical journals in theirBMC series of publications

2001       AtmosphericChemistry and Physics introduces a system where manuscripts are placed onlineas a “discussion paper”, which is archived with all comments and reviews, evenbefore approved and peer-reviewed articles appear in the journal.

2006       Launch of BiologyDirect, which includes reviewer comments and names with published articles.

2007       Frontiers launches,and includes reviewer names with articles.

2010       EMBO journal startspublishing review process file with articles. Editors are named, but refereesremain anonymous.

2011       BMJ Open launches,and includes all reviewer names and review reports with published articles.

2012       Several journalslaunch with an open peer review model:

GigaScience - publishes pre-publication history with articles andnames reviewers (opt-out system)

PeerJ - Peer review reports published with author approval, reviewernames published with reviewer permission. (Info)

eLife - Decision letter published with author approval. Reviewersanonymous.

F1000Research - All peer review reports and reviewer names arepublic, and appear after article is published online.

 

 

At F1000Research our goal has been to champion transparency in thepeer review process: Each article we publish includes all peer review reports,reviewer names, and author responses – even for articles that are still underreview or revision.

 

 

 

Benefits of open review

 

Benefits for authors and readers

 

Author can see who reviewed their work

Reviewer comments put paper in context which is useful additionalinformation for readers

Reduces bias among reviewers

More constructive reviews

Published reports can serve as peer review examples for youngresearchers.

Benefits for reviewers

 

Shows the reviewer’s informed opinion of the work

Demonstrates experience as a reviewer

Can take credit for the work involved in conducting the review

To make it easier for referees to take credit for their work, somejournals, including F1000Research, now provide unique identifiers (DOIs) forreferee reports. In addition, F1000Research is co-chairing a working groupinvestigating how to include peer review output in ORCiD profiles.

 

 

 

Challenges

 

Although open peer review is becoming more common, and addressesseveral of the issues of anonymous review, a few challenges still remain. Astudy in the early days of open review suggested that naming referees slightlyreduced the likelihood of finding reviewers but did not affect the quality ofreview. Conversely, other studies suggest that open review provides moreconstructive reports.

 

- See more at:http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/05/21/what-is-open-peer-review/#sthash.lkmjrOK9.dpuf




https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-41174-802289.html

上一篇:谁动了Plos One的饭碗?
下一篇:应激诱导心肌梗死是因为细菌
收藏 IP: 112.64.63.*| 热度|

6 郑永军 孙爱军 陈辉 郑学军 Editage意得辑 任胜利

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (3 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2022-8-11 08:01

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部