科技期刊开放性同行评议案例研究

Case study of open peer review in scientific journals

【目的】为我国科技期刊实施开放性同行评议(Open Peer Review,OPR)提供参考,以促进我国科技期刊在同行评议中增加开放性,进一步符合科学开放性精神。【方法】对PLoS One、Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics、F1000Research、The Semantic Web Journal和《心理学报》的开放性同行评议过程进行调查研究。【结果】5种期刊表现出许多相同的OPR特征,但都没有以相同的方式实施OPR,体现了OPR实践过程的多样性特征。【结论】我国科技期刊应根据实际情况,灵活有效地将开放获取及OPR的优势与传统同行评议优势相结合,优化OPR实施流程。

[Purposes] This study aims to provide a reference for the implementation of open peer review（ OPR） in Chinese scientific journals,and to increase the openness of peer review for Chinese scientific journals to further accord with the spirit of scientific openness. [Methods] We investigated the OPR process of PLoS One, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,F1000 Research,The Semantic Web Journal,and Acta Psychologica Sinica. [Findings] The five journals have many of the same OPR characteristics,yet they implement OPR in different methods,embodying the varieties of practice processes. [Conclusions]Chinese scientific journals should flexibly and effectively combine the advantages of open access and OPR with the traditional peer review according to the actual conditions,and to optimize the OPR implementation process.