学术期刊开放同行评议实践现状分析

Practice of open peer review in academic journals

【目的】作为学术期刊质量控制的关键环节,开放同行评议以其公开、透明的优势日益受到关注。试图探究开放同行评议的实践进展与实践现状,为我国学术期刊实践开放同行评议提供借鉴。【方法】在实践进展方面,通过梳理开放同行评议的发展脉络及其出版流程,明晰开放同行评议的特性;在实践现状方面,以欧洲地球科学联盟旗下3种开放同行评议期刊为例,从数据的角度揭示开放同行评议的现实状况。【结果】实践开放同行评议的期刊、参与开放同行评议的科研群体数量逐渐增多,但与传统同行评议期刊相比,开放同行评议期刊仍为少数且开放程度偏低,与此同时,绝大多数科研人员不愿实名参与。【结论】建议我国学术期刊从公开匿名审稿意见开始尝试开放同行评议,在此过程中需要正视开放同行评议的不足、重视专家的意见与需求。

[Purposes]As the key segment in the quality control of academic journals,open peer review has received increasing attention for its advantages of openness and transparency.This paper attempts to explore the progress and current situation of open peer review in practice and provide references for the practice of open peer review in academic journals in China.[Methods]In terms of the progress of open peer review in practice,the characteristics of open peer review were clarified through the development of open peer review and its publication process.In terms of the current state of practice,three open peer review journals of the European Geosciences Union were selected as examples to reveal the actual situation of open peer review from the perspective of data.[Findings]The number of open peer review journals and the number of researchers participating in open peer review are gradually increasing,but compared with traditional peer review journals,open peer review journals are still a minority and the degree of openness is low.At the same time,most of researchers are unwilling to be named.[Conclusions]It is suggested that Chinese academic journals should try to open peer review by initially adopting open anonymous review,and during the process,the shortcomings of open peer review should be acknowledged,and the opinions and needs of experts should be given due attention.