之前科学网有过讨论博客文章是否可以被引用作科学论文的参考文献。一部分人赞同，说博文也能提供有价值的信息和原创的思想；也有一部分人担心博客文章的科学性和严谨性不够，觉得大多博文随意性太强。 说实话，在网络年代，在在线开放获取期刊越来越盛的背景下，博文肯定不会被忽略。现在大部分期刊在投稿指南里头都说可以引用网页材料，比如一些权威部门的网站发布。打个擦边球的话，博文当然也是一种网页材料。 不过也不需要打擦边球，博客文章已经开始被更多的科学期刊和学会明确列为正式引用物。 比较早的如《美国心理学会发表手册第六版， Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition 》（ 2010 年）给出了如何引用博客文章的格式： McAdoo, T. (2009, September 10). Use of First Person in APA Style . Retrieved from http://blog.apastyle.org/. 作者名 ( 日期 ). 博文名 . 博客地址 . 该指南还说，如果博文是用网名而非实名发表的，那么引用的时候用显示在博文作者位置的网名即可。 再比如 BioMed Central 的期刊，现已在其投稿指南中明确给出如何引用博客文章： Neylon C: Open Research Computation: an ordinary journal with extraordinary aims. 作者名 : 博文名 . 博客文章能否被引用的关键还是博文的科学性和严谨性，只要博文的科学性达到了，当然可以被引用。鉴于博文发表前不需要经过同行评审，博文的科学性和严谨性只能由作者自己来把握。我最近在准备论文的时候就引用了一篇博客文章，作者介绍了一个统计算法，我觉得很好，就应用了那个算法。 除去信息发布自由快速、原创想法之外，博客文章还有一个好处。这个好处或许也被很多人觉得是博文的一个缺点，就是作者可以随时更改自己的博文，甚至博文的核心观点，这样好像显得不严谨。但其实 这岂不正符合“后同行评审（ Post-publication peer review ）”的理念 ，比如 F1000 ，比如 PloS One 在其介绍中所说的。一篇有关科学问题看法的博文发表之后，其他人可以发表评论，就相当于后同行评审；作者可以根据读者评议的结果在保证严谨性的基础上对博文进行适当的修改或者不修改。我倒觉得能修改这点，或许比 F1000 和 Plos One 来得更好。 在我看来发表之后如果同行发表评论但作者没有反馈，那是“伪”后同行评议。而博客文章，却好像可以成为“真”后同行评议。 相关博文： 《“博客文章被正式引用”之集体智慧篇》
王 应 宽 Wang Yingkuan 2011-07-23 Beijing, China 为何国内专家的审稿意见大都如此简单近乎敷衍？ 因为同时在运作 3 本国际英文刊（ IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal ），论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别，而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性，随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是：欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值，台湾地区的同行评审专家次之，大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见（所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的），看看便知，一目了然。 我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是，一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿，要么直接拒审，要么敷衍几句了事；比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审，最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意，存在较大的差距。 国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动，没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子，有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动，别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关，也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作，相互帮助，虽然没有评审报酬，但大家都觉得平等。而且，国外的专家大都言行一致，故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此，大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。 而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付，三言两语，或言之无物，或毫无参考价值？主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”，以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历，不论评审中文文章还是英文文章，国内专家评审意见普遍简单，评审的质量不高，不但看不出有改观的迹象，还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题，专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表，错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时，就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关，编辑部又无能力通过内审把关，发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢？非也。据了解，许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时，他们非常积极认真地评审论文，并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见，国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题，而是态度问题，“时间”问题，或者有其他方面的原因。 同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。 如果大家都不在乎，把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”，学术危矣！国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然，限于各期刊的经济困难，审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此，同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。 国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱，也不在乎自己的声誉，不知道他们究竟在乎啥？ 中国是雷锋诞生的国度，按理说，当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈，就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较，中国的同行专家做的还很不够，需要好好向国际同行学习。 附： CIGR Journal 栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见 June 27, 2011 Dear Prof. H L L: Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES As CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript. The manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to CIGR. However, the manuscript is deficient in several scientific areas. The decision is to decline the manuscript without peer review. My preliminary review is attached to the end of this email. Please note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive review. The manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another journal. Thank you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work published. Sincerely P.Eng., Ph.D., CIGR Section III editor, Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Section Editor Review Title: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES CIGR # 1911 Authors: H L L et al. June 27, 2011 General: The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural production. There are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally clear. It is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the grammar. The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form. It needs a lot of work. The biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not complete. Some of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive list. Soil characteristics. It is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil compaction. The only description given is that the soil was a sandy loam. Things like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be provided. Tractor specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not given. Tire pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear tires. Often, tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear tires. Slip was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a load. The drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be specified. It was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel assist. It needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was engaged. Results: A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was specified. However, the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, i.e. ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each other. The experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the results. Graphs should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the trends. Table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong units. Cone index is normally given in MPa or kPa. Also, the values for cone index are much lower than normally expected. Section 2.3 It is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, etc. All you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105 C for soil moisture determinations. Things like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are changed. However, things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be specified. These are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the results. Section 2.5. Need to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you used. Also, how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass? Soil cone penetrometer measurements are typically very “noisy” with a high degree of variability, and multiple measurements are required per plot to get a reasonable estimate of mean penetration resistance. Also, were penetrometer measurements made prior to the first pass to get an estimate of initial soil conditions? Data prior to first pass were given in Table 3.1, but the measurements were not mentioned in the text. Section 2.6. How did you get the shear vane measurements at the various depths? Presumably, you excavated to the required depth, and made the shear vane measurements at the bottom of the excavation. You need to describe the method here. Section 2.7. This section describes in great detail how samples were dried in the oven. This technique is well known. All you need to say that samples were oven dried at 105 C for dry weight determinations. Activities like weighing on a sensitive scale are understood as necessary to get dry bulk density data. However, the critical piece of information of how you obtained samples of a known volume for the dry bulk density determinations is completely missing. Presumably, this was via core samples. You need to specify the coring device, in particular, core diameter and depth. You do not need to give the formula for calculating dry bulk density (Eq. 2.1), or soil moisture content. These formulae are well known by anyone working with soil physical properties. Section 3.2. Not necessary to show all of the detailed calculations for each inflation pressure. Actually, they are all incorrect as they are all missing a closing parenthesis in the denominator which makes the formula ambiguous. Just give the formula, and give the results for the various inflation pressures in a table. Section 3.3 The first sentence does not match the data. If wheel slip is 3.6% at 48 kPa and 2.7% at 97 kPa, then the wheel slip decreases, not increases when inflation pressure is increased from 48 kPa to 97 kPa. Is this change statistically significant? Conclusions: Many of the conclusions are not conclusions from the present study, as things like tire foot print, tire durability, soil deformation were not measured in this study. Some of the information in the conclusions could be included in the discussion section with appropriate references to help explain the results, or the consequence of the results. The conclusions should be limited to the conclusions of the study, i.e. what was done, what was learned, and perhaps the implications or importance of the results to agriculture, science, or future research. References. There are numerous punctuation errors in the references. References are tedious, and the formatting requires special attention. Reference by Raghavan and McKyes 1978 is missing. This was cited on page 5. Also, it is McKyes, not McKyers, there is no ‘r’ in McKyes. You need to carefully check that each reference in the references was cited, and that each citation in the text is included in the references. I did not do a thorough check on this aspect. ________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Wang Yingkuan Editor-in-Chief of CIGR Journal http://journals.sfu.ca/cigr/index.php/Ejounral 台湾一位大学教授评审论文的意见 General Comments: The paper focuses on the phone-based system for vegetable production traceability in the field . The topic is interesting. There are some points in the paper that need to be further clarified. Specific comments: 1. In Abstract, the authors mention that “the compatibility test showed that the success rate was 87.5% on average……”. Why is the average success rate 87.5%? 2. What is the benefit if farmers use the MPRSVT? 3. More details are needed to describe the structure of using the DBMS. Maybe the authors can use the E-R model to explain the DBMS. 4. In Page 7, what is the “CLDC”? 5. More details are needed to explain the operation records of different activities merged into one group. 6. In Figure 3, there is a lot of information regarding the field being able to be inputted in MPRSVT. However, the data packet which is explained in page 8 only consists of the field planting date, field planting field ID, field planting category, field planting species, etc. How does other inputted information of the MPRSVT send to the database? For example, are the fertilization information, pest prevent information, and harvest information also sent by the SMS format? If so, what is the packet format of that information? 7. In the caption of Figure 4, what is MRKSVT ? 8. In Page 9, why was the success rate of the MPRSVT operated on the mobile phones without expansion cards less than that of the mobile phones with expansion card? Some minor issues. 1) In Page 3, “Sections 4 reports the results……..” should be modified to “Section 4 reposts the results….” 2) In Page 7, what is the “UIQ”? 3) In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlap p ed by the line. 4) In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an arrow. 5) In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the line. 6) In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the frames. 7) Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the article. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chief I recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form. 中国大陆专家 1 评审论文意见 Section III: Comments This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments: This paper assess the O 2 consumption rate and the CO 2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is strong. In all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this topic. Specific comments: In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not sufficient. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor I hope the paper will be published to guide more researchers. Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors) 中国大陆专家 2 评审论文意见 ( 相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了 ) Section III: Comments This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments: Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I think. Specific comments: (1) I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper. (2) In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 0.8254 o /% 、 0.6681 o /% 、 0.5761 o /% respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “ 、 ”. (3) The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors) 中国大陆专家 3 评审论文意见 Section III: Comments This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments: This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring re-review. Specific comments: Revision suggestions of this paper: 1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in abstract. 2. It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section 2.1. 3. It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section 3. 4. This paper is required re-review after revision. Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor
同行评审（Peer review，在某些学术领域亦称审查(refereeing)）为一种审查程序，即使一位作者的学术著作或计划让同一领域的其他专家学者来加以评审。在出版单位主要以同行评审的方法来选择与筛选所投送的稿件录取与否，再而资金提供的单位，也是以同行评审的方式来决定研究奖助金是否授予。 信息分析平台 http://www.gopubmed.org/web/gopubmed/2?WEB0l3zit4prco6mIeI1I00h001000j10040001rl Top Terms Publications Peer Review 8,449 Humans 7,712 Peer Review, Research 3,873 United States 3,374 Evaluation Studies as Topic 1,878 Patients 1,602 Peer Review, Health Care 1,155 Physicians 1,121 Hospitals 1,098 Hospitalization 1,039 Delivery of Health Care 1,018 Quality of Health Care 891 Quality Assurance, Health Care 889 Research 886 Data Collection 831 Research Design 816 Biomedical Research 810 Medicine 777 Research Support as Topic 756 Science 750 1 2 3 ... 342 信息分析报告 Peer review.docx
Nature出版集团出版采用Light-Touch Peer Review方式的开放获取杂志 Nature 出版集团2011年1月6日开始正式出版采用新的同行评审方式的开放杂志 'Scientific Reports' 。这一多学科杂志采用的同行评审方式与PLOS One的Light-Touch Peer Review类似，只强调其方法学上的正确性和原创性，但不评判科学发现的重要性。 按照其网站上的说明，其特点包括快速评审和出版，对论文科学性 至少经过“一位”同行 的评审。 这反映了科学期刊领域的一个新动向。 Nature Publishing Group launched a new peer-reviewed online open access journal, 'Scientific Reports', on the 6 January 2011. It will accept papers from a range of scientific disciplines provided that they are scientifically sound and original, but will not consider the significance of the findings. Nature http://www.nature.com 469 13 January 2011 p.137 ==== 来自新杂志网站的内容 Scientific Reports — a new era in publishing Online and open access, Scientific Reports is a brand new primary research publication from the publishers of Nature , covering all areas of the natural sciences — biology, chemistry, physics and earth sciences. Scientific Reports exists to facilitate the rapid peer review and publication of research that is of interest to specialists within any given field in the natural sciences, without barriers to access. Scientific Reports is: · Fast — rapid review and publication · Rigorous — peer review by at least one member of the academic community · Open — articles are freely available to all and authors retain copyright · Visible — enhanced browsing and searching to ensure your article is noticed · Interlinked — to and from relevant articles across nature.com · Global — housed on nature.com with worldwide media coverage www.nature.com/scientificreports
2009 年第 1 期的 Ecology Letters 上面，发表了一篇社论观点文章： The tragedy of the reviewer commons ，该文的作者都是生态学和相关领域知名杂志的编辑，第一作者 Michael Hochberg 是 Ecology Letters 杂志的 Founding Editor 。 这篇文章关注的是一个与论文评审有关的普遍性问题， Tragedy of the reviewer commons （单从字面来看有点费解，具体意思见下文），这个问题与任何一个科研人员都息息相关。 Tragedy of the commons 是 Hochberg 等人借用的 1968 年 Garrett Hardin 发表在 Science 上的一篇文章中的表达。对于这个短语，中文翻译为公有资源悲剧、哈定悲剧或公用品悲剧，从事博弈论和社会经济学研究的人会更加了解。潘天群老师在《博弈生存》一书中写道下面这些话。【 公共资源悲剧最初由哈定提出。哈定（ Garrit Hadin ） 1968 年在《科学》杂志上发表了一篇文章，题为 The Tragedy of the Commons 。北京大学的张维迎教授将之译成《公共地悲剧》，但哈定那里的 the commons 不仅仅指公共的土地，而且指公共的水域、空间等等；武汉大学的朱志方教授将 The Tragedy of the Commons 译成《大锅饭悲剧》，有一定的道理，但也不完全切合哈定所表达的意思。将 the commons 译成公共资源似乎更确切些。哈定描述的 The Tragedy of the Commons ，我们可称为哈定悲剧。哈定举了这样一个具体事例：一群牧民面对向他们开放的草地，每一个牧民都想多养一头牛，因为多养一头牛增加的收益大于其购养成本，是合算的，尽管因平均草量下降，可能使整个牧区的牛的单位收益下降。每个牧民都可能多增加一头牛，草地将可能被过度放牧，从而不能满足牛的食量，致使所有牧民的牛均饿死。这就是公共资源的悲剧。】 我觉得潘老师对 Hardin 所描述的这个例子的翻译有些不够直观，我再简单解释一下。 面对向所有牧民都开放的草地，每个牧民都想养更多的牛，他们也经常会想，我多养一头牛会怎么样？。实际上多养一头牛对某个牧民来说有正反两方面的影响，正面的是多养一头牛卖钱所得的收益全部归牧民个人所有，负面的是多养一头牛会牧场草量下降甚至导致过度放牧，但这种负面的影响是所有牧民共同承担的。因此，理性的牧民会觉得多养一头牛很明显给自己带来更大的利益。如果每个人都更多的使用公有资源，结果必然会是悲剧。 按照上面的理解， Tragedy of the reviewer commons 可以理解为审者资源的悲剧或审者共享的悲剧，简单说就是 科学共同体所公有的审者资源被过多的使用了 。 Hochberg 等人认为我们应该关注导致这个问题的两方面因素。 第一个方面是 我们都希望尽将工作发表在最顶级（或更好）的期刊上 。单位评价压力和与同行竞争是这种想法的驱动力。虽然研究者们都对自己的工作很自信，相信能通过同行评议并有机会发表，但有时候这种可能性被高估了。在文章被拒稿的情况下，很多时候我们很难知道在多大程度上是因为论文准备中可以避免的缺陷或者仅仅是杂志的选择而被拒稿的。 经费资助机构、大学及政府部门过分依赖于数量化的评价机制使得研究者们选择期刊时的错误定位（都想发好的刊物）更加恶化。很多时候这些机构并不会客观的去评价某项研究工作的重要性，也不关注该工作发表在哪个期刊（与领域相关与否，是否是领域中重要的期刊）。所以，研究者们经常会在并不适合于系统地发展他们研究工作的杂志上发表文章。如果将某项系统的研究工作分解成不同的小文章去发表，或者将研究发表在一个并不适合的刊物上，必然会减小该工作的影响力，对于研究者和领域的发展都是不利的。研究者将其工作分解为不同的小文章发表，则给同行评议和编辑部带来了更大的压力。 Hochberg 等人估计，国际顶级刊物的拒稿率一般大于 60% ，因此一般论文都要经过 2 个或更多杂志的处理。假定不同刊物的拒稿率不同，并且不同刊物使用不同的同行评审专家，那么一篇最终发表的稿件在评审过程中需要的审者数目大约是 5 到 10 个。如果这个数字正确的话，那么很多审者在那些被不断拒稿的文章上面花费了很多不必要的精力。这就是悲剧所在。重复投稿使得审者压力过重，并给评审过程和最终发表的文章的质量带来了负面效应。 虽然每个科学家都应该承担为科学共同体审稿的义务，但实际上审稿压力在整个学术团体中的分布并不均匀，一些活跃的科学家对于审稿请求的响应并不积极（即并不愿意承担审稿义务）。这从两个方面伤害了整个学术团体。这使得一部分答应评审的科学家承受了过多的审稿负担；也使得编辑部很难选择具有合适能力的审者，从而导致所发表文章的质量下降。这种不想承担审稿义务的个人行为是一个复杂的问题，目前并没有很好的解决方法。不同期刊共享审者数据库或许可以增加审者群体的数量，但这仍不能促使所有科学家都愿意承担审稿义务。 第二个方面是 那些被拒掉的稿件的评审意见变成了什么样（作者们如何处理审者意见） 。同行专家评审有两方面的目的，一是告知编辑论文的可接受性，二是反馈给作者提高文章质量并使之能够发表的建议。有时审者建议是针对你所投刊物的特定要求，但往往这些建议是对任何刊物都适用的。但作为编辑， Hochberg 等人认为他们根本不能确定作者们是否考虑了审者的意见。如果作者不接受审者的建议，并重新投稿，那么文章被接受的可能性仍然很小，也就会有更多的审者精力被浪费了。如果一篇曾经被拒的稿子在另一个杂志发表了，忽视审者意见的后果可能是文章质量并不高。 很多作者可能认为匿名同行评议是一个随机的过程：如果一个期刊的评审结果不理想，那么就换另一个期刊试试，或许不同的审者会有不同的评价。但现实情况远不是这样。不同的审者往往都会发现稿件中固有的问题。并且，还有可能同一个审者被不同的期刊要求审同一篇稿件。这种情况下，没有什么会比看见自己的建议被忽略更让审者生气的了，他根本不愿意再花时间来评审这样一篇本就有缺陷的文章。 鉴于这些原因， Hochberg 等人提议，作为科学团体，我们应该从两个方面维持这个非常重要的资源科学共同体公有的审者资源， Reviewer Commons 。 首先，投稿前让同行帮你审阅论文。这实际上一个由来已久的传统，但近些年来被越来越多的人忽视了，原因可能是尽快发表的压力、同行之间的竞争、文章共同作者数目的增加，以及因为我们自己也不断的将自己的稿件投稿及重新投稿（因此没时间帮同事审阅稿件）。投稿前同行审阅会减少同行评议中审者的负担，也会使作者们更好的选择合适的期刊、修正论文中的缺陷，并增加一投中的的可能性。 再者，作者们应该认真的按照审者意见修改被拒的稿件。 Hochberg 等人认为，一个比较好的方式或许是，期刊可以要求作者们在投稿的 cover letter 中增加这样的表述： We confirm that should our study have been previously submitted to another journal, we have taken all reviewers comments into account in revising our manuscript for submission to 。这能够体现作者的责任感，并且编辑也不能从中读出这篇稿件是否之前被拒过，因为任何投稿（不管是第一次还是重投）都要有这样的声明。 Hochberg 等人认为有必要增加科学家对于 Reviewer Commons 的认识，并讨论如何来维持它。他们的建议是作者们在投稿前要请同行来对论文和期刊的选择给出建议，并且如果稿件被拒时，重投前要认真对待审者意见并修改论文。这样的观点对很多人来说可能觉得太简单或显而易见了，但实际上在论文发表过程中，这些事情被很多作者忽略了。 对于期刊来说，也正在根据不断增长的投稿量及一些科学家不愿意审稿的状况来修订期刊政策。比如，很多期刊的编辑采用了编辑部拒稿（ reject without review ）政策，即只将有发表可能的稿件送去外审。对此很多投稿者觉得失望，但实际上这个过程中编辑部更多的是审查文章是否适合该期刊，而不是文章的科学性。另外，对于被拒掉的稿件，有的期刊则要求作者同时提交前个刊物的评审意见。 同投稿者一样，编辑们也要考虑 Reviewer Commons ，因为审者群体实际上太小了（往往某个领域中审稿的总是那些人）。部分原因是因为博士后和高年级研究生并没有很好的被作为审稿人，但这也不可避免，因为这些人尚未建立足够的文章目录来使编辑认为他们可以胜任。因此，当成熟的科学家被邀请作为审稿人时，可以向编辑建议可以胜任的博士后或研究生的名字。如果这些人被选择作为审稿人时，他们往往非常尽职尽责的准备评审意见。并且，这是培养年轻人审稿能力的很好的方式。 总体来说，因为审者们往往要为不同的期刊承担过量的审稿任务，他们投入到一篇文章上的审稿时间必然会减少，因此轻率或错误评审的可能性增加。经过多轮的修改、经过投稿前同行评阅、并基于审者意见做了认真的修改之后，稿件（由于审者的疏忽）仍然被拒，无疑会增加作者们的挫折感，并有损于出版业的健康发展。因此不同期刊的编辑们应该联合在一起，来找到让评审过程更好地运转的方式。 结语： Hochberg 等人从编辑的角度提出了他们的观点。但实际上，期刊编辑们也要从作者的角度来思考 同行评审中对作者不合理的因素如何解决 ，比如编辑和审者的利益小团体的存在，会伤害投稿者们的利益（表现为刻意拒掉与自己利益相关的稿件）。另外， Tragedy of the commons 可以用于理解很多方面的问题，比如科研经费的悲剧，权利使用的悲剧等等。 Hochberg et al. 2009. The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecology Letters , 12: 2-4. Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science , 162: 1243-1248.
最近读到一条有意思的社论，与大家分享一下： 众所周知，向期刊投稿的稿件数量要远远超出刊物有限篇幅内可以刊登的文章的数量，为了确保送交同行评审的稿件是达标的，审稿过程就显得尤为重要。ACS Nano 副编辑Jillian M. Buriak在最近一期(2010年9月28日) 的一篇 社论 中介绍了如何避免稿件在进入同行评审前被拒稿。第一，你的文章中是否有亮点足够吸引住读者的眼球。其次是新颖性、原创性，这与第一点紧密相关。有趣的是，这篇社论里面提到了编辑会通过网络搜索来判断文章的新颖性。第三，也是所有作者最容易实现的，就是使稿件的语言符合期刊的投稿要求。文章语言的好坏直接影响到读者对你工作的评价，评论中的一句话就提到如果稿件读起来就很松散，那么读者会自然而然地认为其科学性也同样松散。因此，提交语言过关的稿件以避免在进入同行评审前就被拒稿是至关重要的。有很多方法可以帮助你的稿件顺利进入同行评审，例如，在写作中使用简单易读的句子，让一位同事（两位更好）帮助通读全文，格外注意稿件是否符合期刊的投稿须知。语言清晰简洁、没有语法错误的稿件将为你争取到更多的机会让审稿人对文章的学术价值和作出正确的判断。 原文： As we all know, the number of manuscript submissions to journals vastly outweighs the amount of space journals have to publish. To handle this process and ensure that appropriate manuscripts are sent for peer review, the editorial process has become more important than ever. The editorial in a recent issue ACS Nano (Sept 28 2010) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/nn1022318 by associate editor Jillian M. Buriak describes rejecting without review and how to avoid it. There are three points that editors use to select the best papers for peer review. First, does your manuscript have the wow factor, will it grab the attention of the journals readership. Second, which is closely related to the first, is novelty, is the work original. Interestingly, editors use internet searches, described in the editorial, to evaluate a manuscripts novelty. The third, and arguably the easiest to achieve for all researchers, is submitting a well-written manuscript that follows the journal requirements. The way a manuscript is written directly affects what people will think about your work, quoting from the editorial If your manuscript looks sloppy, then everyone will assume that your science is equally sloppy. Thus, it is imperative to only submit manuscripts of a high quality language and avoid being rejected without peer review. There are many ways to make sure your manuscript is not rejected prior to peer review including, write the manuscript in simple and easy to read sentences, have a colleague (or two!) read the manuscript and pay close attention to the journals guidelines for authors. By ensuring the manuscript is clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors will give the journal editors the best opportunity to judge your work on the scientific value and suitability for their journal.
转载自理文编辑 Dr.DanielMcGowan 的一篇博客文章， http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=286482 我读后深以为然，遂转载过来作为传播收藏。后来在翻译过程中，更是体会到了 McGowan博士所表达的科学心：我们科研工作者是在为人类知识库添加信息，不能唯SCI是从。所有的人类知识都应该按照科学的标准去记录，这样才能传承进步，为整个人类共享。我想这可能也是为什么西方医学发展远远快于我国的中医学的一个缘由吧。 同行评议标准究竟如何影响着期刊影响因子 中文引言： 影响因子较低的刊物接收的文章水准必定不高？ 刊物影响因子较低的原因有哪些？ 稿件被拒，仅仅通过改投影响因子较低的刊物就能发表？ Dr. Daniel McGowan 将给出哪些积极建议？ 博客原文： It has recently come to my attention that many scientistauthors in Asian countries, and perhaps also in Western countries, hold the idea that low impact factor journals will accept papers of a lower overall standard than high impact factor journals. This is largely a fallacy. Although some (hopefully very few) journals with low impact factors may indeed accept and publish papers describing research that has been poorly thought out, conducted and/or reported, it would be foolish to assume that this is commonplace. There are numerous reasons why a given journal might have a low impact factor: it might only describe research in a very narrow, specialized field, or relating to a particular geographic area or patient group, it might be relatively new, or it might publish a large proportion of theoretical papers requiring few references to the literature. However, all journal editors should be striving to protect and improve their journals image in the relevant scientific community, and this means holding submitted manuscripts to the same standards that the editors of journals with much higher impact factors apply to the submissions they receive. Ultimately, studies need to stand up to peer review before entering the collective knowledge as part of the literature, and this means that criteria regarding technical rigour, novelty and accurate unbiased reporting need to be met, regardless of the impact factor of the target journal. At Edanz/Liwen Bianji, we are frequently approached by would-be clients asking us to help them to rewrite their paper following rejection from a journal and negative peer review. In many cases we can work with the client to address the concerns of the journal editor and reviewers and help them prepare a re- or new submission. However, where there are major flaws in the study design or analysis that will prevent publication in any journal, even those with low impact factors, regardless of the any rewriting, we are obliged to tell them that more than rewriting is required: reanalysis of data, or worse, repeating whole experiments. Authors unwilling to do this need to be aware that there is no place in the literature for poorly planned and executed research, that journals with low impact factors do not exist to publish incomplete or deficient studies. And that is the purpose of this blog post: to dispel the myth that impact factor correlates with the rigor that your paper will be subjected to during peer review. My advice is to avoid major problems at the peer review stage by planning well ahead. Ensure that your experiments are well designed with appropriate controls before conducting them; ensure that you have a large enough sample; use the correct statistical tests ; and report the results in an accurate and appropriate manner. Getting these things right before and during the research will save you time, money and potential heartache later on. 翻译： 最近我注意到很多科学家－特别是在亚洲国家，可能还有少数西方国家的作者，他们认为低 SCI 影响因子的期刊接受文章的标准会低于高分期刊。这是极大的谬论。诚然有少数低分期刊（希望是极少数）的确接受和发表了一些想做写很差的文章，但是如果据此认为这是低分期刊的特点那就是愚昧了。 一份期刊影响因子低有很多原因：可能这份期刊的文章定位在比较专业和狭窄的特殊领域，或者是跟某个特别的地理生态环境相关，或者是与特殊的疾病群体相关；或者这份期刊创刊不久相关领域较新知名度还没有建立起来；或者这份期刊发表的文章大部分是原创性较高所以可引用的文献较少的理论性文章。但是不管是什么情况下，期刊的编辑都将会竭尽全力的维护和提高期刊在相关科学团体中的学术形象，这就意味着他们肯定会用高分期刊同样的学术标准来衡量所有来稿。最终，研究者都必须经受住严格的同行评审才能够作为文献进入人类知识库，这就是说不管期刊的影响因子的高低，相关技术的难度和先进程度以及精确客观的实验描述这些学术标准都是一致的！ 在 Edanz 中国的课题组内，我们常常接触到一些客户要我们帮他们重写被拒被批的文章。大多数情况下，我们能够帮助客户阐述清楚期刊编辑和评审的问题，帮他们再投或重投。但有些时候，文章中有些设计和分析上大的纰漏，不管如何写不管投多低，都不可能被期刊接受。我们不得不告诉投稿人：写作不能解决这些问题，必须要重新分析结果甚至是重做整个实验。不愿意接受这个事实的作者必须清楚：科学界没有专门放烂实验的地方，低分期刊绝对不是发表不完整和有缺陷文章的地方。而这也是我写这篇博客的目的：不要天真地以为你的文章被同行评审时的标准与你所投期刊的影响因子正相关。（同行评审只有一个标准，那就是科学的标准） 要避免在同行评审时遇到这些大问题我的建议是实验要预先计划好再做。确保你的实验设计的完备有充分的对照；确保你有足够多的实验样本，而且安排实验样本的统计学分析是正确的；精确而合适地报道你的结果。在实验前和实验中把这些事情做好将节省你的时间金钱以及以后少些头痛。
王 应 宽 2009-10-16 UTC-6 CST UMN, St Paul 何谓同行评审以及谁在履行同行评审？ 笔者曾写过 3 篇博文： Blind Peer-Review: 盲审 or 瞎审 ？（ http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=24958 ），开放评审系统 -Open peer review system （ http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=27762 ），指导同行评审者的十大简则（ http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=32118 ），均谈及同行评审。最近看到科学网上 徐坚 、 许培扬 等的博文也谈及同行评审，本人认可其基本观点。因同行评审至关重要的作用而成为科学网博客的热点之一。 目前，科技期刊，特别是学术期刊，广泛采用同行评审的方式，来履行学术质量把关。科技期刊之所以能提供可信赖的信息就是因为采用了同行评审。为了避免评审过程中的偏见和不公正，同一篇稿件一般邀请 3 位同行专家独立评审。专家主要评价研究方法的正确性、结果的重要性和独创性、对科学界的兴趣和时效以及写作的清晰性。 据查，最早有记录的同行评审方法源自 1665 年英国皇家学会的出版的《皇家学会哲学会刊》（ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ）的创始编辑 Henry Oldenburg 。根据同行评审的最普遍的定义，首个同行评审出现在 1731 年爱丁堡皇家学会出版的《医学短评与观察》（ Medical Essays and Observations ）。 什么是同行评审（ peer review ）？ 什么是同行评审（ peer review ）？请看以下定义。 同行评审是期刊用以确保所发表的论文代表当前最好学术水平的方法 / 程序 （ process ）。期刊收到稿件后，编辑将稿件送给与作者研究领域相同其他学者评审，以获取他们对稿件学术水平、领域的相关性和与期刊要求的吻合性等的意见。 (Peer Review is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently. Available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/peer.html ) 同行评审是把作者的学术著作、研究成果或思想提交给与作者同一领域的其他专家审阅的方法。 同行评审需要给定领域（往往是专业相近的小同行）具有资格并能够履行公正评审的专家群。 对于学科专业不相近或交叉学科领域也许难以实现公正（不偏不倚）的评审。一种思想的重要性（好或差）从来就不会被同行广泛认可。尽管普遍认为同行评审对保证学术质量是必不可少的（绝对必要的），但同行评审一直以来都因为无效、迟缓和误解等受到批评。根据评审的公开性分为匿名评审（双盲审）、半开放评审（单盲审）和开放评审等。现实中，同行评审主要用于期刊稿件评阅、学位论文的评审和基金申请筛选。 （ Peer review (also known as refereeing ) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review ） 同行评审（ Peer review ，在某些学术领域亦称 refereeing ）是一种审查程序，即一位作者的学术著作或项目计划被同一领域的其他专家学者评审。 一般学术出版单位主要以同行评审的方法来选择与筛选所投送的稿件录取与否，而学术研究资金提供机构，也广泛采用同行评审的方式来决定是否授予研究资金、奖金等。 科学同行评审 被定义为 由具有资格的专家评价研究成果的科学性（正确性 / 适宜性 / 普适性）、重要性和独创性 。这些同行专家但当起科学发现与成果发表之路上的把门人。 (Dale J. Benos et al.: The Ups and Downs of Peer Review, Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 31 (2007), pp. 145152 (145): Scientific peer review has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication. ) 同行评审的目的 同行评审程序的主要目的是确保作者的著作水平符合该学科领域一般学术的标准。因此，通过同行评审的方法可以鼓励作者达到其所在学科领域可接受的标准，防止发表不相关的结果、毫无根据的论断、不被认可的诠释和个人偏见。学者和业内人士通常对未经同行评审的出版物持怀疑态度。在许多领域著作的出版或者研究奖金的颁发，如果沒有以同行评审的方式来进行就比较容易遭到质疑，甚至成为某出版物、作品是否可以被称为学术出版物的主要标准。 同行评审的作用和局限 同行评审过程在许多方面表现出库恩所说的科学团体的某些特征。对学者来说，同行评审不仅是一种外在的分配研究基金的机制，它还深深地植根于高等教育制度之中。美国前国家科学基金会主任 Atkinson 曾说：美国科学已经在国际性科学奖项中占支配地位，它所带来的科技革命影响了人类生活的每一个方面。美国科学制度中一个关键的因素就是同行评审。同行评审决定了教师取得终身教职资格和晋升和成果价值的评估。在这种机制下，学科新知识、新发现得到同行专家的检验，判断其学术上的真正价值。同行评审还决定了学术研究著作能否得以发表。在某种程度上，同行评审是大学和研究机构的日常生活的一部分。不遵守这项制度被看成是一种严重的违规行为。因此，学术界也就是主流学术文化认同这样一个道理，学术机构在做出决定时必须运用同行评审的机制。同行评审在学术性的科学研究中所起的规范作用是非常明显的。 专门研究同行评审的专家 Daniel Greenberg 说：科学机构怎样来推进真理，消除错误，表扬发现真理的研究者，拒绝胡思乱想呢？答案就是，科学经过三个半世纪发展，已经进入到证明科学自身是否有所进展也是一个复杂的过程了。 Greenberg 认为，同行评审制度并不是绝对不出错的，同行判断的错误也时有发生。但这种制度要比任何一种其它的鉴定真理的方法，更能够免于诚信问题、欺骗及学派偏见。它也使学术研究和成果评判保持自己的独立性，免于政治和社会压力的干扰。多年以来，为什么在美国科学界中欺世盗名之事相对少见？美国人认为这并不是因为科学家拥有不同寻常的诚实品质，而是因为科学发现要经过同行专家的严格评审。因此，尽管科学家本人是有感情的，谋求自利的，竭力想超过自己的竞争者，但公正的原则作为他律是一种强有力的规范。 但是这种制度在美国学界也经常受到批评。美国学者认为同行评审看上去是个很好的机制，但实际上是有缺点和带倾向性的。第一，由于现代学术和科学的发展，任何专家除了自己的专门领域之外，对自己专门研究之外的领域实际上所知有限，特别对一些超出自己知识结构的创新性研究的判断难免失准。第二，同行评审在本质上是带有倾向性的。他们被批评把联邦政府的研究经费用来酬报他们的同事。还有人认为同行评审是一个老同学、老朋友的网络，它使富人变得更富。多年以来，这种制度一直在资助同一类的老学校、同一类的老科学家和同一类的老学科，为了资助一些有特权的少数人，而否定了资助一些新人的创新研究计划。 尽管同行评审存在不足，但仍然是目前行之有效并被广泛采用的办法。 谁在履行同行评审？ 从同行评审的定义和目的可知，同行评审能否起到把关的作用关键在于人，即履行同行评审的专家。大家知道，同行评审，特别强调的是真正的小同行，才能达到学术把关的作用。如果同行只是大学科领域相同，而没有真正从事过相关的研究或对要评审把关的论文内容不甚了解，那么就很难起到评审把关的作用。虽是小同行，但若未能认真评审，只是简单应付，敷衍塞责，也难以起到把关作用。因此， 专家所在的学科专业领域、学识、学风、学术道德等因素是决定同行评审质量的关键。 选对了评审专家，就能把好关；选不对专家，要么外行评内行，要么敷衍塞责，自然很难发挥评审作用，也就很难把好质量关。那么我们看看目前谁在履行同行评审？通常，同行评审由那些 不直接参与被评审研究而又博学多识的科学家 来履行。也就是研究者的同行，那些熟悉研究者领域的另一些科学家来做出这种判断和评价。 我们可以根据中国科技界人才金字塔中的各组成部分分析一下，看看谁有时间和精力并真正在履行同行评审？ 首先，院士极少能亲自评审论文。作为中国人才金字塔顶端的两院院士，他们有时间和精力为期刊评审论文吗？他们可能被邀请参与基金项目的最后评审，决定科研基金分给谁。但院士多被奉为帅才，要参与很多战略研究、宏观决策，还要出席很多社会活动，有的几乎成了社会活动家或电视明星，根本没时间也不太可能坐下来为期刊评审论文。期刊希望依靠院士担任同行评审专家来把关论文质量是不大现实的。 长江学者也很少评审论文。被称为小院士的长江学者多为将才，不但拥有众多的科研项目，领导着庞大的科研团队，正忙于科研任务和再创新高（向院士进军），而且大多学而优则仕，担任一定的领导职务，还有很多行政管理工作要做。他们即使还愿意继续为期刊评审论文，但也实在是分身乏术，爱莫能助了。 杰出青年基金获得者也很难挤出时间评审论文。杰出青年基金获得者自然是科研队伍中的佼佼者，被誉为后备长江学者，情形与长江学者类似，而且距离院士之路还相对漫长一些，领导科研团队、搞科研、跑项目、开会、教课、指导研究生等实在忙得可以，即使能挤出时间评审论文，所能评审的数量也极为有限。 首席专家、主持多项课题的专家也忙得没时间评审论文。 科研行政双肩挑的专家更是忙的甚至差点荒于学术，也没有时间评审论文。 没有科研项目的教授和副教授们大多忙于上课，因为没有争取到课题经费，只好多上课多挣课时费。从经济效益的角度考虑，给期刊评审论文的审稿费大都很低，而认真评审论文所付出的劳动，比之于上课所得到的课时费，得不偿失，因而也不大喜欢审稿。 除去学界这些大忙人的现役科学家，剩下的就是离退休的专家教授、正在奋斗高级职称的助教助研讲师们、研究生等。退休专家教授评审论文可以，但存在的问题是，刚退休的专家们能量还很大，还继续活跃在科研一线，还没到发挥余热为期刊审稿的时候；如果离退休时间太长，因为不在科研一线工作了，对新的科研进展不再清楚，甚至陈旧的知识已经赶不上时代的潮流。举个很简单的例子，如计算机网络信息技术、 3S 技术等新兴技术在中国也就是近十几年发展起来的，但有些教授在岗时都没有接触过这些新东西，淡出科研后更不了解这些新技术的发展，如果还请他们对这些新技术研究成果进行评审把关，大家可以想见效果如何了。讲师、助教和研究生们如果没有直接参与科研课题的研究，也是很难对稿件进行评审把关的。 有的博士生或博士后经常被导师（前述大忙人大多为研究生导师）安排代审稿件，如果研究生直接参与前沿课题研究，对同一领域的论文评审提出初步意见，再让导师复核确认后签名发出，这种审稿模式也未尝不可。但期刊看重的是专家的名望和学术水平，初衷是希望被邀请的同行专家能亲自评审把关。有的期刊编辑部因为觉得难找到对口的同行专家评审，或者所找同行专家评审粗浅，其意见没有多大参考价值，不但增加成本且耽误很长时间，就减少外审稿件数量，甚至干脆不送外审，直接由编辑部（编辑部主任、专职副主编、编辑）操刀评审决定稿件的取舍。 中国科技期刊的同行评审现状如此，那么，国际科技期刊的同行评审又如何呢？ 国际上多数杂志是由曾经做过科研工作但现已成为职业编辑的前科学家来决定。部分杂志如 Science 一般是由专门聘请的审稿编辑（ Reviewing Editor ）负责，他们均为有关领域的领军人物，但已未必仍然直接在科研第一线工作。只有少数一流的杂志，如 PNAS 、 JCB(Journal of Cell Biology) 等，主要由仍然是现役科学家的编委或院士来做决定。说是作决定，由于是在很短时间内处理来稿，多是简单看看摘要和主要的图，然后写下三言两语作为评语，就把来稿打了回票。往往只有少数稿件会送出进行同行评议。部分杂志如 Cancer Research 和 Journal of Biological Chemistry(JBC) ，通常都送本刊编委。如果编委认为必要，再加送另一专家。这种情况下一般由编委作最后决定，但主编、副主编或资深编委有权推翻编委的决定。许多杂志还另外增加了一套评分系统，要求审稿人对稿件进行量化的评价。多数杂志还另设一栏，可供审稿人向编委提出不便告知作者的意见。有些审稿人虽然在给作者的评语中写得不痛不痒，但在给编委的意见中提出劣评，或在只提供给编委不透露给作者的评分中打低分，那么编委或副主编仍然会拒稿。当然编委和副主编也是大专家，还要维持基本的公正，也不会完全被审稿人牵着鼻子走。对于大多数商业出版的学术杂志，作为职业编辑的前科学家在整个审稿过程中起着至关重要的作用，不仅负责选定审稿人，而且可决定审稿人的哪些意见可以忽略或必须重视。 编辑是否能履行同行评审不可一概而论。如果编委、副主编、编辑也是大专家，有科研经历，了解学科前沿，是可以对属于自己研究领域的稿件进行评审把关的。但相反，如果编辑没有科研经历，不了解学科前沿，就很难评审把关了。中国拥有庞大的专职科技编辑队伍，但大多没有科研经历，属于前述后一种情况，能否把关就不言自明了。但现实中，不但有的在评审把关，而且所评审的稿件还不是自己专业领域的。 现在很多期刊、项目评审、各个大学的研究生学位论文基本上都推行同行评审，有的还采用匿名评审制度。设置这个制度的初衷应该说很好，严格执行的话可以有效地保证论文评审、项目评估和研究生的质量。令人遗憾的是，由于种种中国特色的社会文化环境的牵制，使得同行评审制度的作用大打折扣，效果堪忧，有的甚至形同虚设。例如，由于有效同行评审的缺失，导致近年来许多毫无创新价值的垃圾文章、抄袭剽窃的文章、造假的文章等通过学术期刊发表出来，泛滥到学术界，造成资源浪费和极坏的影响。 因此，笔者认为，学术期刊质量的提高应从同行评审抓起。学术期刊是人类文明传承的载体，应通过有效的同行评审真正肩负起学术质量把关人的使命。 参考资料： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/peer.html 陶东风/首都师范大学教授. 学位论文匿名评审形同虚设. 《北京晨报》 , 2006-09. http://edu.people.com.cn/GB/4804303.html 陶飞亚. 学术研究中的同行评审制度. 学习时报，2004-04. http://www.china.com.cn/xxsb/txt/2004-04/13/content_5543764.htm 本期博文思考题： 1 如何改进同行评审？ 2 如何选择合适的评审专家？
http://www.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2009/9/223423.shtm 研究证实带正面结果的论文更受评审人青睐 说明同行评审也无法避免主观和偏见 有科学家曾一直怀疑，带有正面结果的论文（positive paper）更受评审人的青睐。如今，美国科学家的一项试验证实了这种论文评审中的偏见。 美国华盛顿大学的Seth Leopold捏造了2篇关于比较2种抗生素疗法的论文。它们一模一样，除了结果之外论文一称一种疗法比另一种好（正面结果）；而论文二称两种疗法无差异。 Leopold和同事发现，这2篇论文提交给评审者后，评审人推荐发表论文一的可能性远远大于论文二。比如《骨与关节外科杂志美国卷》（ JBJS ）有100多位评审人被邀请评审其中一篇论文，结果98%的评审人推荐发表论文一，只有71%的人推荐发表论文二。更醒目的是，2篇论文方法明明一致，但评审人认为论文一的方法更好；而且评审人更容易发现论文二中隐藏的错误。 Leopold表示：这是基于证据医学的大问题，我们应该对得出正面结果的研究更挑剔一些。 国际出版伦理委员会主席Liz Wager说：这证实了同行评审是由带偏见、主观的人所完成的。所有人都希望新东西起作用，他们就是想相信这些。 Published online | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.914 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.914 News Sneak test shows positive-paper bias Reviewers keener to give thumbs up to papers with positive results Nicola Jones VANCOUVER Reviewers were more critical of no-difference papers than positive papers. GETTY The bias towards positive results in journal publications has been confirmed through a cunning experiment. Seth Leopold of the University of Washington, Seattle, composed two versions of a fake paper comparing the relative benefits of two antibiotic treatments. They were identical except for one critical difference: one paper found that one treatment was better than the other, while the other found no difference between the two. Reviewers were far more likely to recommend the positive result for publication, Leopold and his colleagues found. Worse, reviewers graded the identical 'methods' section as better in the positive paper, and were more likely to find sneakily hidden errors in the 'no-difference' paper, presumably because they were feeling more negative and critical about the latter work. That's a major problem for evidence-based medicine, says Leopold, who presented the work on 11 September at the Sixth International Congress of Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in Vancouver, British Columbia. Such a bias can skew the medical literature towards good reviews of drugs, affecting consensus statements on recommended treatments. We should be more critical of positive studies, he says. Wanting to believe Previous studies have hinted at a 'positive outcome bias', just from the sheer number of papers that get published with positive versus 'no-difference' results. But it wasn't clear if there were some other aspects about 'no-difference' papers, such as methodological problems or a lack of impact, that might make editors turn up their noses. Leopold's study is the first experiment to attempt to pin this down. It just goes to show that peer review is done by biased, subjective people, says Liz Wager, managing director of the Sideview consultancy in Princes Risborough, UK, and chair of the UK-based Committee on Publication Ethics. Everyone wants the new stuff to work they want to believe. It just goes to show that peer review is done by biased, subjective people. Liz Wager Committee on Publication Ethics The two imaginary studies were of very high quality, conforming to all good standards of research, involving multiple study centres and oodles of good data. It's easy to make such a study if you don't have to actually do it, Leopold jokes. They compared two strategies of antibiotic treatment for surgery patients a single dose of drugs before surgery compared with a starter dose plus a 24-hour follow up of drugs. The relative benefit of these strategies is under debate by clinicians, so both a positive and a negative result should have equal impact on patient care both should have been equally interesting. But when more than 100 reviewers at the American edition of Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) were given one of the papers to assess, 98% of reviewers recommended the positive-result paper for publication, while only 71% recommended the nearly identical 'no-difference' paper. Strikingly, these reviewers also gave the entirely identical methods section a full point advantage (on a scale of one to ten) in the positive paper. There's no good explanation for that, says Leopold. That's dirty pool. Error catchers Five intentional small errors were sneaked into the papers, such as having slightly different numbers in a table compared with the text. Reviewers at the JBJS caught only an average of 0.3 errors per reviewer in the positive paper, but perked up their critical faculties to catch 0.7 errors per reviewer in the 'no difference' paper. ADVERTISEMENT
标签: 同行评审
