开放审稿的必要性及可行性探讨

开放审稿本质上是作者与审稿人身份公开。目前对于开放审稿的确切定义和实施方式学界尚未达成共识。开放审稿最大的优势就是为学术交流提供了一个新的平台,并有助于增强审稿人责任感和维护学术公正。技术仅是开放审稿的一种手段,不应成为其制约因素。开放审稿面临的最大挑战是能否被学术界认可与接受。     

Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance

Many scientific publications are careless, useless or false, and inhibit scholarly communication and scientific progress. This is caused by the failure of traditional journal publishing and peer review to provide efficient scientific exchange and quality assurance in today's highly diverse world of science. The most promising way to improve matters is a two‐stage (or multi‐stage) publication processes with interactive peer review and public discussion in new and traditional scientific journals. A concept for such interactive scientific journals is outlined, and its applicability is demonstrated by the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.     

网络学术期刊运作模式研究

在界定网络学术期刊的基础上，从国际化水平、稿件接收与评审、出版形式、读者服务、经费与版权问题、平行载体等方面探讨网络学术期刊的运作模式，指出其对构建新的学术交流体系和形成新的学术出版格局的意义。     

The evolution of Web‐based peer‐review systems

Web‐based peer‐review systems are ubiquitous within scholarly publishing today, providing valuable efficiencies for authors, editors, and referees. These systems are the result of a general evolution from paper‐based workflows to electronic processes that began in the 1970s. DOS‐based systems paved the way for Windows desktop systems and, in the mid‐1990s, Web‐based peer review. Governmental, academic, and commercial stakeholders all participated in advancing the state of peer review by experimenting with different technologies, workflows, and features. These experiments have coalesced into a new steady state in which Web‐based peer‐review systems are the norm, and in which continued evolution tends to focus on incremental improvements to traditional workflow.     

学术出版的最佳实践:ISMTE首届亚洲会议综述(Ⅰ)

基于ISMTE首届亚洲会议的召开,对会议议题——出版伦理、出版数据监测与研究成果评价指标、开放获取、行业协会资源、出版技术和平台、出版实践新标准、投审稿系统、作者服务、编辑部运作等进行综述.综述分为《学术出版的最佳实践:ISMTE首届亚洲会议综述》(Ⅰ)(Ⅱ)2篇.本篇综述的内容对象为出版伦理、开放获取、出版数据监测和评价指标.通过此会议综述,期望对国内的学术出版会议的举办、议题的设置、编辑部的运作等提供参考和借鉴,从而使国内的学术期刊受益且更好地发展,为国家的创新建设提供专业服务.     

Current and Evolving Models of Peer Review

New models of scientific publishing and new ways of practicing peer review have injected a recent dynamism into the scholarly communication system. In this article, we delineate the context of the traditional peer-review model, reflect on some of the first experiences with open peer review, and forecast some of the challenges that new models for peer review will have to meet. Our findings suggest that the peer-review function has the potential to be divorced from the journal system, so that the responsibility to judge the significance of a paper may no longer fall exclusively to formal reviewers, but may be assessed by the whole readership community.     

Peer review: still king in the digital age

The article presents one of the main findings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer‐review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print‐based system to a digital system, but it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although significantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other significant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed.     

第三方开放同行评议模式研究

第三方开放同行评议逐步成为开放科学环境下预印本质量控制的有效途径和学术期刊同行评议的有益补充。本文对第三方开放同行评议的发展历程进行梳理,将第三方开放同行评议服务的开展方式归纳为第三方平台的评议和出版服务、预印本平台采用的第三方服务以及学术期刊采用的第三方服务3种主要形式。在此基础上,从评议对象与评议内容呈现方式、评议质量控制机制、评议人激励机制、学术社区建设等方面对第三方开放同行评议模式的特点进行分析,阐述其优越性,并结合国内同行评议现状总结该模式对我国业界的启示与借鉴。     

同行评审的新趋势

为避免传统同行评审形式出现的诸多弊端,学术出版界不断探索新的同行评议方法,出现了诸多的创新。本文主要对当前正在尝试的新兴同行评审方法进行调查,并介绍相关经验。这些创新方法包括开放性同行评审、非选择性同行评审、开放预审稿件的公众评审、便携式同行评审、反弹式同行评审、背书式同行评审。调查结果显示,同行评审实践发生了巨大的变化,与互联网革命和开放获取出版紧密相关,科学出版商为作者提供了更多的选择,新的同行评议形式为学术交流注入了新的活力。     

The scholarly publishing industry in China: overview and opportunities

The rapid growth of government investment in scientific research in China over past decades has also caused the scholarly publishing industry to go through great changes. Nevertheless, there is a big gap between the state of China's scholarly publishing industry and the current demands of international scientific communication. Globalization and digitization developments are currently widening this gap. Based on desk research, face‐to‐face interviews, observations, and experience, we identify the current business challenges for scholarly publishing in China, and provide a list of suggestions to narrow the gap.     

学术图书馆参与数字出版的动因与条件分析

[目的/意义]了解学术图书馆对新的出版环境的感知和应对情况以及学术图书馆出版服务现状,分析学术图书馆参与数字出版的潜在动力和优势条件,从理论与实践两方面论证学术图书馆参与数字出版服务的重要性、必要性和可行性。[方法/过程]首先介绍学术图书馆在促进学术交流中所承担的角色与使命,分析学术出版的功能作用;讨论学术图书馆参与数字出版的潜在效益。继之,主要选取分别代表开放存取期刊、仓储和图书的DOAJ、OPenDOAR、DOAB作为开放存取出版现状的调研对象,选择ARL和SPARC研究图书馆出版服务相关报告并调研图书馆出版联盟,以了解国内外学术图书馆的出版服务现状。在此基础上,进一步分析总结学术图书馆参与数字出版所具备的内容资源、技术平台、用户、人才等方面的优势条件,并简要讨论学术图书馆参与数字出版的角色和功能定位。[结果/结论]总结学术图书馆参与数字出版的动因和条件以及可能面临的不确定性,并相应提出可能的应对策略。     

学术论文的网络首发:愿景·瓶颈·应对策略

中国知网推出网络首发创新应用,对推进我国科学信息的传播与交流有重要意义.但推行网络首发将遭遇现实瓶颈:知网与期刊利益博弈不尽均衡、网络首发成果实践认定有待观察、传统出版流程的局限、人力资源的短缺及已有数字平台的功能重叠.推进我国学术论文全面实现互联网首发,需要知网与期刊双方舍弃部分利益,寻求共赢之路;期刊出版流程应在保证原则性的前提下兼顾灵活性,如优化定稿流程,确定首发稿合适的编辑标准;知网应规范平台管理,实现平台差异化发展.克服现实瓶颈,全面推进学术论文网络首发,需要多方携手共进,方能实现我国学术论文互联网出版的跨越式发展.     

国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评

[目的/意义]综述国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践,以期为国内学术出版提供参考。[方法/过程]通过对国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践加以述评,分析其优势和挑战,总结创新实践的整体趋势。[结果/结论]预印本和发表后同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更快捷的期待,非选择性同行评议和注册报告反映了人们对同行评议更客观的期待,开放同行评议和协作同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更公平的期待,而这些创新实践具有各自的优势及挑战。国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践总体上呈现出加快发表速度、拓宽发文范围、弱化以刊评文、促进科学民主和认证审稿贡献的趋势。     

中美高校图书馆学术出版素养教育的比较研究

[目的/意义] 在学术出版与传播机制日益复杂的背景下，学术出版素养成为研究人员不可或缺的技能。美国高校图书馆的学术出版素养教育有一定成功经验，能够为中国的学术出版素养教育提供指导。[方法/过程] 以美国排名前10位的高校图书馆和中国40所"双一流"高校图书馆为调查对象，对这些图书馆开展的学术出版素养教育实践进行调查，主要从教育形式与教育内容方面进行比较，分析中美学术出版素养教育的异同。[结果/结论] 对我国高校图书馆学术出版素养教育的启示是：深化教育合作，促进学术出版素养教育的不断完善；选择适当的教育形式，兼顾教育的系统性与针对性；针对学术出版需求，构建全方位的教育内容体系。     

国际OA出版平台现状及“互联网+学术期刊”出版模式改革建议

以“互联网+”思维为基础,研究国际上几个代表性OA出版平台如DOAJ、BMC、PLoS的运营模式,分析国内外政府机构对OA出版的资金和政策支持,提出一套系统性的改革方案.认为基于互联网的数字出版模式渐成趋势,我国学术期刊应运用互联网思维改革办刊模式,开发自主云出版平台,创办一批国际领先水平的高质量OA英文期刊,在推动国内现有英文期刊精品化、国际化的同时,促进中文期刊可持续发展,从而整体提升我国学术期刊的综合影响力.     

预印本网站的兴起给学术期刊带来的启示

预印本网站的风起云涌为传统的学术出版带来了前所未有的挑战.本文从分析预印本的特点出发,讨论其与学术期刊相比在促进学术交流和学术成果传播方面具有的优势及其未来发展存在的局限性,从而提出了学术期刊面对预印本带来的挑战应采取的措施,包括缩短同行评议周期、增加同行评议的透明度、实行开放获取和修订学术论文的评价体系等,以便更好地适应移动互联网时代的科学研究对学术出版的新需求.     

美国大学出版社与图书馆的多元化合作

学术出版物价格的攀升和学术传播电子化发展趋势促使美国大学出版社与图书馆开展合作,共同促进学术传播。双方合作方式灵活多样,主要涉及:图书馆帮助出版社进行印刷版图书的电子化;合作建立电子出版平台或合作出版学术期刊;图书馆帮助出版社建设有关图书、编辑等的论坛;共同举办学术活动;出版社帮助图书馆销售电子产品或与图书馆共同出版学术著作等。     

The future of academic publishing: Revolution or evolution revisited

This article presents an analysis of key trends affecting the academic publishing industry. It reviews funding and sales, scholarly collaboration networks, developments in OA, and monograph publishing. These key areas were identified in an earlier article that asked whether academic publishing was evolving or going through a revolution. The review of funding and sales presented here shows a mixed market with growth being challenged as library funds and purchase choices affect expenditure. Scholarly collaboration networks were previously identified as a major threat to traditional publishing, and a review of this area demonstrates that greater sharing of content is empowering librarians and academics to take a stronger stand in publisher negotiations. OA continues to be debated, and a review of responses to Plan S (the most coordinated policy to date) demonstrates conflicting views within academia, funders, and publishers. OA has yet to revolutionize the existing business models. Similarly, monograph publishing remains slow to evolve, although there are increasing initiatives to adopt more open, and online, models. The conclusion of this review is that libraries are likely to be the key promoters of change in the publishing environment and are more influential than other players in forcing evolution.