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.     

退稿转投推荐的研究与实现

退稿转投时带来的发表延误和同行评审重负是一个受到各界重视但未能得到有效解决的问题。结合文献和国际著名期刊网站的调研与分析表明,便携式同行评审与稿件转投服务为解决这一问题提供了方向。退稿及其同行评审的转投推荐能提高转投稿件处理效率、缓解同行评审压力,也是提升作者科学素养的现实途径,对我国科技期刊改善同行评审和期刊合作、缩短稿件出版周期具有借鉴价值。     

Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report

Background:Every step in the systematic review process has challenges, ranging from resistance by review teams to adherence to standard methodology to low-energy commitment to full participation. These challenges can derail the project and result in significant delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete the review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly and is identified as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews.Case Presentation:This case report presents effective communication approaches that our librarians employ to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. The communication strategies we describe engage teams through information, questions, and action items and lead to productive collaborations with publishable systematic reviews.Conclusions:Effective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.     

Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.     

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...     

Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: Lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach

The successful publication of peer reviewed academic journal articles is an essential achievement for early career researchers (ECRs) seeking to establish themselves in their profession. However, this journey can pose several significant challenges for ECRs. We use an autoethnographic approach that draws deeply on our lived experience as ECRs to capture our recent and current experiences of negotiating the academic journal article publication journey to explore the tensions, contradictions, and benefits encountered in the journey. We critically examine challenges we experienced in choosing a target journal and negotiating the follow‐up process; undertaking revisions; and our experiences of limitations and possibilities in peer review and editorial support. While the peer review journal writing process has played a significant role in supporting us to become more effective ECRs, we also highlight challenges we faced negotiating ethical quandaries in this space, as well as illustrate how our preconceptions of a simple publication journey were confounded by subsequent experience of the complex realities of the space. We also suggest that educational interventions are indicated to provide ECRs support in foundational knowledge about what constitutes valuable revisions, an effective paper, and the scope of issues that can be addressed to make a paper more effective, with reference to the possibility of academic mentoring to support this need. Finally, we explore our findings in light of the tensions imposed by the relative inexperience and lack of power yielded by ECRs.     

Against the grain: Reading for the challenges of collaborative digital humanities pedagogy

ABSTRACT

This article provides a critical review of the past five years of literature in digital humanities pedagogy and faculty-librarian collaboration, commingled with reflections on personal practice, which extend findings from the literature. Faculty-librarian partnerships in DH pedagogy reflect a rapidly evolving area of engagement calling for expertise in teaching, subject knowledge, scholarly communication, digital technologies, and DH research methodologies. Although there is a rapidly expanding body of literature on these partnerships, the challenges of the work tend to be minimized. This article expands upon commonly encountered difficulties, and it points to potential solutions and best practices.     

注册式研究报告的同行评议机制研究

[目的/意义]近年来频发的"学术丑闻"对我国的科研评议机制提出新的挑战。而在开放科学运动中兴起的注册式研究报告因其独特的同行评议机制,能有效地提高研究过程、评估环节的透明度,减少审稿过程中的出版偏见,确保学术严谨和科研质量,最大程度地减少学术造假行为。对注册式研究报告的同行评议机制现状和特点进行分析,以期为我国同行评议的创新发展和科学完善提供参考。[方法/过程]综合运用网络调研法和内容分析法,从注册式研究报告同行评议机制的评议流程、评议形式、评议效率、评议道德指南、同行评议专家库建设等方面进行分析,探讨注册式研究报告同行评议机制中作者、评议专家、编辑三者之间关系以及相关权利,总结注册式研究报告的同行评议机制的特征。[结果/结论]注册式研究报告同行评议机制创新性特点主要表现在：①审稿流程与标准的优化：注册式研究报告实行两次同行评议的新模式,不再仅以专家主观判断为标准,同时评议专家选择和专家意见处理等流程科学合理;②审稿匿名性和交互性的改进：同行评议的形式多样化,在保持基本的制衡关系中追求最大的灵活性;③审稿效率的提升：并行式的评议信息传递方式、明文化规定和系统化监惩机制促成高效率的同行评议。注册式研究报告同行评议机制的先进性特点主要表现在：①建立严格且细致的评议专家道德规范体系;②重视同行评议专家库的建设,形成完善的评议专家激励机制。     

科技期刊为审稿专家减负的4种策略

为了缩短审稿周期,保证审稿质量,使审稿专家与期刊建立长期愉快合作的关系,科技期刊不能忽视专家在审稿减负上的需求。科技期刊可以从准确选择审稿专家、科学设计审稿单、灵活培训审稿专家、编辑人员和审稿系统协助减负等4个方面减轻专家的审稿强度,为他们创造更友好、更高效的审稿平台和审稿环境。     

中华妇产科杂志审稿现状及对策

为探讨科技期刊审稿中存在的关键问题及解决对策,抽取200份中华妇产科杂志2000年审稿单及60篇论著类文稿的144份专家审稿意见,分别对审稿时间和审稿质量进行分析.除去初审退稿外,外审时间最短7 d,最长206 d,平均42.7 d,一篇文稿从来稿到刊出平均最快要7个月;60篇论著类文稿的专家审稿单144份,共提出审稿意见263条,最少1条,最多7条,平均1.83条(两审意见重叠时,按1条计算).建议:1)根据来稿总量调整初审退稿比率;2)建立标准化审稿程序;3)完善和扩大审稿队伍;4)建立专业副总编评审制度;5)提高编辑自身素质.     

同行评议面临的问题与可行性措施

针对同行评议审稿机制在审稿质量和审稿周期等方面存在的问题,分析其原因,并针对其局限性提出制订科学、规范的同行评议的审稿规则、加强审稿专家培训、利用网络改进同行评议形式等措施。     

专家审稿工作中的问题与对策

有感于审稿的重要性,编辑部及编辑对审稿人和审稿工作的影响,针对专家审稿工作中存在的问题,即审稿时间长、审稿意见简单、审稿意见相左等,提出了改进专家审稿工作的建议和对策.     

改进专家审稿方式提升刊物学术质量

结合《中国科技资源导刊》编辑部审理稿件的实践,分析专家审稿存在的问题,阐述增加稿件分类和集体审稿步骤后取得的成效,并对改进审稿方式和审稿内容提出了建议。     

开放科学和科研评价改革背景下我国学术期刊同行评议的改革趋向

从国际开放科学运动、国内科研评价改革的现实背景出发,针对我国现行同行评议面临的挑战,指出改革我国学术期刊同行评议的必要性。立足同行评议的目的,提出我国学术期刊同行评议改革应向减轻评议人负担、充分利用新技术、创新评议方式、建立事后评议机制4个方向发展,并提出净化学术生态、加强制度设计、设定行为监督、建立激励和反馈机制4条保障举措,最后对同行评议改革的模式和可能存在的问题进行了展望。     

客观评价审稿贡献 消除同行评议瓶颈

为了应对专业期刊审稿工作的困境,对国外平台审稿工作的奖励方法进行分析,旨在使审稿人的审稿工作得到经济或学术的认可.认为应建立合理的度量审稿工作的指标,寻找有效的方法来激励审稿人积极参与期刊的审稿工作,以调动审稿人审稿的积极性,从而促进期刊学术水平的提高.     

Real-Time Peer Review: An Innovative Feature to an Evidence-Based Practice Conference

Many health sciences librarians as well as other professionals attend conferences on a regular basis. This study sought to link an innovative peer review process of presented research papers to long-term conference outcomes in the peer-reviewed professional journal literature. An evidence-based conference included a proof-of-concept study to gauge the long-term outcomes from research papers presented during the program. Real-time peer review recommendations from the conference were linked to final versions of articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. The real-time peer review feedback served as the basis for further mentoring to guide prospective authors toward publishing their research results. These efforts resulted in the publication of two of the four research papers in the peer-viewed literature. A third presented paper appeared in a blog because the authors wanted to disseminate their findings more quickly than through the journal literature. The presenters of the fourth paper never published their study. Real-time peer review from this study can be adapted to other professional conferences that include presented research papers.