中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度研究  

Research on the Attitudes of Chinese Researchers Towards the Open Peer Review

作　　者：杜杏叶[1,2] 李贺[1] 王玲 刘远颖[2] 易飞[2] 徐健[2] 王传清[2] 王善军[2] 刘晶晶[2] 

机构地区：[1]吉林大学管理学院,长春130022 [2]中国科学院文献情报中心,北京100190

出　　处：《图书情报工作》2018年第2期73-81,共9页Library and Information Service

基　　金：中国科学院文献情报能力建设专项子项目“学术论文可检验性公开评审研究”(项目编号:院1664)研究成果之一

摘　　要：[目的／意义]同行评议作为一种评审制度一直受到“主观”而不够“客观”的批评。公开同行评议可以在一定程度上缓解这个问题。学者对公开同行评议的接受度如何是学术期刊实施该制度首要考虑的问题。[方法／过程]首先通过文献调研对学术论文公开同行评议的概念、相比传统同行评议的优势和不足进行论述，接着就公开评审流程中的公开内容对来自中国各个学科及研究领域的研究人员进行问卷调查，获得中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度数据，并对中国学者对论文开放同行评议的接受度进行分析。[结果／结论]问卷调查对象来自不同的学科领域，其中100％有发文经历，70％以上具有审稿经历，40％以上曾为国际期刊审过稿。调查结果表明，半数（占50．33％）中国学者对学术论文公开评审是接受的，在学术论文评审的不同阶段，中国学者的接受度不同。经过非参数统计检验，不同学科同行评议者接受度有所差异；是否具有国际期刊审稿经验的同行评议专家接受度差异不明显。论文相关分析数据可为中文学术期刊实施公开同行评议制度提供支持。[ Purpose/significance ] As the ＂gatekeeper＂ of scholarly journals, the peer review has been criticized tor lacking the transparency quality assurance. The open peer review, to some extent, could overcome the limitation and live up to the demands of open science and giving reviewers credit. Thus, it is critical for journals to investigate the attitudes of researchers towards the open peer review before it is implemented. [ Method/process ] Based on the literature review, we firstly defined the concept, the pros and cons of the open peer review ; then, we conducted an online survey focusing on the information disclosure willingness during the open review process of respondents, and analyzed the collected data. [ Result/conclusion]304 valid questionnaires from China have been received. All respondents have authored papers and 70% of them have peer review experience, including 40% have review experience for international journals. The result in- dicates that about half （50.33%） of the Chinese researchers maintain a positive attitude towards the open peer review, and the degree of acceptance varies at different stages of the open peer review process. While the discipline of researchers ＂affects their attitudes towards the open peer review, the peer review experience for international journals makes little differ- ence on the results. The results and analysis in this study could serve as a reference for Chinese journals to put the open peer review into practice.

关 键 词：公开同行评议 接受度 学术期刊 学术论文 质量控制 

分 类 号：G250[文化科学—图书馆学]