Nature杂志审稿发稿机制研究  

Study on the Mechanism of Refereeing and Publishing by Nature

作　　者：穆蕴秋[1] 江晓原[1] MU Yunqiu;JIANG Xiaoyuan(School of History and Culture of Science,Shanghai Jiao Tong University,Shanghai,200240)

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学科学史与科学文化研究院,上海200240

出　　处：《自然辩证法通讯》2022年第3期89-100,共12页Journal of Dialectics of Nature

基　　金：上海市“浦江人才计划项目(C类)”资助“期刊影响因子对中国学界的负面影响及应对策略研究”(项目编号:17PJC063)。

摘　　要：本文考察了“水的记忆”和著名的DNA双螺旋发现等七个科学论文案例,结合发表过程中出现的反常现象的背景和缘由,对Nature杂志的审稿发稿机制做了系统的深入研究。得出结论:Nature作为顶级科学杂志,创刊至今从不设编委会,也不实行通常意义上的同行评议,它无意传统意义上的“学术公器”。而且多年来Nature从不隐瞒它的办刊立场和做法,只是国内一些学者想当然地将“理想科学期刊”的完美想象投射到Nature身上。事实表明,这些学者被主观想象所迷惑,并进而误导了国内学界、媒体和公众。科技期刊作为国家文化软实力的重要载体之一,当前却是我国学术体系建设中的显著短板,本文研究有助于拓展我国科技期刊的建设思路,为提升办刊能力提供参考。This paper makes an in-depth investigation into the mechanism of refereeing and publishing by Nature,with the abnormal implementation background and causes in the publishing process in seven case studies including“water memory”and the famous discovery of the DNA double helix.Hereupon we can draw a conclusion that,as a top science journal,Nature is not an“academic instrument”in the traditional sense,because it has neither an editorial board nor the peer review process,and its running method is the same as that of the popular journals.Nature has never hidden its true position and practice,but some scholars in China insist on imposing the vision of an ideal journal on Nature without any analysis.The facts have proved that these scholars have been seriously confused by the false imagination,thus misleading the Chinese academics,media and the public.Sci-tech journals are one kind of important carriers of national soft power,but at present they constitute an obvious weakness in the construction of Chinese academic system.This study is helpful to broadening the horizon and improving the abilities of running journals in China.

关 键 词：“水的记忆” DNA双螺旋 顺势疗法 审稿 发稿 

分 类 号：N031[自然科学总论—科学技术哲学]