同行评议形式中的编辑权力分析
|
摘要
从编辑的角度出发,探索不同同行评议形式下的编辑权力特点及变化,并深入阐述编辑权力的意义及影响,加深人们对同行评议各形式的理解并引起人们对编辑权力、编辑感受的重视,为编辑部实施、变革、改善同行评议,研究者更全面地看待和设计各种形式提供参考。编辑权力过小带来编辑自身的束缚感,过大带来权力滥用的可能,如何从中平衡是未来研究者设计和构建新的形式、编辑部实践改进的同行评议形式必须考虑的重要问题。
This paper explores the characteristics and changes of editorial power in different peer review forms from the perspective of editor,and elaborates on the meaning and influence of editorial power,in order to deepen people's understanding of various forms of peer review and draw people's attention to editorial power and editorial feelings. The paper provides reference for the editorial department in the implementation,change,and improvement of peer review,and the researchers in view and design of various forms in a more comprehensive way. If the editorial power is too small,it will bring the editor's own sense of restraint. If too big,it will bring the possibility of power abuse. How to balance is an important issue that must be considered by future researchers to design and construct new forms and the editorial department to improve the practice.
This paper explores the characteristics and changes of editorial power in different peer review forms from the perspective of editor,and elaborates on the meaning and influence of editorial power,in order to deepen people's understanding of various forms of peer review and draw people's attention to editorial power and editorial feelings. The paper provides reference for the editorial department in the implementation,change,and improvement of peer review,and the researchers in view and design of various forms in a more comprehensive way. If the editorial power is too small,it will bring the editor's own sense of restraint. If too big,it will bring the possibility of power abuse. How to balance is an important issue that must be considered by future researchers to design and construct new forms and the editorial department to improve the practice.
引文
[1]常唯,李自乐,王成,等.开放评议与双盲评议在国际科技期刊质量控制中的价值[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):18
[2]Peer Review Survey 2009[EB/OL].[2017-12-26].http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2009/
[3]MOYLAN E C,HAROLD S,O’NEILL C,et al.Open,single-blind,double-blind:which peer review process do you prefer?[J].BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology,2014,15(1):55
[4]Feedback received[J].Nature Geoscience,2012(5):585
[5]刘丽萍,刘春丽.开放同行评议利弊分析与建议[J].中国科技期刊研究,2017,28(5):389
[6]卢佳华.学术期刊同行评议新趋势及启示[J].湖北师范大学学报(自然科学版),2018,38(3):125
[7]周京艳,黄裕荣,刘如,等.智能集体评审的缘起和特征[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(3):231
[8]HERNANDEZ L V.How robust is our peer-review system?A review of emerging models[J].Gastrointestinal Endoscopy,2017,85(4):830
[9]KOVANIS M,TRINQUART L,RAVAUD P,et al.Evaluating alternative systems of peer review:a large-scale agentbased modelling approach to scientific publication[J].Scientometrics,2017,113(1):651
[10]JARVIS S.The perils of peer review[J].Veterinary Record,2017,181(12):304
[11]韩长友.学术期刊编辑权力异化及其对策[J].中国科技期刊研究,2008,19(2):284
[12]冯书生.期刊编辑的权力及其伦理限度[N].中国社会科学报,2016-08-09(006)
[13]CASNICI N,GRIMALDO F,GILBERT N,et al.Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal:An empirical analysis[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2017,68(7):1763
[14]WARNE V.Rewarding reviewers:sense or sensibility?AWiley study explained[J].Learned Publishing,2016,29(1):41
[15]GARCIA J A,RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ R,FDEZ-VALDIVIA J.Problems with open participation in peer review[J].Scientometrics,2017,112(3):1881
[2]Peer Review Survey 2009[EB/OL].[2017-12-26].http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2009/
[3]MOYLAN E C,HAROLD S,O’NEILL C,et al.Open,single-blind,double-blind:which peer review process do you prefer?[J].BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology,2014,15(1):55
[4]Feedback received[J].Nature Geoscience,2012(5):585
[5]刘丽萍,刘春丽.开放同行评议利弊分析与建议[J].中国科技期刊研究,2017,28(5):389
[6]卢佳华.学术期刊同行评议新趋势及启示[J].湖北师范大学学报(自然科学版),2018,38(3):125
[7]周京艳,黄裕荣,刘如,等.智能集体评审的缘起和特征[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(3):231
[8]HERNANDEZ L V.How robust is our peer-review system?A review of emerging models[J].Gastrointestinal Endoscopy,2017,85(4):830
[9]KOVANIS M,TRINQUART L,RAVAUD P,et al.Evaluating alternative systems of peer review:a large-scale agentbased modelling approach to scientific publication[J].Scientometrics,2017,113(1):651
[10]JARVIS S.The perils of peer review[J].Veterinary Record,2017,181(12):304
[11]韩长友.学术期刊编辑权力异化及其对策[J].中国科技期刊研究,2008,19(2):284
[12]冯书生.期刊编辑的权力及其伦理限度[N].中国社会科学报,2016-08-09(006)
[13]CASNICI N,GRIMALDO F,GILBERT N,et al.Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal:An empirical analysis[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2017,68(7):1763
[14]WARNE V.Rewarding reviewers:sense or sensibility?AWiley study explained[J].Learned Publishing,2016,29(1):41
[15]GARCIA J A,RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ R,FDEZ-VALDIVIA J.Problems with open participation in peer review[J].Scientometrics,2017,112(3):1881