| 查看: 3303 | 回复: 19 | ||
| 【奖励】 本帖被评价18次，作者flyindusk增加金币 13.75 个 | ||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||
[资源]
Science主编对peer review的Review
|
||
|
这期的Science中Editoral中文章是由Bruce Alberts 【the Editor-in-Chief of Science】 Brooks Hanson 【Deputy Editor for physical sciences at Science】和Katrina L. Kelner 【Deputy Editor for life sciences at Science】三位著名编辑共同完成的，题目是Reviewing Peer Review，算是对一封读者来信【见附件】的回应。 全文【http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5885/15】如下： Peer review, in which experts in the field scrutinize and critique scientific results prior to publication, is fundamental to scientific progress, and the achievements of science in the last century are an endorsement of its value. Peer review influences more than just science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other similar advisory groups base their judgments on peer-reviewed literature, and this is part of their success. Many legal decisions and regulations also depend on peer-reviewed science. Thus, thorough, expert review of research results--without compensation--is an obligation that scientists shoulder for both science and the general public. 【同行评议是科学进步的基础，上个世纪的科学成就证明了它的价值，其影响甚广】 Despite its successes, peer review attracts its share of criticism. Reviewers can exhibit bias or only support expected, pedestrian results. They can be overtaxed, uninformed, or ask for unnecessary experiments (see Letter by Raff et al., p. 36). Recent studies have explored the value of open review, double-blind review, or whether reviews are useful at all. At Science, we read thousands of reviews and author responses each year. From this vantage point, the system does not appear to be irretrievably broken and continues to serve science well. Reviews improve most papers, some dramatically so. Our authors sometimes thank reviewers for catching an embarrassing conclusion or for revealing a new one. We've seen peer review expose fraud (alas, not always), clarify results, and spur new insights. 【同行评议也招致了应有的批评，但仍将继续服务科学】 But peer review is under increasing stress, in ways that are perhaps not fully appreciated. The growth of scientific publishing is placing a burden on the entire scientific enterprise. Papers today are more interdisciplinary, use more techniques, and have more authors. Many have large volumes of data and supplementary material. To compound the problem, papers are often being reviewed multiple times. Most of those rejected by Science go on to be considered at other journals, where the rejection rates have also increased. Before finding a proper venue, a paper may have received four, six, or even eight reviews. So even if the journal that finally publishes the article responds rapidly, the process is often painful and prolonged. 【同行评议的压力与日俱增，造成论文出版过程痛苦而冗长】 The responsibility for addressing this growing inefficiency is shared. Scientists can help by selecting the appropriate journal for their work, and seeking critical input from colleagues and all coauthors, before submitting an article for publication. Senior scientists should also mentor their students and postdoctoral fellows in good reviewing practices, enlarging the pool of qualified referees.* The possibility of repurposing reviews among journals, already practiced by some groups of journals with a single publisher, should be considered seriously. We note a recent experiment in which some independent neuroscience journals have agreed to share reviews. 【导致效率低下的责任可以被分担。作者...，导师...，期刊...】 [期刊之间共享审稿意见挺有意思的，哈] The way scientists and research institutions are evaluated also needs revision. An inappropriately high value is placed on publication in certain journals. Increased competition for the limited slots in these preferred journals exacerbates the natural aggravations of peer review experienced by authors. Efforts like the Faculty of 1000, where experts scan a large set of biology journals and select the best contributions wherever published, can be very helpful. Such efforts can reduce the pressures that many group leaders feel from young scientists, who often place undue emphasis on publishing in a few high-profile journals--where the criteria used for evaluation may not match their research, no matter how valuable the contribution. 【科学家和研究所的评价方法也需要修正】 [看来这种事情国内外都一副德行。可怎么科学时报上老是有人指责国人的评价体系，却从来没有拿出来一份合理的方案甚至意见呢？] Finally, and perhaps most important, authors, reviewers, and journal editors should keep in mind the ultimate goal of scholarly scientific publishing to advance our understanding of the natural world. Competition among labs and personal striving for excellence are forces that can be harnessed to accelerate our progress. But in excess these factors can be impediments. The scientific community must collectively ensure that the peer review process continues to serve the loftier goals of our enterprise, which ultimately benefits us all 【作者、审稿人、期刊编辑应把促进我们对自然世界的理解作为学术出版的最终目标时刻铭记于心。】 [这几位也上过中国义务教育的语文课？   ][ Last edited by nxssw on 2008-8-26 at 17:13 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
关于filecode，很负责任的告诉大家
已经有7人回复
-
【2027博士申请】纳米药物递送方向
已经有5人回复
-
关于豆爷回答的JTJC与%2F数量
已经有7人回复
-
2026国自然放榜时间
已经有3人回复
-
国基金的申报应该改成非等额制，评价高的钱多评价低的钱少，但是增加资助率
已经有7人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有5人回复
2楼2008-07-06 01:00:05
3楼2008-07-06 03:00:34
4楼2008-07-06 10:27:41
5楼2008-07-06 12:18:46
6楼2008-07-06 12:19:27
7楼2008-07-06 20:51:53
8楼2008-07-07 00:23:57
9楼2008-07-07 07:40:57
10楼2008-07-07 16:36:25
11楼2008-07-08 08:26:53
12楼2009-05-21 09:37:02
100