Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal.
Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fncom.2011.00055
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Baker CI
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kravitz DJ;Baker CI
目前生物科学的出版体系以其冗余、不一致、迟缓和不透明而闻名。这些问题持续存在，并变得更糟，因为同行评审系统仍然专注于决定是否在特定期刊上发表论文，而不是提供（1）对科学价值的高质量评估和（2）组织和优先考虑文献所需的信息。在线访问已经消除了对期刊作为分销渠道的需求，因此它们目前的主要作用是在出版前为作者提供反馈，并为其他研究人员提供一种快速的方法，以根据期刊发表论文来优先考虑文献。然而，审稿人提供的反馈并不关注科学价值，而是关注是否在特定期刊上发表，这通常对作者没有多大用处，也是对文献进行优先排序的一个不透明和嘈杂的基础。此外，每提交一份被拒绝的手稿都需要整个同行评审机制重新启动。这种冗余会导致延迟、不一致，并增加作者、审稿人和编辑的负担。最后，评审员没有真实的动机去做好或快速的评审，因为他们的表现没有被跟踪，更不用说奖励了。修改当前同行评审系统的一个一致建议是引入某种形式的出版后接收，并开发一个市场，其中论文的优先级根据其在该领域的接收情况而上升和福尔斯（见本专题的其他文章）。然而，伴随论文进入市场的信息与市场机制一样重要。除了关于接收机制的建议之外，我们还建议更新出版系统，保证出版，但出版前的同行评审仍然存在，让作者有机会在现场进行小型预接收后修改他们的作品。这一步还为市场提供了一组一致的排名和评论，允许早期优先级排序并稳定其早期动态。我们进一步建议通过为做得好的人提供切实的奖励来提高审查的总体质量。
The current system of publishing in the biological sciences is notable for its redundancy, inconsistency, sluggishness, and opacity. These problems persist, and grow worse, because the peer review system remains focused on deciding whether or not to publish a paper in a particular journal rather than providing (1) a high-quality evaluation of scientific merit and (2) the information necessary to organize and prioritize the literature. Online access has eliminated the need for journals as distribution channels, so their primary current role is to provide authors with feedback prior to publication and a quick way for other researchers to prioritize the literature based on which journal publishes a paper. However, the feedback provided by reviewers is not focused on scientific merit but on whether to publish in a particular journal, which is generally of little use to authors and an opaque and noisy basis for prioritizing the literature. Further, each submission of a rejected manuscript requires the entire machinery of peer review to creak to life anew. This redundancy incurs delays, inconsistency, and increased burdens on authors, reviewers, and editors. Finally, reviewers have no real incentive to review well or quickly, as their performance is not tracked, let alone rewarded. One of the consistent suggestions for modifying the current peer review system is the introduction of some form of post-publication reception, and the development of a marketplace where the priority of a paper rises and falls based on its reception from the field (see other articles in this special topics). However, the information that accompanies a paper into the marketplace is as important as the marketplace’s mechanics. Beyond suggestions concerning the mechanisms of reception, we propose an update to the system of publishing in which publication is guaranteed, but pre-publication peer review still occurs, giving the authors the opportunity to revise their work following a mini pre-reception from the field. This step also provides a consistent set of rankings and reviews to the marketplace, allowing for early prioritization and stabilizing its early dynamics. We further propose to improve the general quality of reviewing by providing tangible rewards to those who do it well.
影响因子：
12.6
作者：
Suls, Jerry;Martin, Rene
通讯作者：
Martin, Rene
影响因子：
29.3
作者：
PETERS, DP;CECI, SJ
通讯作者：
CECI, SJ