"Let the community decide"? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals
"Let the community decide"? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1108/jd-06-2017-0092
复制
发表时间：
2018-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Valérie Spezi;S. Wakeling;S. Pinfield;J. Fry;Claire Creaser;P. Willett
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Valérie Spezi;S. Wakeling;S. Pinfield;J. Fry;Claire Creaser;P. Willett
目的：本研究的目的是更好地了解开放获取大型期刊（OAMJs）同行评议的理论和实践。大型期刊通常采用“仅限可靠性”的审查政策，旨在仅评估文章的严谨性，而不是研究的新颖性或重要性或其与特定社区的相关性，这些因素在发表后由“社区决定”。设计/方法/方法：本文报告了对31位资深出版商和编辑的采访结果，他们代表16个不同的组织，其中包括10个出版OAMJ的组织。对数据进行了专题分析，并开发了一个分析模型来说明其意义。研究结果：研究结果表明，在现实中，超出技术或科学合理性的标准可以而且确实影响编辑决策。与原始OAMJ模式的偏离既有出版商支持的（以文章“值得”发表的要求的形式），也有实践驱动的（以一些审稿人和编辑将传统的同行评议标准应用于大型期刊投稿的形式）。此外，出版商认为出版后对新颖性、重要性和相关性的评估仍然存在问题。原创性/价值：这项研究是基于对资深出版商和编辑前所未有的访问，从而深入了解他们的战略和运营重点。这篇论文是第一篇报道深度定性数据的论文，专门报道了oamj的纯可靠性同行评议，为巨型期刊现象提供了新的视角，并有助于讨论其在学术交流中的未来角色。本文提出了一个新的模型来理解大型期刊的质量保证方法，以及它与传统同行评议的不同之处。
Purpose: The aim of this research is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). Mega-journals typically operate a “soundness only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication. Design/methodology/approach: The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic Analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance. Findings: Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher-supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be ‘worthy’ of publication) and practice-driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to mega-journal submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance, and relevance remains problematic. Originality/value: The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the mega-journal phenomenon, and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the mega-journal approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.