牛登科：审稿过程的创新性改革尝试

决定一篇学术论文是否发表，目前国际科学界普遍采用的匿名同行评议过程有很多不足（感兴趣的网友自己从科学网上搜搜吧，讨论很多）。针对这些不足，一些国际期刊对审稿过程进行了改革尝试。

几年前，Nature曾尝试公开稿件、读者主动审稿，编辑部根据读者主动上传的审稿意见决定是否录用稿件。结果是因为主动审稿的人太少，这一改革以失败告终。

最近，又有人尝试类似的主动审稿方式。这一次尝试比几年前Nature的做法细腻多了。最终结果虽不好预测，至少这一做法很值得大家关注，所以我简单介绍一下。

这一系统名为Peerage of Science。作者提交的稿件匿名发布到对会员（潜在审稿人群体）开放的系统中，通过论文的关键词提醒潜在审稿人。审稿人对论文做出评价和修改意见，这些审稿意见称为Peerage Essay，日后是可以在Peerage of Science上发表的短文。之后，同行专家再进一步对审稿意见进行评审，给出审稿意见即Peerage Essay的质量打分1-5。作者根据评审过的审稿意见对论文进行修改。要求作者在修改时需要引用Peerage Essay。作者对论文修改完成之后，Peerage Essay的作者对论文质量进行打分1-5，最后Peerage of Science综合Peerage Essay的分数和稿件的分数给出稿件质量的一个评价分数。如果Peerage Essay的质量太差，即使其作者对论文评价很高，最后论文得分也不会太高。只有高质量的审稿意见评价高的论文最终才能的高分。

审稿结束之后，Peerage of Science自动将审稿结果发布给合作期刊，期刊的编辑部直接根据审稿意见决定是否发表该论文。期刊编辑部的运作费用将大幅度降低。一些网友可能对国际期刊运作费用没感觉。我举一例，PLoS Biology的发表费是每篇论文将近3000美元，它的竞争对手Nature出版集团评价说这个价格不足以维持期刊的审稿运作过程，PLoS出版了PLoS one，Nature出版集团说PLoS one降低质量提高收入以便资助同一单位的PLoS Biology等高质量期刊的运作。后来，Nature看到了这一肥肉，自己也创办了类似PLoS ONE的期刊Scientific Reports。由这段小历史可以看出，高质量期刊的审稿运作成本很高。现在Peerage of Science为合作期刊省掉了一大笔费用。如果PLoS Biology成了Peerage of Science的合作期刊，它可能就用不着PLoS ONE来贴补了。

一篇好文章的作者，可能同时拿到几个期刊的发表offer。像是申请出国读博士的人拿到多所学校的offer一样。作者不在屈于劣势了，可以牛气一下，自主选择在哪种期刊上发表自己的论文。同时，作者也可以谁都不理睬，将论文投给没有与Peerage of Science合作的期刊，当然Peerage of Science会将审稿结果转过去。

几年前Nature的尝试因为读者不主动审稿而失败。Peerage of Science系统中，审稿人能得到什么好处呢？无利不起早，要想让审稿人积极起来，必须给好处。Peerage of Science根据审稿质量的高低给审稿人声誉。同时，审稿人的审稿意见可以Peerage Essay的形式发表，相当于Nature的News and Views之类的小综述。另外，由于规定了修改稿必须引用Peerage Essay，所以审稿人的还得到了另一种回报。

由于Peerage of Science发表的Peerage Essay最少每篇被引用一次，也就是说，Peerage of Science不会沦为没人引用、没人理睬的垃圾箱。Peerage of Science作为一种出版物也可以维持下去。

《Science》杂志对此尝试也表示关注

---------------------------------------

A New Way for Journals To Peer Review Papers?

Carsten Rahbek, editor-in-chief of Ecography, has a problem facing many journal editors. “Due to an explosion in the number of submitted papers, we have major problems finding people to review, and the quality has gone down as well,” he says.

So Rahbek's journal, published by Wiley, has joined Peerage of Science, an online social network that aims to provide journals with already-peer-reviewed manuscripts. Recently founded by three Finnish ecologists, the Web site accepts paper submissions—and matches them with potential reviewers: Scientists with a potentially publishable paper can upload it to the Web site, while other members with relevant expertise, alerted by keywords in the papers, can provide reviews that scientific journals can use to decide whether to offer to publish the work.

Janne-Tuomas Sepp?nen, a postdoc at University of Jyv?skyl?, came up with the idea for Peerage of Science in 2010. Scientists receive one credit for every review they finish, whereas uploading a manuscript costs two credits divided by the number of authors. The author who uploads the paper must have a positive balance. “This formalises an unwritten rule: He who wants his manuscripts reviewed, reviews other manuscripts in return,” says Sepp?nen. Since November, four manuscripts have received reviews.

Peerage of Science is currently free for journals, but its founders plan to charge fees that they say will be below what it costs a journal to handle its own peer review. Rahbek has so far encountered one article of interest to Ecography—which he decided not to publish. “But,” he says, “I liked the procedure and the quality of the reviews.” http://scim.ag/peerofsci

----------------------------------------

参考资料
Jef Akst 2012. A Peer Review Revolution? http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/24/a-peer-review-revolution/
Peerage of Science. http://www.peerageofscience.org/