发表机构
Florida State University; SAS Institute（佛罗里达州立大学; SAS研究所）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究比较两种透明同行评审设计，发现结构差异显著，但功能分布相似，建议平台将交际劳动作为内置功能支持。
AI 中文摘要
开放同行评审被倡导为一种使评审更具对话性的方式，然而关于它是否改变参与者行为的证据仍然稀缺。我们比较了两种透明的评审设计：《自然·人类行为》杂志采用的编辑中介模型，以及2023年国际学习表征会议采用的基于讨论的模型。我们将交叉提及——即某位参与者明确提到直接二元组之外的另一位参与者的时刻——作为分析单元，结合对56篇《自然·人类行为》文章和371篇ICLR重要论文的社会网络分析，以及基于知识建构理论的定性编码。在结构上，《自然·人类行为》形成中心辐射型网络，评审员之间互引为零，而ICLR形成部分网状网络，直接交叉引用显著更多。在功能上，各场所的交际功能分布相似，但执行者不同：编辑在《自然·人类行为》中聚集，而作者和评审员在ICLR中承担了该劳动。两种设计在交际劳动如何跨角色分布上差异最大，这表明平台应将其作为明确的内置功能来支持。
英文摘要
Open peer review is advocated as a way to make review more dialogic, yet evidence on whether it changes participant behavior remains scarce. We compare two transparent review designs: Nature Human Behaviour, an editor-mediated model, and International Conference on Learning Representations 2023, a discussion-based model. Treating cross-mentions, moments when one participant explicitly names another beyond the immediate dyad, as the analytic unit, we combine social network analysis of 56 NHB articles and 371 ICLR notable papers with qualitative coding grounded in Knowledge Building theory. Structurally, NHB forms hub-and-spoke networks with zero reviewer-to-reviewer reciprocity, whereas ICLR forms partial-mesh networks with significantly more direct cross-referencing. Functionally, the distribution of communicative functions is similar across venues, but who performs them differs: editors aggregate at NHB, while authors and reviewers absorb that labor at ICLR. The designs differ most in how communicative labor is distributed across roles, suggesting platforms should support it as explicit, built-in functions.
CommentsAccepted to the 29th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2026)
