Peer review and journal models
Paolo Dall'Aglio
替代性同行评议与期刊模式的初步分析。开放获取和影响因子问题不包括在内。参考书目按字母顺序列出了文章和网站（附有简要说明）。
Tentative analysis of alternative peer review and journal models. Open Access and Impact factor issues are not covered. The bibliography, in alphabetical order, lists articles and web sites (with brief description).
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
继续探索
This is a Commentary in $Physics~Today$ on the novel review process developed by the biology journal $eLife$, with the suggestion that it be adopted by physics journals.
Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review
本文通过数学模型揭示同行评审中作者、评审者和读者的激励互动，指出提交量增加导致评审质量下降的反馈循环，并提出干预措施以缓解同行评审危机。
This paper aims at providing a statistical model for the preferred behavior of authors submitting a paper to a scientific journal. The electronic submission of (about 600) papers to the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society has been recorded for every day from Jan. 01, 2013 till Dec. 31, 2014, together with the acceptance or rejection paper fate. Seasonal effects and editor roles (through desk rejection and subfield editors) are examined. An ARCH-like econometric model is derived stressing the main determinants of the favorite day-of-week process.
Beyond journals and peer review: towards a more flexible ecosystem for scholarly communication
本文挑战期刊与同行评审不可或缺的假设，提出将传播与评估服务分离的灵活学术交流生态系统，通过开放存储库和引入多维非同行评审，促进知识进步与范式转变。
This paper presents a novel method for finding features in the analysis of variable distributions stemming from time series. We apply the methodology to the case of submitted and accepted papers in peer-reviewed journals. We provide a comparative study of editorial decisions for papers submitted to two peer-reviewed journals: the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) and this MDPI Entropy journal. We cover three recent years for which the fate of submitted papers, about 600 papers to JSCS and 2500 to Entropy, is completely determined. Instead of comparing the number distributions of t…
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a model for measuring the efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts by editors. The approach employed is based on the assumption that the editorial aim is to manage publication with high efficiency, employing the least amount of editorial resources. Efficiency is defined in this research as a measure based on 7 variables. An on-line survey was constructed and editors of journals originating from Serbia regularly publishing articles in the field of chemistry were invited to participate. An evaluation of the model is given based on res…
Accelerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm
科学出版物的数量不断增加，增加了审查过程的压力。投稿的数量实际上更高，因为每篇稿件在出版前往往要经过多次审查。面对大量的投稿，顶级期刊拒绝了相当一部分未经审查的手稿，可能会拒绝有价值的手稿。这种情况令作者、审稿人和编辑都感到沮丧。最近，几位编辑撰写了关于“评论家共同体的悲剧”的文章，主张对该系统进行紧急纠正。几乎每个科学家都有关于如何改进该系统的想法，但如果不是不可能的话，也很难进行实验来测试哪些措施最有效。令人惊讶的是，相对较少的尝试已经取得了模型同行评审。在这里，我实现了一个模拟框架中，同行评议的想法可以定量测试。我将作者，审稿人，手稿和期刊纳入一个基于代理的模型和同行评议系统出现从他们的互动。作为一个概念验证，我对比了当前系统的实现，在该系统中，作者决定他们提交的期刊，与一个系统中，期刊投标的手稿出版。我表明，在其他条件相同的情况下，后一种系统解决了目前与同行评审过程相关的大部分问题。管理员的评价更快，作者发表的文章更多，发表在更好的期刊上，审稿人的努力得到了最佳利用。然而，编辑需要做更多的工作。这个建模框架可以用来测试其他同行评议的解决方案，为改善科学传播方式铺平道路。
With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically i…
This paper aims at providing an introduction to the behavior of authors submitting a paper to a scientific journal. Dates of electronic submission of papers to the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society have been recorded from the 1st January 2013 till the 31st December 2014, thus over 2 years. There is no Monday or Friday effect like in financial markets, but rather a Tuesday-Wednesday effect occurs: papers are more often submitted on Wednesday; however, the relative number of going to be accepted papers is larger if these are submitted on Tuesday. On the other hand, weekend days (Saturday a…
What the Cited and Citing Environments Reveal of "Advances in Atmospheric Sciences"?
期刊的网络化能力反映了其在同行期刊中的学术影响力。运用社会网络分析方法对《大气科学进展》的被引情况和被引环境进行了分析。该杂志一直积极参与国际期刊环境，但有一种倾向是引用在国际期刊上发表的论文。《大气科学进展》与国际同行期刊的引用模式相似，具有很强的相关性。然而，由于引用参考文献的接受程度相对较低，其学术知名度仍有提高的空间。
Peer review is a cornerstone of modern scientific endeavor. However, there is growing consensus that several limitations of the current peer review system, from lack of incentives to reviewers to lack of transparency, risks to undermine its benefits. Here, we introduce the PRINCIPIA (http://www.principia.network/) framework for peer-review of scientific outputs (e.g., papers, grant proposals or patents). The framework allows key players of the scientific ecosystem -- including existing publishing groups -- to create and manage peer-reviewed journals, by building a free market for reviews and p…
Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review
同行评议是现代科学的支柱。F1000Prime是一个生物医学文献（来自医学和生物学期刊的论文）的出版后同行评审系统。本研究旨在探讨F1000Prime同侪互评系统中同侪推荐信的评者间信度与聚合效度。该研究基于约10万篇论文，并附有教师的建议。即使主体间性在科学中发挥着重要作用，对F1000 Prime同行评议系统可靠性的分析表明，教师之间的一致性水平相当低。这一结果与大多数其他已发表在期刊同行评审系统上的研究一致。采用Logistic回归模型对F1000Prime同行评议系统的聚合效度进行了研究。结果显示，高被引论文在学院成员选择的论文中所占的比例明显高于预期。此外，更好的推荐分数也与更好的论文表现有关。
Quantifying the quality of peer reviewers through Zipf's law
本文介绍了一个统计和其他分析同行评审员，以接近他们的“质量”，通过一些量化措施，从而导致一些质量度量。审查了《塞尔维亚化学学会杂志》的同行评审报告。每份报告的文本必须首先适应字数统计软件，以避免在搜索词频时使用行话引起混乱：例如，必须区分C，这取决于它是指碳还是摄氏度等。此后，对每份报告中的词汇数量、种类和分布进行检查，并与整套报告进行比较。两个不同的月份，根据报告的时间，被区分出来，以观察任何可能隐藏的虚假影响。一致性被发现。通过齐普夫-帕累托秩-大小定律寻找经验分布。据指出，同级审评报告在这方面与通常的案文相差甚远。偏离通常的（第一）齐普夫定律进行了讨论。在这种情况下，从熵参数，通过“距离平均值”的概念，提供了一个理论上的建议，为“最好（或最差）的报告”，并通过扩展“好（或坏）的评论家”。另一种基于熵的测量方法也允许测量期刊评论（评审员），以便通过他们自己的评审员报告与其他期刊进行进一步比较。
Past Performance as Predictor of Successful Grant Applications: A Case Study
竞争性分配研究经费是科学系统内的一种主要机制。它基本上是基于同行审查的思想。同行评审是项目选择的核心，因为同行被认为处于独特的地位，可以识别和选择最好和最具创新性的研究人员和研究项目。在这项研究中，我们评估的做法，同行评议为基础的项目选择。最基本的问题是“最好的研究人员能得到资助吗？”换句话说，基于同行审查的质量指标是否能预测获得资助的成功？下一个要回答的问题是关于同行评审。同行评议者是否确实认可最好的研究人员，随后，研究委员会的决定是否基于同行评议的结果？最后，我们回答了其他因素是否影响获得资助的概率的问题，如共同申请人的作用，性别的影响，以及应用程序的学科的影响。
Peer Review at Capacity: An editor's view
该文从编辑视角指出同行评审压力已具象化，其核心问题是评审劳动分配不均、认可度低，且受适配小体系的出版架构组织，而非仅因潜在评审人不足。
Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications
本文主要讨论不同类型出版物中的合著者效应，在衡量研究影响力时，合著者效应通常没有得到同等的重视。{ \it先验}在主要研究者（LI）的总合著者核心价值$m_a$与其在同行评审期刊（$j$）或论文集（$p$）中发表的相关价值之间发现了非预期的关系。发现了令人惊讶的线性关系：$ m_a^{(j)} + 0.4\;m_a^{(p)} = m_a^{(jp)} $。此外，另一种关系被发现有关的总引文数，$A_a$，即表面的引用大小排名直方图高达$m_a$的措施。存在另一种线性关系：$A_a^{(j)} + 1.36\; A_a^{(p)} = A_a^{(jp)} $。这些实证研究结果系数（0.4和1.36）的支持，根据经验幂律之间的作者的联合出版物的数量和排名的合著者的考虑。此外，一个简单的幂律关系之间的$m_a$和数量（$r_M$）的共同作者的LI：$m_a\simeq r_M^μ$ ;幂律指数$μ$取决于类型（$j$或$p$）的出版物。这些简单的关系，在这个时候仅限于物理学出版物，意味着共同作者是一个“更积极的措施”的主要研究者的作用，在这两种类型的科学产出，比赫希指数可以表明。因此，在出版物中，特别是在诉讼中，蔑视共同作者是不正确的。相反，研究结果表明，科学政策过程中的科学作者的一致性的直接测试。
Peer review is a process designed to produce a fair assessment of research quality before the publication of scholarly work in a journal. Demographics, nepotism, and seniority have been all shown to affect reviewer behavior suggesting the most common, single-blind review method (or the less common open review method) might be biased. A survey of current research indicates that double-blind review offers a solution to many biases stemming from author's gender, seniority, or location without imposing any significant downsides.
Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows
我们研究同行评议的选定方面，并提出可能的改进。为此，我们分析了一个数据集，其中包含约300份提交给《塞尔维亚化学学会杂志》生物化学和生物技术部分的论文。在将同行评审过程分成每个评审必须经历的阶段之后，我们使用加权有向图以概率的方式描述它，并测试编辑策略的一些修改对整个过程效率的影响。
This study aims to analyze 343 retraction notices indexed in the Scopus database, published in 2001-2019, related to scientific articles (co-)written by at least one author affiliated with an Iranian institution. In order to determine reasons for retractions, we merged this database with the database from Retraction Watch. The data were analyzed using Excel 2016 and IBM-SPSS version 24.0, and visualized using VOSviewer software. Most of the retractions were due to fake peer review (95 retractions) and plagiarism (90). The average time between a publication and its retraction was 591 days. The …
Peer review is an integral component of contemporary science. While peer review focuses attention on promising and interesting science, it also encourages scientists to pursue some questions at the expense of others. Here, we use ideas from forecasting assessment to examine how two modes of peer review -- ex ante review of proposals for future work and ex post review of completed science -- motivate scientists to favor some questions instead of others. Our main result is that ex ante and ex post peer review push investigators toward distinct sets of scientific questions. This tension arises be…
Peer Review and the Diffusion of Ideas
本研究利用超50万次同行评议邀请和37,279名作者的数据，发现接触稿件核心思想会显著影响拒绝邀请的审稿人未来的引用行为，表明同行评议是推动科学思想扩散的强大引擎。
Peer-review in the Internet age
同行评审在科学过程中的重要性怎么估计都不过分。然而，由于研究的压力越来越大，出版物的数量呈指数级增长，裁判所面临的任务变得越来越困难。我们在这里讨论一些可能的改进，使更有效地审查科学文献，使用不断增长的互联网连接。特别是，一个实用的自动化模型，提供参考的论文，可能有很强的关系，在审查中的工作，根据一般的网络性能的引用建议。
The paper describes a potential platform to facilitate academic peer review with emphasis on early-stage research. This platform aims to make peer review more accurate and timely by rewarding reviewers on the basis of peer prediction algorithms. The algorithm uses a variation of Peer Truth Serum for Crowdsourcing (Radanovic et al., 2016) with human raters competing against a machine learning benchmark. We explain how our approach addresses two large productive inefficiencies in science: mismatch between research questions and publication bias. Better peer review for early research creates addi…
Rapid, Impartial and Comprehensive (RIC) publishing: A new concept for scientific journals
出版由编辑管理的科学期刊，依靠匿名同行评审是缓慢的（即使是一轮评审也需要作者、编辑和评审员之间的多次沟通），片面的（作者的论点很难推翻评审员的论点），并且没有使用所有可用的科学材料（即使是最彻底和最有见地的评审也只留给作者和编辑）。在这里，我提出了一个科学期刊的新概念，以确保快速，公正和全面（RIC）出版。RIC概念基于两个新的出版原则的实施：对投稿的第一次（快速）编辑筛选应该是“拒绝”或“接受并选择修改”，在后一种情况下，选择修改（考虑到公开评审）论文应与所有（正面和负面）审查，从而向科学界提供关于所涉专题的所有现有科学材料。
While ancient scientists often had patrons to fund their work, peer review of proposals for the allocation of resources is a foundation of modern science. A very common method is that proposals are evaluated by a small panel of experts (due to logistics and funding limitations) nominated by the grant-giving institutions. The expert panel process introduces several issues - most notably: 1) biases introduced in the selection of the panel. 2) experts have to read a very large number of proposals. Distributed Peer Review promises to alleviate several of the described problems by distributing the …
How important tasks are performed: peer review
各个科学领域的进步取决于科学家个人通过同行审查程序采取的行动。裁判员的工作模式和裁判决策的随机性既与裁判的特殊性有关，又与人类行为的普遍性有关。在这里，我们表明，时间裁判写一份报告的科学手稿取决于最终的裁决。将数据与一个模型进行比较，在该模型中，审查发生在一个正在进行的竞争中，即完成一个重要的复合任务，同时有大量的任务-截止日期效应。在同行评审中，人类的决策和任务完成结合了长期的可预测性和随机变化，这是由于很大程度上不断变化的外部“摩擦”。
It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is no risk in submitting low-quality work by authors. As a result, scientists face a social dilemma: if everyone acts according to his or her own self-interest, low scientific quality is produced. Still, in practice, reviewers as well as authors invest high effort in reviews and submissions. We examine how the increased relevance of public good benefits (journal impact …
Superiority of the $h$-index over the Impact Factor for Physics
特别关注物理期刊，我表明，期刊影响因子与赫希的$h$指数不相关。这意味着影响因子不是研究质量或影响力的良好衡量标准，因为$h$指数反映了同行评审，因此是研究质量的强有力指标。当使用$h$而不是影响因子时，多学科期刊和纯物理学期刊之间的影响力差距显著缩小。此外，专门发表综述文章的期刊的影响力在使用$h$时本质上会受到削弱，因为此类期刊的年度出版物数量有限。最后，当只考虑多学科期刊的物理学文章时，$h$对排名靠前的期刊进行了重新排序，这与物理学家对期刊声望的平均解释更加一致。
扫码添加微信好友，提出您的宝贵建议 👇
💡 备注请填写：网站反馈
发表机构由 AI 从论文文本抽取，如发现错误，欢迎反馈修正建议。