游客147：对Iratxe Puebla 两个审稿人都建议接收，但是被杂志社编辑拒绝了，这种情况该怎么办？
2020-09-24 15:39

Iratxe Puebla：If the editor rejected the manuscript the decision letter should include some comments from the editor providing the basis for this, perhaps there is a concern relating to the scope of the paper, novelty requirements at the journal, or the editor evaluated the paper as well and identified some concerns. Even if the reviewers were positive, the editor may have complementary expertise and may have reviewed the paper as well. If the basis for the rejection is not clear, I recommend contacting the editor to request further clarification on the grounds of rejection and you could also consider sending an appeal request. 如果编辑拒稿，那么拒信应该包含有该编辑拒稿的理由，可能是论文所涉及的范围有些问题，期刊对新颖性有所要求，或者编辑也参与了审稿并且发现了一些问题。即使审稿人给出了正面意见，编辑可能在相关领域也具有专业性，并且也审阅了稿件。如果拒稿理由不明确，我建议联系编辑澄清拒稿理由，你也可以考虑提起申诉请求。
2020-09-25 18:59

游客918：对Iratxe Puebla 同行评审现在作为科学研究中不可代替的一种学术成果评价制度，在一定时间内估计是不可代替的，但未来的发展方向会是什么样的？
2020-09-24 13:57

Iratxe Puebla：Peer review is a structured process for scholarly exchanges that also take place in different forms (discussions with colleagues, conferences) and at different points of the research cycle, so I do not think we can expect research to take place without some form of peer review. I think we are likely to see further innovation in peer review in coming years, mostly around the commentary and review of preprints, this allows earlier feedback to take place and participation from everyone and anyone in the research community. I hope we’ll move to a place where review is more fluid (happens earlier and at different stages rather than only at the final journal step) and more inclusive, with currently underrepresented groups participating in review. 同行评审是一个结构化的学术交流过程，会以不同的形式（同事讨论、会议）在研究周期的不同节点进行，因此我认为有某种形式的同行评议的存在才能开展研究。 我认为，在未来几年里，我们可能会看到同行评议的进一步创新，尤其在预印本的评论和审查方面，这样研究领域的每个人都能更早地参与论文评审并提出反馈意见。我希望以后的评审更具有流动性（在不同的阶段进行，而不是仅仅在最后一个阶段）和包容性，而目前参与审查的人员并不多。
2020-09-25 18:50

Qianyan：对Iratxe Puebla 一般需要几位同行评审才能保证公正公平
2020-09-24 13:52

Iratxe Puebla：I want to nuance that the focus of peer review is not justice but rather to provide an expert and objective assessment of the submitted work. Most journals seek two or three reviews and the editor would complement the evaluation provided by the reviewers. The reviewers may provide complementary expertise, and may hold differing views on whether a concern is major or minor, so peer review should not be based on counting recommendations to accept/revise/reject but rather on a consideration of all of the comments the reviewers have provided and any additional editorial feedback the editor may have. The editor should help summarize the comments and provide an overall assessment and decision. 我认为同行评审的重点不应该是公正，而是对提交的论文进行专业和客观的评估。大多数期刊会邀请两到三位审稿人进行评审，编辑会对审稿人的评价进行补充。审稿人可能补充一些专业知识，针对某个问题是重大问题还是次要问题也可能看法不一，因此同行评议不应是去计算接受/修改/拒绝建议的数量，而应考虑审稿人的所有评论和编辑可能提出的一些反馈。编辑应该总结评论，并提供全面的评估和决策。
2020-09-25 18:47

游客560：对Iratxe Puebla 实验论文遇到专家想要补做实验，但是实验条件和时间不允许了怎么办
2020-09-24 11:18

Iratxe Puebla：It depends on the specific paper and requests for experiments but a couple of options are: 1)Seek advice from the editor on whether the additional experiments are necessary to ensure further consideration of your paper, you can explain the circumstances to the editor and they should be able to advise on what they expect to see in the revised paper. 2)Sometimes the experiments are requested to ensure a particular claim in the paper is adequately supported, you may want to consider whether you need to revise or nuance any of your conclusions. Depending on the journal’s requirements for originality or novelty, this may not be an option, but again you could ask the editor for advice on this. 这取决于具体的论文和实验要求，但你还有以下几个选择： 一、 向编辑咨询如果开展一些附加实验，编辑部是否会进一步考虑你的论文。你可以向编辑说明情况，他们应该会针对文章中需要修订的地方提出建议。 二、有时需要进行一些实验去充分论证论文中的某个观点，您可能需要修改或微调论文中的一些结论。对于杂志对原创性或新颖性的要求，这可能不是一个选择，但你也可以向编辑征求这方面的意见。
2020-09-25 18:46

游客917：对Iratxe Puebla 您曾经收到审稿人给的“差评”吗？ 你是怎么处理的？
2020-09-22 15:21

Iratxe Puebla：I have only published a few papers as an author, so I realize my own experience is not necessarily the most representative. My experience with comments received from the review process has been positive with useful and constructive feedback. If you ever have concerns about comments received in a review, i would suggest discussing with a colleague first, to get a fresh perspective on the comments and if after that you still feel the review comments are inappropriate then raise the issue with the editor. 我作为作者只发表过一些文章，所以我很清楚自己的经验并不一定有代表性。我的个人经验中，收到的都是带有建设性的积极有用的评价。 如果你对在评审中收到的评价有异议，我会建议你先和同事沟通以从新的角度来看这些评价，然后如果仍旧认为这些评价有失公允，可以和编辑提出来。
2020-09-25 18:43

gaoruixue：对Iratxe Puebla 今年或今后一两年关于此次疫情的文章估计会很多，但大家对这个还都是个陌生甚至不熟悉的范畴，那是不是就增加了评审难度。
2020-09-24 15:07

Iratxe Puebla：There was an explosion in the amount of research produced around COVID-19 in the early months of the pandemic, this obviously presents challenges to complete the review of those papers, trying to balance timeliness and rigor. We are now at a place where we have a better understanding of the virus and the spread dynamics and also as labs reopen some researchers who may have shifted some work to COVID-19 may return to their original lines of research, so we may see some stabilization in the amount of COVID-19 research that comes out during the next months. Journals took steps to prioritize and accelerate the review of COVID-19 submissions and articles about the pandemic in medical journals earlier in the year were published in shorter turnarounds compared to non-COVID-19 work. There were also initiatives to increase efficiency across different publishers: https://oaspa.org/scholarly-publishers-working-together-during-covid-19-pandemic/ I think as we move into the next months, the volume of research and processes will stabilize, there will be lessons from things that worked in terms of timeliness and rigor for the review of COVID-19 papers that I hope can help journals make their peer review more efficient in future. 新冠疫情爆发的最初几个月与此有关的研究数量激增，这显然增加了评审挑战，因为要平衡效率和严格性。到了现在这个阶段，我们已更了解病毒和它的传播机制 ，并且随着实验室重开，一些转去研究新冠病毒的研究人员也回到原本的研究方向中，因此新冠病毒相关的研究数量在接下来几个月时间内将趋于稳定。 各期刊都采取措施，优先并加快审核有关新冠病毒的文章，相比于其他文章，这类文章在今年早些时候的发表周期都更快。不同出版社也采取措施提升效率：https://oaspa.org/scholarly-publishers-working-together-during-covid-19-pandemic/ 我认为在进入接下来几个月后，研究总量和流程都会放缓，从审核肺炎相关文章的时效性、严格性方面总结下来的经验在未来会让各期刊提升同行评审的效率。
2020-09-25 18:40

游客946：对Iratxe Puebla 审稿人要求引用文献是什么原因？proof多久后缴费，这期间经历什么？
2020-09-24 14:15

Iratxe Puebla：If the reviewer has worked in a closely related area it may be relevant for them to recommend their work is cited to help place the research in context, I would usually expect this to happen associated with one reference or two and where the reviewer provides clear context for why they think the reference is relevant. If a reviewer requests citations, the editor should comment in their decision letter whether they view the addition of the reference as necessary, to help provide context on why and guide the author. Reviewer requests for citations to their own work to help boost their citation metrics are inappropriate and if you experience this as an author please raise the issue with the editor so that they can look into it. Payment workflows are handled by publishers so for any queries related to this I recommend contacting the journal office of the specific journal. 如果评审在非常相关的领域工作，推荐他们自己的作品作为引用来才比较有强关联性。我通常会期待这样的情况发生在一两处且是在评审清楚的阐释他们的推荐理由的前提下。如果一位评审要求了引用，那么编辑应该在回复中评论他们是否认为增加这条引用是必要的，以此来帮作者弄清情况。评审要求增加对自己作品的引用以提高作品的引用数量是不当行为，如果你作为作者遇到了这种情况，请和编辑提出来让他们调查清楚。 支付流程是出版社管理的，所以和这个有关的问题我建议你直接联系那家期刊的办公室。
2020-09-25 18:25

游客168：对Bahar Mehmani 同行评审偏见是否真的存在？
2020-09-22 15:23

Bahar Mehmani：Peer review is conducted by human beings who are working in a hierarchical academic culture. That should be enough to make the process bised. The question is how conscious the community is about these biases. There was an informative interview on this important topic a couple of days ago here: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/09/22/guest-post-risks-from-self-referential-peer-review-an-interview-with-jeffrey-unerman/?informz=1 同行评审由人工来完成，学术环境也有一定的层级关系。因此产生偏见也就可以理解了。问题是，学术界是否意识到这种偏见。这篇采访提到了相关的问题：https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/09/22/guest-post-risks-from-self-referential-peer-review-an-interview-with-jeffrey-unerman/?informz=1
2020-09-25 17:53

游客917：对Bahar Mehmani 您曾经收到审稿人给的“差评”吗？ 你是怎么处理的？
2020-09-22 15:21

Bahar Mehmani：Yes. I don’t know if I can call them bad, but I can call them irrelevant. In one case I wrote to the editor mentioning the reviewer hasn’t even read my manuscript properly because the points made are all addressed in this and that section. The editor took my word, sent my manuscript to another reviewer and I eventually got it published. 收到过相关度不高的评论。有一次我写信告知编辑，审稿人没有认真看我的稿件（因为提到的问题，我在文章中都有阐述）。编辑采纳了我的建议，还联系了另外一位审稿人，最终文章还是发表了。
2020-09-25 17:51

游客523：对吉久明 \"我理解，通常情况下这样的审稿信息似乎不太可能会被作者知晓。具体问题具体分析比较好，也许该刊实行的是主编终审制，主编有最终决定权。\" 杂志社将两个审稿人的意见放在拒稿邮件的最下面，我可以看到，跟杂志社申诉，不理人。很糟糕的经历。
2020-09-24 16:47

吉久明：理解。可以改投其他刊试一试。
2020-09-24 17:09