游客268：对马军 请教各位老师， 在评审过程中，审稿人会不会因为自己的研究方向、偏好等主观因素而影响评审的公正性？对于这种情况是否有专门的措施或者处理方式
2023-09-26 13:11

马军：的确存在这个问题的，比如分数阶的论文现在不好发表了，多数发表在开放存取的期刊。这种情况下的确存在随机因素，如果遇到了对口的责任编辑，还是有机会的。所以投稿前要看看自己稿件内容和拟投递期刊的契合度，是否有非常对口的小同行担任责任编辑。
2023-09-26 15:10

gxfycyyhang：对Joan Marsh 学术交流与同行评审 学术交流作为绝大多数科学家的一种认知方式，是在科学探索中养成的用以提高、纠错、完善认知的态度与模式，这种模式也构成同行评审的基础。 在一个不确定的时代，一个成果不断涌现的时代，学术交流与同行评审 应更重视探究事物的原由，但在多数情况下，认知是渐近的、扩展的、提高型的，与破坏/颠覆型认知存在重大区别。请问各位科学家，如何细化上述两者的相同与不同之处？高 峡
2023-09-21 16:56

Joan Marsh：这听起来像是一个考试题目，我认为它并不适合这次的讨论。
2023-09-26 15:09

yych66：对杨蔚 请问，对于颠覆性的创新同行如何进行评审？ 我独立探索物理三十多年，发现物理学的传承中有一些入门的错误： 1、大自然赋予质子、电子专门的场，并不是简单的电磁力； 2、原子之间的连接不是化学键、不是电子偶合，而是原子相互吸引价电子，实现价电子围绕两个原子实的结合运转,而构成物质； 3、金属材料导电性能好，不是因为有“自由电子”而是因为金属原子价电子少，原子结构外层有较大的空间，能够形成导电信号波和电子换位移动的通道。 谢谢！晏成和
2023-09-22 17:23

杨蔚：正常评审就好了呀，如果您觉得同行评审会阻碍您的发表，您也可以发表在预印本平台。归根到底，是作者为自己的文章负责，而不是期刊或者审稿人。只要您坚信自己是对的，发表出去，长期宣传，长远的看，无论颠覆性创新在当时如何受到打压，最终人们还是会选择站在事实和逻辑一边。
2023-09-26 15:08

游客223：对马军 审稿人提出的一些意见和修改，有的时候实验条件不允许，无法达到要求，这时该如何回复或如何处理？
2023-09-26 12:59

马军：的确，审稿人可能会提出一些非常高的要求。作者则可以声明补充实验需要更长的时间，审稿人提出的问题会在后续工作中践行，作者也可以在稿件末尾以开放问题open problems方式提出问题，这种情况下也会获得编辑认可，最终得到发表，毕竟一篇稿件不可能把一个系列问题全部完成，那稿件发表后就是这个领域终结版了。
2023-09-26 15:08

游客493：对Joan Marsh Should peer review process be conducted properly? All research is essentially either aimed at consolidating/extending the existing knowledge or disrupting/overturning it. It is commonly accepted that publications of all research are endorsed through peer review process. However, academic community often neglects a significant discrepancy between consolidating research and disruptive research. For consolidating research, there are often many people working on the existing knowledge that fits to consolidating research. For disruptive research, there are also many people working on the existing knowledge that contradicts disruptive research. When a research is submitted, the journal usually requires author to define opposed reviewers. But this is unrealistic for disruptive research, because the author of disruptive research is unable to list all the advocates of the existing knowledge as the opposed reviewers. Many journals assert that they strictly follow the publication ethics: decisions about a manuscript should be based only on its importance, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope and content, but when a disruptive research is submitted, the editors(reviewers) will be accustomed to reject it by means of arguing “the existing knowledge is correct whereas the author’s newly proposed knowledge is wrong”. Even if the author finds the decision to be a bias and ask for appeal from the journal’s manager or publisher, the result is simply tough-- “the editor’s decision cannot be changed”. In fact, no few people witnesses how a disruptive research is baptized through peer review process, although most of people orally express appreciation of disruptive research.
2023-09-20 15:00

Joan Marsh：我们杂志过去曾要求作者推荐同行评审，但现在不再这样做了。编辑的工作是确定合适的同行评审。颠覆性研究属于英文短语‘Extraordinary claims’，它与‘require extraordinary evidence’相呼应，即声称与现有知识相矛盾的作者必须提供非常高质量的证据，并且这些证据应该经过严格的同行评审。
2023-09-26 15:06

gxfycyyhang：对杨蔚 学术交流与同行评审 学术交流作为绝大多数科学家的一种认知方式，是在科学探索中养成的用以提高、纠错、完善认知的态度与模式，这种模式也构成同行评审的基础。 在一个不确定的时代，一个成果不断涌现的时代，学术交流与同行评审 应更重视探究事物的原由，但在多数情况下，认知是渐近的、扩展的、提高型的，与破坏/颠覆型认知存在重大区别。请问各位科学家，如何细化上述两者的相同与不同之处？高 峡
2023-09-21 16:56

杨蔚：其实我也不知道二者的分界线在哪里。历史上很多著名的实验，原本是想证明某个观点或者理论，但是最终实验结果不支持，从而变成了颠覆式/破坏性的创新。如果一开始就是为了颠覆什么，其实也不是什么科学的态度，可能是为了颠覆而颠覆。个人认为，从研究者的角度，不太需要太关注渐进和颠覆的区别，只管去探索和探寻规律本身，让事实和逻辑去推导出渐进或者颠覆创新。
2023-09-26 15:05

roufeng：对杨蔚 All research (consolidating and disruptive) need to be published, this is the foundation of science. Therefore, I would like to propose a reform of the peer review process as follows: 1) All research submitted to journals is initially divided into two types: consolidating and disruptive. When submitting their research, authors are required by the journal to define the type of their research (they are aware of which category their research belongs to). If the definition is incorrect, the submission will be returned to the authors. Different review processes are applied to each type of research. 2) For any consolidating research, the current peer-review process remains. 3) For any disruptive research, a new review process is developed. Disruptive research must differentiate itself clearly from consolidating research through four sections: a) an introduction of existing knowledge; b) evidence proving the existing knowledge or its primary part to be incorrect; c) newly proposed knowledge; and d) validation of the newly proposed knowledge. When such research is submitted, the editor considers three reviewers: one who is an expert on the existing knowledge, whose role is to evaluate the author\'s introduction of the existing knowledge for completeness and check whether the author\'s evidence (the existing knowledge or its primary part being incorrect) is technically valid. The other two reviewers are experts in a wider knowledge area, whose role is to evaluate the author\'s evidence (the existing knowledge or its primary part being incorrect), check whether the author\'s newly proposed knowledge is scientifically valid and technically tested, evaluate the author\'s validation, and assess the research\'s significance to the scientific community. The editor uses the reviewers\' comments to make a decision. The assessment of the author\'s validation should be moderate because a disruptive research in its early stages usually performs weakly.
2023-09-20 15:31

杨蔚：非常好的建议，可以试运行（实验）一下。我认为在规则之外考虑例外情况的问题在于，例外的标准是什么？科学论文比这个要复杂得多，不像“孕妇”这样容易判断。如果判断一篇论文是不是例外，仍然需要人去判断，而只要是人来判断，就一定还是存在主观因素。因此，这个方案很有可能，除了让流程变得更繁琐或者复杂，并不能解决根本问题。我也很期待实验结果。
2023-09-26 15:04

游客105：对马军 请问各位老师，审稿人同意接收，但编辑最后提出一堆问题，让大修，这种情况该如何处理？
2023-09-26 13:08

马军：审稿人的意见仅供参考，学术编辑的意见才是最关键的，要认真对待，有时候存在审稿人随意撰写审稿意见，或者审稿意见根本不靠谱，没有发现稿件显著的硬伤，这种情况下审稿人的意见其实是作废的。
2023-09-26 15:04

roufeng：对杨蔚 Most researchers are familiar with the recent report by Park et al. (2023) (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x) and the blog post by Mastroianni (2023) (https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review). While the former suggests that peer-review does not necessarily increase the number of disruptive research, the latter argues that it can stifle innovative ideas and is primarily aimed at reinforcing established knowledge. Both writings raise concerns regarding the potential misuse of peer-review in evaluating disruptive research.
2023-09-20 15:27

杨蔚：总而言之，我个人觉得，同行评审确实对于颠覆性的创新有一点点不友好，但是，至少目前我还没有看到它的替代方案。
2023-09-26 15:03

游客493：对杨蔚 Should peer review process be conducted properly? All research is essentially either aimed at consolidating/extending the existing knowledge or disrupting/overturning it. It is commonly accepted that publications of all research are endorsed through peer review process. However, academic community often neglects a significant discrepancy between consolidating research and disruptive research. For consolidating research, there are often many people working on the existing knowledge that fits to consolidating research. For disruptive research, there are also many people working on the existing knowledge that contradicts disruptive research. When a research is submitted, the journal usually requires author to define opposed reviewers. But this is unrealistic for disruptive research, because the author of disruptive research is unable to list all the advocates of the existing knowledge as the opposed reviewers. Many journals assert that they strictly follow the publication ethics: decisions about a manuscript should be based only on its importance, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope and content, but when a disruptive research is submitted, the editors(reviewers) will be accustomed to reject it by means of arguing “the existing knowledge is correct whereas the author’s newly proposed knowledge is wrong”. Even if the author finds the decision to be a bias and ask for appeal from the journal’s manager or publisher, the result is simply tough-- “the editor’s decision cannot be changed”. In fact, no few people witnesses how a disruptive research is baptized through peer review process, although most of people orally express appreciation of disruptive research.
2023-09-20 15:00

杨蔚：我认为这是一个权衡。同行评审当然有很多问题，但是没有同行评审的话问题只会更多。大量质量无法保障的论文发表，我们将淹没在“垃圾”论文中，学者从海量“垃圾”信息中获得有效信息的成本将大幅提升。我当然同意，同行评审的问题是颠覆性的创新很难发表。我自己也会有一些“新奇”想法（尽管谈不上颠覆性）的文章，也多次被拒稿，但是我仍然坚持同行评审是必要的，虽然审稿人可能会拒稿，但是他们的反对意见有些确实帮助我重新审视自己的想法是否经得起推敲，完善文章，另外，我相信学术界大多数人是思想开放的，一次被拒稿，还可以换个杂志再投稿，我是见过有作者持续投稿4-5年，不断修改，不断投稿，知道文章最终发表。
2023-09-26 15:03