游客835马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 我们是本新刊, 邀请同行评审专家比较难, 专家有什么好的建议吗?
2023-09-26 16:54   
游客420马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 现在同行评审基本只在最后论文最后阶段发生,各位专家认为同行评审是否可以提升在不同的阶段进行的可能性,而不是仅仅在最后一个阶段,此外如何进一步扩大同行评审的包容性,你们有什么建议?
2023-09-26 16:44   
游客511马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 学术出版的未来其实这是个很大的话题,新鲜的事物很多,这两年ai的出现就对各行各业有所冲击,未来学术出版是什么样子是什么形式还真不好说,就像以前开会几乎都是线下会议,这几年线上会议形式就是突然起来的
2023-09-26 16:36   
游客335马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 对于现在各种形式的会刊,各位老师怎么看,建议投稿么,说实话,这种有好多,能投就能发表,但就是不知道会不会成为自己未来”学术生涯的黑历史“
2023-09-26 16:19   
游客183马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 开放获取(OA)出版模式自出现开始就引发了激烈的争论。有人认为极大促进了学术成果的交流,也有人认为实质上是出版社圈钱的游戏,但不论如何,不争的事实是: OA模式正在逐渐成为学术出版的主流。几位老师怎么认为?
2023-09-26 16:08   
游客978马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 这几年国内学术期刊发展势头很好,有些还是非常拿的出手的在国内,不过在国际上还是逊色了点,未来我们需要怎么做才能更大的发展
2023-09-26 16:07   
游客468马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 我作为刚刚起步的同行评审人, 各位专家能否给我提供一些建议, 分享你们眼中特别有价值的同行评审报告的标准吗?
2023-09-26 16:02   
harmonism马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 现在期刊编辑部的精力不是用在论文的语言文字和格式等方面的编辑和校对上,而是越殂代疱取代了同行评审,在未送同行进行评审之前就自行枪毙了大部分稿件,这才是对同行评审制度最大的颠覆!
2023-09-26 16:00   
游客370马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 预印本,未来的发展趋势如何,有何优缺点
2023-09-26 15:57   
harmonism马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 现在有许多人认为同行评审没有起到正面作用,反而扼杀了创新。我不太同意这个看法。实际上,扼杀创新的不是同行平身,而是期刊编辑部。很多时候,极具突破性创新性的论文往往通不过编辑的初筛,根本到不了同行评审这一步。我认为,应该削弱编辑部的权力,提高审稿人的待遇,让更多的专家愿意当审稿人——现在的问题是审稿人数量严重不足,导致期刊编辑部不能每篇稿件都送审,从而增大了编辑部的裁量权!
2023-09-26 15:50   
游客534马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 您认为学术界同行评审现在最大的痛点在哪里呢?目前有什么办法解决吗?
2023-09-26 15:47   
游客367马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 现在,国内各种院所高校和国际期刊联合办刊的比较多,这种利弊在哪里各位老师们分析下么?
2023-09-26 15:39   
游客389马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 出版中的“掠夺性出版”是否也有着益处呢?
2023-09-26 15:37   
游客212马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 看刚专家的回答,成为评审专家对自己的学术未来还是有很大好处的,那么同行评审的专家一定是行业的翘楚者么?年轻的学者是否有机会成为评审专家,需要怎么才能成为期刊的评审专家,是主动联系期刊还是
2023-09-26 15:33   
游客375马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 桂林电子科技大学王凌峰教授提出在预印本中引入算法驱动的自组织同行评议,将投稿按照质量不同评级,这样就没有了期刊老是拒稿的麻烦,对此请问有何评论?
2023-09-26 15:31   
游客443马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 为什么学术出版行业盈利这么高?
2023-09-26 15:29   
游客907马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 一稿件多投的好处和坏处,这个会不会给期刊留下坏印象
2023-09-26 15:26   
游客428马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 现在是同行评审,但随着Ai的兴起,未来,ai会不会对这项制度产生影响
2023-09-26 15:23   
游客513马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 现在的论文查重系统各种各样,加入自己真实是自己的写作的,也是自己润色,那么需要购买查重服务么
2023-09-26 15:22   
游客902马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 论文要求新颖性novelty,但是如果我的论文的新颖性偏离主流范式的研究,如何保证能找到合适的评审人, 又获取真正有价值的评审意见呢?
2023-09-26 15:19   
游客397马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 请问,人工智能对同行评审有哪些影响?
2023-09-26 15:15   
游客659马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 先提出学术创新,还是先出台相对的管理法案?
2023-09-26 15:11   
游客626马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 学术出版未来的发展方向是什么样的
2023-09-26 15:10   
游客943马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : oa刊物越来越多,将来学术期刊的盈利模式是不是会有很大的变化
2023-09-26 15:09   
游客974马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 现在提倡跨学科,又强调专业学术,这两种说法不矛盾吗?
2023-09-26 15:08   
游客631马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 同行评审的会全盘否定作者的稿件么?会推荐是否合适刊发在其他期刊吗?谢谢各位老师
2023-09-26 14:08   
游客969马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 同行评审专家的意见,若作者不认可、不同意,这样期刊会怎么操作?
2023-09-26 13:50   
游客480马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 作者可能不同意同行评议审稿人的意见,同行评议中审稿人之间可能提供相互矛盾的评论,编辑作为中间人可能也很难抉择,那么,请问各位老师如何实现作者、编辑和审稿人的三赢呢?
2023-09-26 13:40   
游客479马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 老师们好,是否可以自己推荐审稿人,如果自己推荐审稿人,如何鉴定审稿人和作者之间的诚信联系?
2023-09-26 13:38   
游客775马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 老师们如何看待作者、期刊编辑、审稿人在维护学术道德方面的各自责任?
2023-09-26 13:35   
游客170马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 期刊编辑如何确保能找到合适的审稿人呢?尤其是一些跨学科的论文?
2023-09-26 13:29   
游客268马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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   
游客105马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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   
游客966马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 今年同行评审周有什么新的建设性意见提出么?
2023-09-26 13:05   
游客223马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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   
游客418马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 各位老师好,请问审稿人如何看待与自己研究方向极其类似的文章呢?对于此类文章,审核是否会很严格,会给出指导意见还是选择拒审呢?
2023-09-26 11:37   
游客347马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 请问各位老师,cover letter里应该突出哪些重点呢?需要注意些什么?
2023-09-26 11:34   
游客423马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 各位老师好,请问对于初次投稿的学生有何建议吗,谢谢
2023-09-26 11:31   
游客872马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 期刊编辑找不到审稿人,我该撤稿吗?
2023-09-26 11:26   
游客283马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 审稿人把意见贴错了,可能是给别的稿件的意见,这条意见怎么回复?视而不见跳过去?还是直接指出来?谢谢!
2023-09-26 11:13   
游客392马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : AI的发展会对同行评审产生什么影响吗?
2023-09-26 11:09   
游客698马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 编辑和审稿人意见很大不同,我该怎么处理?比如审稿人建议接收,但是被编辑拒稿了,这种情况该怎么办?
2023-09-26 10:52   
游客240马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 担任审稿人或编辑对学术生涯有帮助吗?
2023-09-26 10:46   
游客254马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 收到审稿人的“差评”应该怎么处理?对审稿人的评价应采取什么态度。
2023-09-26 10:46   
游客852马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 审稿人建议补做实验要一年才能完成,怎么办?
2023-09-26 10:45   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@Ferrari87:为什么需要同行评审呢?同行评审有标准吗?
2023-09-26 10:42   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@改名期限居然还没到吗:领域细分越来越精,同行会不会圈子越来越小,然后在同行评议过程中派生出一些问题?
2023-09-26 10:42   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@黎祗:同行评审中还有哪些需要重视提高的吗地方?
2023-09-26 10:42   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@墨__菲:研究领域比较小的,同行之间会有一些竞争,其他非领域的又不懂,这样会不会有失公允?
2023-09-26 10:40   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@王者之风干城之将:期刊编辑对于审稿人的意见不采纳怎么办?作为审稿人,有些稿件我已经明确表态拒稿而且不再审阅修订稿,编辑还给我发。
2023-09-26 10:40   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@住419号的Sway:如何看待同行评审中存在的学术道德问题?
2023-09-26 10:40   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@林夕夕飞扬:同行评审有哪几种形式,优缺点是什么,发表后的评审适用于哪种情形
2023-09-26 10:39   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@雨雨催化剂:同行评审周期需要多长时间?未来一稿多投算学术不端吗?
2023-09-26 10:39   
科学网编辑部马军: 新浪微博网友@忆执在路上:来自母校的马老师!期待
2023-09-26 10:39   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@nephele_wu:同行评审中怎么避免恶意学术打压?
2023-09-26 10:38   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@鹿雪哒哒:为什么同行评审的周期一般很长?有什么方法加快?
2023-09-26 10:38   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@lea_16:各种论文的同行评审也要全球化了吗
2023-09-26 10:38   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@毛豆儿的钱袋子:同行评审未来发展趋势如何?
2023-09-26 10:38   
科学网编辑部马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 新浪微博网友@毛豆儿的钱袋子:学术出版未来OA的趋势如何,现在一些单位是不认这个的,之后会怎样?
2023-09-26 10:36   
游客176马军 杨蔚 : 同行评审的周期大概多久呀
2023-09-26 10:27   
游客935马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 有时候因工作或其他原因拒绝了期刊的审稿邀请,自己以后投这份期刊会不会受到影响?各位老师有这方面的经验吗
2023-09-25 20:17   
游客668马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 如果想成为审稿人应该做哪些准备?如何申请?各位老师能否交流下自己申请审稿人时的心得
2023-09-25 18:55   
游客219马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 评审时,有些文章的数据是长时间实验积累而形成并得出的结论,对于这种数据,评审专家如何辨别实验数据的可靠性?若专家难以把握,是否会影响最终的评审意见,请各位老师解惑
2023-09-25 18:49   
游客841马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 各位老师,审稿人审稿时对文章的哪个部分最重视?
2023-09-25 18:47   
游客610马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 同行评审注重创新,是否也会有扼杀创新的案例?对于不同的观点,大多数评审专家是否会抱排斥态度?
2023-09-25 17:49   
游客918马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 同行评审中会有延迟的情况出现吗?为什么会出现这种情况,如何有效避免呢?还望各位老师解答
2023-09-25 16:19   
游客770马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 同行评审专家应该是期刊编辑筛选,他们筛选的时候会有什么标准吗?怎么样才能为投稿文章找到合适的同行评议专家呢?筛选如果有依据的话,怎么让自己的文章往这个标准靠,以便让同行评审专家尽量与自己的文章相匹配
2023-09-25 15:14   
游客405马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 可以和期刊申请排除自己不想的同行作为评审么
2023-09-25 15:09   
游客856马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 审稿人给的一些意见有些模糊,并不明确,无法把握怎么办?各位老师有好的对策建议吗
2023-09-25 10:52   
游客486马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 如果审稿意见反馈过慢,如何在不得罪审稿人的前提下进行催稿?
2023-09-25 10:48   
游客792马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 非盲审情况下,作者的身份是否会对审稿人造成很大影响,比如作者是大牛,是否审稿时就会松一些,作者是二三流学校的,审稿时就会苛刻一些
2023-09-25 10:47   
游客549马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 国内外的期刊在同行评审制度上是否一致,各位老师能否给介绍下
2023-09-25 10:43   
游客818马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 成为审稿人有什么硬性条件吗?
2023-09-24 17:45   
游客723马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 期刊选择评审专家的准则和依据是什么?各家可能侧重不同,有没有一些大概一致的共同性准则和依据
2023-09-24 17:40   
游客615马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 今年的同行评审周与以往有什么不同吗,会不会因为人工智能等的影响有与以往区别的内容?或是有什么亮点吗?
2023-09-24 17:34   
游客722马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 偏见在哪个行业都有,同行评审也不例外,同行评审过程中可能会出现哪些偏见?如何避免?各位老师有遇到过偏见的情况吗,可否具体就案例展开说下
2023-09-24 17:30   
游客744马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 各位老师在同行评审过程中有遇到什么比较难忘或者印象深刻的经历吗?可否分享一下
2023-09-24 17:22   
游客139马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 随着Chatgpt的爆火,人工智能异常火热,之后人工智能定然会对学术出版同行评审带来影响?请问各位老师,之后随着人工智能的影响,学术出版同行评审的模式、形式是否会发生颠覆性的变化?趋势会是怎么样的
2023-09-24 17:11   
游客480马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 不同文化背景之间的人进行同行评审时尚且可能因为文化差异而造成误解,如果运用人工智能的话,这种误会应该如何解决呢
2023-09-22 18:19   
yych66马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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   
gxfycyyhang马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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   
roufeng马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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   
roufeng马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : A recent Chinese blog post discussed rules and their exceptions (https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-612874-1390958.html). The author recounts a case that has become a hot topic on the internet. A crowded restaurant requires diners to queue in an orderly fashion, but a pregnant woman is given priority by the staff. Some argue that this violates the rule and is unfair to those who are waiting in line. However, a public investigation found that most people believe this exception for pregnant women is reasonable or tolerable. The author suggests that rules should generally be followed, but if an extraordinary circumstance arises, breaking the rule may benefit the public and prevent misfortune. For example, while cars must follow traffic rules such as stopping at red lights, if an emergency situation arises, the car behind may need to pass the car in front, and running a red light may be permissible in some cases. These are the amended rules, and the author has provided more examples of corrections. When taking a bus and where no designated seats are available, passengers abide by the “first come, first serve” rule to obtain seats. However, in consideration of older, weaker, sick, and disabled passengers, priority should be given to them. To address this need, special seats have been designated for such people. A queue is formed at train stations to purchase tickets, but priority is given to servicemen. Universities use exam scores as a criterion to accept or reject applicants. However, in exceptional cases such as remarkably talented athletes, the university may make corrections to this rule. In reality, these corrections already form part of the rules. At end, the author cited an ancient tale: a man and a women meet at a narrow bridge, the women then obeys social tradition (i.e., mores) not passing the bridge so as not to contact the man’s body. Shortly, there comes floods, the man hugging the bridge’s pillar was drowned.
2023-09-20 15:28   
roufeng马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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   
roufeng马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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. 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 15:23   
游客493马军 杨蔚 Joan Marsh Matthew Hodgkinson Jadranka Stojanovski : 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