游客141：对马军 可以和期刊申请排除自己不想的同行作为评审么
2020-09-22 19:34

马军：这个是可以回避的。
2020-09-24 16:31

mecwell：对张军平 同行评审，会不会扼杀创新？人的本性就是会对不同的观点抱以排斥的态度。
2020-09-18 15:35

张军平：有可能的，我想排斥古怪的观点是很自然的。尤其在大概率意义下，作者自认为的大创新，往往是因为自己文献看少了的原因。
2020-09-24 16:31

科学网编辑部：对吉久明 新浪微博网友@珞瑡：对于如何看待审稿人的意见，个人觉得合理筛选有用信息就可以了，如果这次没成，下次继续努力吧
2020-09-24 15:31

吉久明：感谢分享！个人体会，审稿意见通常都对提高论文质量有帮助，因为如果改投，一般会做修改的。
2020-09-24 16:31

游客661：对马军 自己推荐的评审，如果不在期刊的库中，期刊会采用么？
2020-09-23 10:03

马军：如果作者有良好的发表记录和信誉，或者编辑部找不到审稿人，推荐的审稿人发表的论文符合稿件范围，那么可以给数据库之外的推荐审稿人注册来评审。
2020-09-24 16:31

游客141：对Sirine Taleb 可以和期刊申请排除自己不想的同行作为评审么
2020-09-22 19:34

Sirine Taleb：Yes, some journals have this feature when you submit your paper. Normally, the reviewers who you want to exclude are colleagues or some authors whom you think might have some conflict of interest. However, the authors should be careful that excluding a lot of reviewers might raise the concern of the editor. 是的，有些期刊在你提交论文时就有这个功能。通常，您希望排除的审稿人是您的同事或某些您认为可能存在利益冲突的作者。然而，作者应该小心，排除大量的审稿人可能会引起编辑的关注。
2020-09-24 16:30

游客200：对张军平 1. 预印本网络出版平台网站和专门的学术同行评审服务网站是否会为科技项目和论文的评审提供一种评审质量评价服务？ 2. 人工智能科技应用在同行评审中应当是一种趋势，相关的进展如何？ 3. 同行通过电邮与期刊论文的通讯作者交流对于论文的观点，可否算同行评价的一种类型？
2020-09-17 15:34

张军平：1. 评审质量评价倒是一个不错的想法，IEEE transactions系列邀请审稿时，能看到评审的一些相关指标，可用于选择更合适的评审；2、人工智能可能帮助分析下同行评审的水平、反映速度、写评价的方式等；3、邮件不算。
2020-09-24 16:30

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

马军：这个是存在的，暂时无法克服。
2020-09-24 16:30

游客887：对马军 作为期刊编辑，评审专家的稿件一直拖延怎么才能更好的处理作者的催促和专家的拖延
2020-09-23 23:28

马军：多数编辑会在规定期限到达后追加审稿人，或者编辑自己写个审稿意见让作者修改。
2020-09-24 16:29

科学网编辑部：对吉久明 微信用户@苍穹：同行评审要允许质疑评审专家，同行在课题申请中存在竞争性关系，专家给出的评审意见要有文字存档，并有其他同行专家对评审意见进行评审。
2020-09-24 15:25

吉久明：更多期刊正在努力将评审意见反馈给作者了。个人所知，绝对多数审稿意见是中肯的。
2020-09-24 16:29

kwang：对Iratxe Puebla 开放式评审和盲审，这个哪个更有优势
2020-09-18 17:43

Iratxe Puebla：There are pros and cons to all peer review models, but I strongly believe that transparency brings many benefits to the peer review process. At ASAPbio we support the posting of peer review reports with articles, for a number of reasons: 所有同行评审模式都各有利弊，但我坚信透明度可以为同行评审流程带来很多好处。在ASAPbio，我们支持发表文章的同时一起发布同行评审报告，其原因有很多： · Peer review is scholarship and having the reviews with the paper allows readers to gain further context about the work. 同行评审是一种学术激励，对论文进行评审可以使审阅者获得有关该论文的更多背景信息。 · Some studies looking at review quality have reported an association between peer review involving the publication of reviews and better quality of the review report. 一些研究评论质量的研究报告发现，发表同行评审报告与更高质量的评审报告之间存在关联。 · Having the reviews available provides a training resource and reference for anyone seeking to develop reviewing skills. 提供这些可看到的评审，可为那些寻求如何成为评审人的学者提供培训资源和参考。 · Having the reports available is a very tangible proof that the article did undergo peer review prior to publication, it builds journal credibility as it supports its ‘peer reviewed’ journal label, and it makes editorial decisions more transparent as anyone can scrutinize the input that informed the editorial decision to publish. 提供这样的评审报告非常有力地证明了该文章在发表之前确实经过了同行审阅，因为它支持“同行审阅”期刊标签而建立了期刊信誉，并且使编辑决定变得更加透明，因为任何人都可以提供意见由此让编辑来做决定是否发表。 · Having reviews available opens the opportunity to do further research on the review process itself (which I feel we very much need). 有了这些公开的评审意见对评审过程本身进行进一步研究提供了机会（我觉得我们非常需要）。 The signing of reviews can present some challenges as some have voiced concerns that more junior researchers may fear criticising work by a more senior colleague. I understand the concerns around this, at the same time, if inappropriate behavior takes place, it is important to call it out, and keeping that behavior closed is unlikely to fix potential abuses of power. Hilda Bastian wrote a nice blog about this a couple of years ago: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2018/03/22/signing-critical-peer-reviews-the-fear-of-retaliation-what-should-we-do/ 评审意见可能会带来一些挑战，因为有些人担心更多的初级研究人员可能会担心批评更多高级同事的工作。我了解与此相关的担忧，同时，如果发生不当行为，必须大声疾呼，并且保持行为封闭不大可能解决潜在的权力滥用问题。希尔达·巴斯蒂安（Hilda Bastian）几年前就此写了一个不错的博客：https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2018/03/22/signing-critical-peer-reviews-the-fear-of-retaliation-what-should-we-do/ Regarding double blind peer review, I understand the interest in this from the perspective of reducing bias in the review process, but I am not convinced this model addresses the issues for several reasons: 关于双盲同行评审，我理解从减少评审过程中的偏见这一角度出发，但是由于以下几个原因，我不认为该方式是为了解决偏见： · Double blind means the reviewers cannot see the authors’ names, however, it does not blind the editor and it is the editor who selects reviewers and makes the final editorial decision, so the model does not address the risk of bias by the person with most influence in the review process.双盲表示审稿人无法看到作者的姓名，但是，编辑知道作者姓名，也正是由编辑选择审稿人并做出最终决定，因此该方式无法解决在这个过程中最有影响力的人的存在偏见的风险。 · In some disciplines it is common to post the work as a preprint prior to journal publication, so the reviewer may have seen the work, with the authors’ names, as a preprint.在某些学科中，通常会在期刊出版之前将其作为预印本发布，因此审稿人可能已经看到有作者姓名的论文的预印本。 · It can be difficult to ensure full blinding, there may be comments about earlier work in the manuscript that give hints about the authors’ identity, some studies looking at randomized controlled trials reported failure rates for blinding ranging from 46% to 73%. 想确保完全的盲评可能很困难，论文中可能会有关于相关的早期工作的评论，暗示了作者的身份，一些针对随机对照试验的研究报告，盲评失败率在46％至73％之间。 · In some disciplines it is very important to have access to competing interests information, statements there can provide information about author affiliations or activities. 在某些学科中，获取与利益冲突相关的信息非常重要，陈述里可以提供有关作者隶属关系或参与活动的信息。
2020-09-24 16:29