打开潘多拉的盒子:对同行评审过程的批判

Q2 Medicine Synergy Pub Date : 2022-06-20 DOI:10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11
Lucia-Mihaela Grosu-Rădulescu
{"title":"打开潘多拉的盒子:对同行评审过程的批判","authors":"Lucia-Mihaela Grosu-Rădulescu","doi":"10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Publishing procedures in all scientific areas have been in constant flux to ensure articles’\nformal unity and most importantly significant contribution to respective research fields.\nScientists but more specifically higher education professionals across the globe have joined\na race for “points” to warrant their standing in academic communities or to comply with\npromotion or tenure requirements. Publishing scientific/ academic work in high-ranking\njournals is today the norm in most universities worldwide which has imposed on editorial\nteams methods of selection relying almost exclusively on the authority of reviewers.\nThis article will present a brief overview of recent concerns regarding the peer review\npractice in different publishing fields and the issue of less than collegial behaviours that\nhave also emerged. The paper examines the importance of unbiased feedback of specialists\nwhich ensures the quality of published materials and highlights authors’ apprehension\nabout bullying in peer review processes. The present critique will also mention the need for\ngolden rules of conduct for peer reviewers and the necessity of editorial boards to\nsupervise and address inappropriate aggressive comments from reviewers.","PeriodicalId":38079,"journal":{"name":"Synergy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"OPENING PANDORA’S BOX:\\nA CRITIQUE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESSES\",\"authors\":\"Lucia-Mihaela Grosu-Rădulescu\",\"doi\":\"10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Publishing procedures in all scientific areas have been in constant flux to ensure articles’\\nformal unity and most importantly significant contribution to respective research fields.\\nScientists but more specifically higher education professionals across the globe have joined\\na race for “points” to warrant their standing in academic communities or to comply with\\npromotion or tenure requirements. Publishing scientific/ academic work in high-ranking\\njournals is today the norm in most universities worldwide which has imposed on editorial\\nteams methods of selection relying almost exclusively on the authority of reviewers.\\nThis article will present a brief overview of recent concerns regarding the peer review\\npractice in different publishing fields and the issue of less than collegial behaviours that\\nhave also emerged. The paper examines the importance of unbiased feedback of specialists\\nwhich ensures the quality of published materials and highlights authors’ apprehension\\nabout bullying in peer review processes. The present critique will also mention the need for\\ngolden rules of conduct for peer reviewers and the necessity of editorial boards to\\nsupervise and address inappropriate aggressive comments from reviewers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Synergy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Synergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Synergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

所有科学领域的出版程序都在不断变化,以确保文章的形式统一,最重要的是对各自研究领域做出重大贡献。科学家,更具体地说,全球各地的高等教育专业人士都加入了争夺“分数”的竞赛,以保证他们在学术界的地位,或遵守晋升或任期要求。如今,在排名靠前的期刊上发表科学/学术作品已成为世界上大多数大学的常态,这对编辑团队施加了几乎完全依赖审稿人权威的选拔方法。这篇文章将简要概述最近人们对不同出版领域的同行评审做法的担忧,以及也出现的不太合群的行为问题。这篇论文探讨了专家无偏见反馈的重要性,这可以确保出版材料的质量,并强调了作者对同行评审过程中欺凌行为的担忧。本评论还将提到需要放弃同行评审员的行为规则,以及编辑委员会监督和处理评审员不当攻击性评论的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
OPENING PANDORA’S BOX: A CRITIQUE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESSES
Publishing procedures in all scientific areas have been in constant flux to ensure articles’ formal unity and most importantly significant contribution to respective research fields. Scientists but more specifically higher education professionals across the globe have joined a race for “points” to warrant their standing in academic communities or to comply with promotion or tenure requirements. Publishing scientific/ academic work in high-ranking journals is today the norm in most universities worldwide which has imposed on editorial teams methods of selection relying almost exclusively on the authority of reviewers. This article will present a brief overview of recent concerns regarding the peer review practice in different publishing fields and the issue of less than collegial behaviours that have also emerged. The paper examines the importance of unbiased feedback of specialists which ensures the quality of published materials and highlights authors’ apprehension about bullying in peer review processes. The present critique will also mention the need for golden rules of conduct for peer reviewers and the necessity of editorial boards to supervise and address inappropriate aggressive comments from reviewers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Synergy
Synergy Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
JOURNEY AS SELF-REFLECTION - KAIKŌ TAKESHI’S “ESCAPE” FROM JAPAN PICTORIAL MAPS AND THE RISE OF MODERN RESORT IN ŌISO IN THE MID-MEIJI PERIOD A SONG OF CONTINUITY: KAGURA SECRET SONG AND THE VICENNIAL RENEWAL OF ISE JINGŪ ON THE EVE OF THE MODERN PERIOD RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF TELEWORK ON WORK-LIFE BALANCE IN JAPANESE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE GERMAN IDEALIST CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM IN MODERN JAPANESE PHILOSOPHY: A SURVEY
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1