Рецензирование в современных научных коммуникациях
Научная статья
Для цитирования
Тамбовцев В. Л. Рецензирование в современных научных коммуникациях // Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2021. Том 3. № 1. С. 35-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2021.3.1.2
Аннотация
Статья посвящена обоснованию требований, которые имеет смысл предъявлять к научным рецензиям на рукописи журнальных статей для того, чтобы сократить усилия рецензентов без снижения качества рецензий. Для этого характеризуется роль рецензирования в научных коммуникациях и анализируются изменения, произошедшие в научных коммуникациях запоследние два десятилетия, включая появление журналов открытого доступа и его последствий: мегажурналов и хищнических журналов. Даётся оценка новой модели рецензирования в мегажурналах, снижающей усилия рецензентов, но снижающей также уровень доверия к публикуемым в них статьям. Анализируется двоякая функция научного рецензирования:общественная, решающая задачу содействия росту научного знания и облегчающая ориентацию учёных в журнальных публикациях, и частная, повышающая конкурентные преимущества издателей на рынке научных публикаций. Предлагается разделить эти функции, оставив за традиционнонеоплачиваемыми рецензиями только общественную и переведя частную в разряд платных услуг: редактор (издатель) журнала может заказывать рецензенту рекомендации автору по улучшению текста статьи. Даётся описание новых требований к рецензиям, в которых должна анализироватьсятолько научность статьи, профессиональность автора и новизна полученных результатов исследования.
Ключевые слова:
научное рецензирование, социальная и частная функции рецензирования, журналы открытого доступа, мегажурналы, рецензирование здравомыслия, хищнические журналы, задачи рецензирования
Литература
1. Duerden, B. I. (1993). Scientific publication – a cornerstone of the research cycle. Journal of Medical Microbiology. Vol. 39. Is. 2. Pp. 85–86.
2. Franck, G. (2002). The Scientific Economy of Attention: A Novel Approach to the Collective Rationality of Science. Scientometrics. Vol. 55. No. 1. Pp. 3–26.
3. Anderson, S. P. and de Palma, A. (2012). Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age. RAND Journal of Economics. Vol. 43. No. 1. Pp. 1–25.
4. Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N. and Shleifer, A. (2016). Competition for Attention. Review of Economic Studies. Vol. 83. Is. 2. Pp. 481–513.
5. Bell, S. C., Castellani, C. and Flume, P. A. (2019). Disruption in research publishing – the open access revolution. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. Vol. 18. Is. 6. Pp. 747–749.
6. Boyce, P. B. and Dalterio, H. (1996). Electronic publishing of scientific journals. Physics Today. Vol. 49. Is. 1. Pp. 42–47.
7. Guerrero, R. and Piqueras, M. (2004). Open access: A turning point in scientific publication. International Microbiology. Vol. 7. No. 3. Pp. 157–161.
8. Swan, A. and Brown, S. N. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing. Vol. 17. Is. 3. Pp. 219–224.
9. Eysenbach, G. (2006). The Open Access Advantage. Journal of Medical Internet Research. Vol. 8. No. 2. e8. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e8
10. Craig, I. D., Plume, A., Mcveigh, M. E., Pringle, J. and Amin, M. (2007). Do Open Access Articles Have Greater Citation Impact? A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of Informetrics. Vol. 1. No. 3. Pp. 239–248.
11. Davis, P. M. and Walters, W. H. (2011). The Impact of Free Access to the Scientific Literature: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of the Medical Library Association. Vol. 99. No. 3. Pp. 208–217.
12. Gaulé, P. and Maystre, N. (2011). Getting cited: Does open access help? Research Policy. Vol. 40. Is. 10. Pp. 1332–1338.
13. Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W. and Devine, E. (2017). Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 68. Is. 5. Pp. 1201–1211.
14. Dalton, E. D., Tenopir, C. and Björk, B.-C. (2020). Attitudes of North American Academics toward Open Access Scholarly Journals. Libraries and the Academy. Vol. 20. No. 1. Pp. 73–100.
15. Moksness, L. and Olsen, S. O. (2020). Perceived quality and self- identity in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 71. Is. 3. Pp. 338–348.
16. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. Vol. 489 (7415). P. 179.
17. Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage – chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. Vol. 2. Is. 2. Pp. 47–49.
18. Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica. Vol. 27. No. 2. Pp. 273–278.
19. Munk, P. L., Coupal, T. M. and Peh, W. C. G. (2018). A shift in scholarly publishing practices and the growing menace of predatory journals. Medical Journal of Australia. Vol. 209. Is. 4. Pp. 149–150.
20. Bartholomew, R. E. (2014). Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol. 107. Is. 10. Pp. 384–385. DOI:10.1177/0141076814548526
21. Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R. and Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology. Vol. 66. Is. 7. Pp. 1406–1417.
22. Moher, D. [et al.] (2017). Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. Vol. 549 (7670). Рр. 23–35. DOI:10.1038/549023a
23. Pyne, D. (2017). The Rewards of Predatory Publications at a Small Business School. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. Vol. 48. Is. 3. Pp. 137–160. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137
24. Crotty, D. (2017). Predatory Publishing as a Rational Response to Poorly Governed Academic Incentives. The Scholarly Kitchen. February 28, 2017. URL: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/28/predatory-publishing-rational-response-poorly-governed-academic-incentives/ (accessed 21.01.2021).
25. Curry, M. J. and Lillis, T. (2018). The Dangers of English as Lingua Franca of Journals. Inside Higher Ed. March 13, 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/03/13/domination-english-language-journal-publishing-hurting-scholarship-many-countries (accessed 21.01.2021).
26. Scholarly Communication and Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends. (2015). A Report Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. Research Information Network CIC. March. https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/scholarly-communication-and-peer-review-mar15.pdf (accessed 21.01.2021).
27. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol. 99. No. 4. Pр. 178–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
28. Heesen, R. and Bright, L. K. (2020). Is Peer Review a Good Idea? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. In press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029
29. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 263. No. 10. Pp. 1323–1329.
30. Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures. Vol. 12. Is. 1. Pp. 11–44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1045722022000003435
31. Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review system. Trends in Biotechnology. Vol. 20. No. 8. Pp. 357–358.
32. Jana, S. 2019. A history and development of peer-review process. Annals of Library and Information Studies. Vol. 66. Is. 4. Pp. 152–162.
33. Weller, A. C. (1991). Potential Bias in Editorial Peer Review. Serials Librarian. Vol. 19. No. 3–4, Pp. 95–103. DOI: 10.1300/J123v19n03_12
34. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. and Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 64. Is. 1. Pр. 2–17.
35. Ceci, S. J. and Peters, D. P. (1982). Peer Review: A Study of Reliability. Change. Vol. 14. No. 6. Pp. 44–48.
36. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D. and Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and Reliability of Scaffolded Peer Assessment of Writing from Instructor and Student Perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 98. No. 4. Pp. 891–901.
37. Fletcher, R.H. and Fletcher, S.W. (1997). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 3. No. 1. Pp. 35–50.
38. Blackburn, J. L. and Hakel, M. D. (2006). An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science. Vol. 17. No. 5. Pp. 378–382.
39. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Vol. 45. No. 1. Pp. 197–245.
40. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A. and Oransky, I. (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature. Vol. 515(27). Pр. 480–482. DOI: 10.1038/515480a
41. Bero, L. (2017). Addressing bias and conflict of interest among biomedical researchers. Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 317. No. 17. Pр. 1723–1724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.3854
42. Petersen, J. (2017). How innovative are editors? Evidence across journals and disciplines. Research Evaluation. Vol. 26. Is. 3. Pp. 256–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx015
43. Eden, L. (2010). Letter from the Editor-in-Chief: Scientists behaving badly. Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 41. Is. 4. Pp. 561–566.
44. Suls, J. and Martin, R. (2009). The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 4. Is. 1. Pp. 40–50.
45. Ling, F. (2011). Improving peer review: increasing reviewer participation. Learned Publishing. Vol. 24. Is. 3. Pp. 231–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20110311
46. Ware, M. (2011). Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions. New Review of Information Networking. Vol. 16. Is. 1. Pp. 23–53.
47. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. and Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. Vol. 22. Is. 1. Pр. 22–40.
48. Tennant, J. P. [et al.] (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000 Research. Vol. 6. Article 1151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
49. Tennant, J. P. (2018). The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiologly Letters. Vol. 365. Is. 19. Article fny204. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204
50. Allen, H., Cury, A., Gaston, T., Graf, C., Wakley, H. and Willis, M. (2019). What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learned Publishing. Vol. 32. Is. 2. Pp. 163–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222
51. Tennant, J. P. and Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. Vol. 5. Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
52. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J. and Willett, P. (2017). Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation. Vol. 73. No. 2. Pp. 263–283
53. Lăzăroiu, G. (2017). Do mega-journals constitute the future of scholarly communication? Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 49. Is. 11. Pp. 1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1300022
54. Butler, D. (2008). PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing. Nature News. Vol. 454. No. 11. P. 11. doi:10.1038/454011a. URL: www.nature.com/news/2008/080702/full/454011a.html (accessed 02.12.2020).
55. Eve, M. P. (2014). Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. URL: www.martineve.com/images/uploads/2014/11/Eve_2014_Open-Access-and-the-Humanities.pdf
56. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Fry, J., Creaser, C. and Willett, P. (2018). “Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals. Journal of Documentation. Vol. 74. Is. 1. Pp. 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092
57. Erfanmanesh, M. and Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2019). Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors? Scientometrics. Vol. 120. Is. 2. Pp. 917–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03153-5
58. Wakeling, S. [et al.] (2020). “No comment”? A study of commenting on PLOS articles. Journal of Information Science. Vol. 46. Is. 1. Pp. 82–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518819965
59. Björk, B. C. and Hedlund, T. (2015). Emerging new methods of peer review in scholarly journals. Learned Publishing. Vol. 28. Is. 2. Pp. 85–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20150202
60. Etkin, A., Gaston, T. and Roberts, J. (2017). Peer Review: Reform and Renewal in Scientific Publishing. Mountain View, CA: ATG Media
61. Bornmann, L., Herich, H., Joos, H. and Daniel, H. D. (2012). In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Scientometrics. Vol. 93. Is. 3. Pp. 915–929.
62. Martín E. (2016). How double-blind peer review works and what it takes to be a good referee. Current Sociology. Vol. 64. Is. 5. Pp. 691–698.
63. Kamat, P. V., Scholes, G., Prezhdo, O., Zaera, F., Zwier, T. and Schatz, G. C. (2014). Overcoming the Myths of the Review Process and Getting Your Paper Ready for Publication. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. Vol. 5. No. 5. Pp. 896–899. https://doi.org/10.1021/jz500162r
64. Nicholas, D. [et al.] (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing. Vol. 28. No. 1. Pp. 15–21.
65. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G. and Takacs, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy. Vol. 42. Is. 1. Pp. 287–294.
66. Watve, M. (2019). The Evolutionary Psychology of Scientific Publishing: Costbenefit Optimization of Players in the Game. EcoEvoRxiv. July 11. doi:10.32942/osf.io/nvpe2. URL: https://ecoevorxiv.org/nvpe2/
67. Cornelius, J. L. (2012). Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay. Australasian Medical Journal. Vol. 5. No. 1. Pp. 26–29. DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2012.1165
68. Lyman R. L. (2013). A three-decade history of the duration of peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 44, No. 3, Pp. 211-220. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.44.3.001
69. Huisman, J. and Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics. Vol. 113. Is. 1. Pр. 633–650.
70. Teixeira Da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J. (2017). Excessively long editorial decisions and excessively long publication times by journals: Causes, risks, consequences, and proposed solutions. Publishing Research Quarterly. Vol. 33. Is. 1. Pр. 101–108.
2. Franck, G. (2002). The Scientific Economy of Attention: A Novel Approach to the Collective Rationality of Science. Scientometrics. Vol. 55. No. 1. Pp. 3–26.
3. Anderson, S. P. and de Palma, A. (2012). Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age. RAND Journal of Economics. Vol. 43. No. 1. Pp. 1–25.
4. Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N. and Shleifer, A. (2016). Competition for Attention. Review of Economic Studies. Vol. 83. Is. 2. Pp. 481–513.
5. Bell, S. C., Castellani, C. and Flume, P. A. (2019). Disruption in research publishing – the open access revolution. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. Vol. 18. Is. 6. Pp. 747–749.
6. Boyce, P. B. and Dalterio, H. (1996). Electronic publishing of scientific journals. Physics Today. Vol. 49. Is. 1. Pp. 42–47.
7. Guerrero, R. and Piqueras, M. (2004). Open access: A turning point in scientific publication. International Microbiology. Vol. 7. No. 3. Pp. 157–161.
8. Swan, A. and Brown, S. N. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing. Vol. 17. Is. 3. Pp. 219–224.
9. Eysenbach, G. (2006). The Open Access Advantage. Journal of Medical Internet Research. Vol. 8. No. 2. e8. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e8
10. Craig, I. D., Plume, A., Mcveigh, M. E., Pringle, J. and Amin, M. (2007). Do Open Access Articles Have Greater Citation Impact? A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of Informetrics. Vol. 1. No. 3. Pp. 239–248.
11. Davis, P. M. and Walters, W. H. (2011). The Impact of Free Access to the Scientific Literature: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of the Medical Library Association. Vol. 99. No. 3. Pp. 208–217.
12. Gaulé, P. and Maystre, N. (2011). Getting cited: Does open access help? Research Policy. Vol. 40. Is. 10. Pp. 1332–1338.
13. Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W. and Devine, E. (2017). Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 68. Is. 5. Pp. 1201–1211.
14. Dalton, E. D., Tenopir, C. and Björk, B.-C. (2020). Attitudes of North American Academics toward Open Access Scholarly Journals. Libraries and the Academy. Vol. 20. No. 1. Pp. 73–100.
15. Moksness, L. and Olsen, S. O. (2020). Perceived quality and self- identity in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 71. Is. 3. Pp. 338–348.
16. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. Vol. 489 (7415). P. 179.
17. Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage – chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. Vol. 2. Is. 2. Pp. 47–49.
18. Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica. Vol. 27. No. 2. Pp. 273–278.
19. Munk, P. L., Coupal, T. M. and Peh, W. C. G. (2018). A shift in scholarly publishing practices and the growing menace of predatory journals. Medical Journal of Australia. Vol. 209. Is. 4. Pp. 149–150.
20. Bartholomew, R. E. (2014). Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol. 107. Is. 10. Pp. 384–385. DOI:10.1177/0141076814548526
21. Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R. and Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology. Vol. 66. Is. 7. Pp. 1406–1417.
22. Moher, D. [et al.] (2017). Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. Vol. 549 (7670). Рр. 23–35. DOI:10.1038/549023a
23. Pyne, D. (2017). The Rewards of Predatory Publications at a Small Business School. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. Vol. 48. Is. 3. Pp. 137–160. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137
24. Crotty, D. (2017). Predatory Publishing as a Rational Response to Poorly Governed Academic Incentives. The Scholarly Kitchen. February 28, 2017. URL: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/28/predatory-publishing-rational-response-poorly-governed-academic-incentives/ (accessed 21.01.2021).
25. Curry, M. J. and Lillis, T. (2018). The Dangers of English as Lingua Franca of Journals. Inside Higher Ed. March 13, 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/03/13/domination-english-language-journal-publishing-hurting-scholarship-many-countries (accessed 21.01.2021).
26. Scholarly Communication and Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends. (2015). A Report Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. Research Information Network CIC. March. https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/scholarly-communication-and-peer-review-mar15.pdf (accessed 21.01.2021).
27. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol. 99. No. 4. Pр. 178–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
28. Heesen, R. and Bright, L. K. (2020). Is Peer Review a Good Idea? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. In press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029
29. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 263. No. 10. Pp. 1323–1329.
30. Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures. Vol. 12. Is. 1. Pp. 11–44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1045722022000003435
31. Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review system. Trends in Biotechnology. Vol. 20. No. 8. Pp. 357–358.
32. Jana, S. 2019. A history and development of peer-review process. Annals of Library and Information Studies. Vol. 66. Is. 4. Pp. 152–162.
33. Weller, A. C. (1991). Potential Bias in Editorial Peer Review. Serials Librarian. Vol. 19. No. 3–4, Pp. 95–103. DOI: 10.1300/J123v19n03_12
34. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. and Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 64. Is. 1. Pр. 2–17.
35. Ceci, S. J. and Peters, D. P. (1982). Peer Review: A Study of Reliability. Change. Vol. 14. No. 6. Pp. 44–48.
36. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D. and Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and Reliability of Scaffolded Peer Assessment of Writing from Instructor and Student Perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 98. No. 4. Pp. 891–901.
37. Fletcher, R.H. and Fletcher, S.W. (1997). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 3. No. 1. Pp. 35–50.
38. Blackburn, J. L. and Hakel, M. D. (2006). An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science. Vol. 17. No. 5. Pp. 378–382.
39. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Vol. 45. No. 1. Pp. 197–245.
40. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A. and Oransky, I. (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature. Vol. 515(27). Pр. 480–482. DOI: 10.1038/515480a
41. Bero, L. (2017). Addressing bias and conflict of interest among biomedical researchers. Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 317. No. 17. Pр. 1723–1724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.3854
42. Petersen, J. (2017). How innovative are editors? Evidence across journals and disciplines. Research Evaluation. Vol. 26. Is. 3. Pp. 256–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx015
43. Eden, L. (2010). Letter from the Editor-in-Chief: Scientists behaving badly. Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 41. Is. 4. Pp. 561–566.
44. Suls, J. and Martin, R. (2009). The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 4. Is. 1. Pp. 40–50.
45. Ling, F. (2011). Improving peer review: increasing reviewer participation. Learned Publishing. Vol. 24. Is. 3. Pp. 231–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20110311
46. Ware, M. (2011). Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions. New Review of Information Networking. Vol. 16. Is. 1. Pp. 23–53.
47. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. and Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. Vol. 22. Is. 1. Pр. 22–40.
48. Tennant, J. P. [et al.] (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000 Research. Vol. 6. Article 1151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
49. Tennant, J. P. (2018). The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiologly Letters. Vol. 365. Is. 19. Article fny204. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204
50. Allen, H., Cury, A., Gaston, T., Graf, C., Wakley, H. and Willis, M. (2019). What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learned Publishing. Vol. 32. Is. 2. Pp. 163–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222
51. Tennant, J. P. and Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. Vol. 5. Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
52. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J. and Willett, P. (2017). Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation. Vol. 73. No. 2. Pp. 263–283
53. Lăzăroiu, G. (2017). Do mega-journals constitute the future of scholarly communication? Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 49. Is. 11. Pp. 1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1300022
54. Butler, D. (2008). PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing. Nature News. Vol. 454. No. 11. P. 11. doi:10.1038/454011a. URL: www.nature.com/news/2008/080702/full/454011a.html (accessed 02.12.2020).
55. Eve, M. P. (2014). Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. URL: www.martineve.com/images/uploads/2014/11/Eve_2014_Open-Access-and-the-Humanities.pdf
56. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Fry, J., Creaser, C. and Willett, P. (2018). “Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals. Journal of Documentation. Vol. 74. Is. 1. Pp. 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092
57. Erfanmanesh, M. and Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2019). Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors? Scientometrics. Vol. 120. Is. 2. Pp. 917–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03153-5
58. Wakeling, S. [et al.] (2020). “No comment”? A study of commenting on PLOS articles. Journal of Information Science. Vol. 46. Is. 1. Pp. 82–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518819965
59. Björk, B. C. and Hedlund, T. (2015). Emerging new methods of peer review in scholarly journals. Learned Publishing. Vol. 28. Is. 2. Pp. 85–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20150202
60. Etkin, A., Gaston, T. and Roberts, J. (2017). Peer Review: Reform and Renewal in Scientific Publishing. Mountain View, CA: ATG Media
61. Bornmann, L., Herich, H., Joos, H. and Daniel, H. D. (2012). In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Scientometrics. Vol. 93. Is. 3. Pp. 915–929.
62. Martín E. (2016). How double-blind peer review works and what it takes to be a good referee. Current Sociology. Vol. 64. Is. 5. Pp. 691–698.
63. Kamat, P. V., Scholes, G., Prezhdo, O., Zaera, F., Zwier, T. and Schatz, G. C. (2014). Overcoming the Myths of the Review Process and Getting Your Paper Ready for Publication. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. Vol. 5. No. 5. Pp. 896–899. https://doi.org/10.1021/jz500162r
64. Nicholas, D. [et al.] (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing. Vol. 28. No. 1. Pp. 15–21.
65. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G. and Takacs, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy. Vol. 42. Is. 1. Pp. 287–294.
66. Watve, M. (2019). The Evolutionary Psychology of Scientific Publishing: Costbenefit Optimization of Players in the Game. EcoEvoRxiv. July 11. doi:10.32942/osf.io/nvpe2. URL: https://ecoevorxiv.org/nvpe2/
67. Cornelius, J. L. (2012). Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay. Australasian Medical Journal. Vol. 5. No. 1. Pp. 26–29. DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2012.1165
68. Lyman R. L. (2013). A three-decade history of the duration of peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 44, No. 3, Pp. 211-220. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.44.3.001
69. Huisman, J. and Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics. Vol. 113. Is. 1. Pр. 633–650.
70. Teixeira Da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J. (2017). Excessively long editorial decisions and excessively long publication times by journals: Causes, risks, consequences, and proposed solutions. Publishing Research Quarterly. Vol. 33. Is. 1. Pр. 101–108.
Статья
Поступила: 07.12.2020
Опубликована: 25.03.2021
Форматы цитирования
Другие форматы цитирования:
APA
Тамбовцев, В. Л. (2021). Рецензирование в современных научных коммуникациях. Управление наукой: теория и практика, 3(1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2021.3.1.2
Раздел
Механизмы и инструменты государственного управления научно-технологической сферой
