• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

解开学术期刊的束缚。

Decoupling the scholarly journal.

机构信息

School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC, USA.

出版信息

Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Apr 5;6:19. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019. eCollection 2012.

DOI:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
PMID:22493574
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3319915/
Abstract

Although many observers have advocated the reform of the scholarly publishing system, improvements to functions like peer review have been adopted sluggishly. We argue that this is due to the tight coupling of the journal system: the system's essential functions of archiving, registration, dissemination, and certification are bundled together and siloed into tens of thousands of individual journals. This tight coupling makes it difficult to change any one aspect of the system, choking out innovation. We suggest that the solution is the "decoupled journal (DcJ)." In this system, the functions are unbundled and performed as services, able to compete for patronage and evolve in response to the market. For instance, a scholar might deposit an article in her institutional repository, have it copyedited and typeset by one company, indexed for search by several others, self-marketed over her own social networks, and peer reviewed by one or more stamping agencies that connect her paper to external reviewers. The DcJ brings publishing out of its current seventeenth-century paradigm, and creates a Web-like environment of loosely joined pieces-a marketplace of tools that, like the Web, evolves quickly in response to new technologies and users' needs. Importantly, this system is able to evolve from the current one, requiring only the continued development of bolt-on services external to the journal, particularly for peer review.

摘要

尽管许多观察家主张改革学术出版系统,但同行评审等功能的改进却进展缓慢。我们认为,这是由于期刊系统的紧密耦合造成的:该系统的存档、注册、传播和认证等基本功能捆绑在一起,并分割为数以万计的独立期刊。这种紧密耦合使得系统的任何一个方面都难以改变,扼杀了创新。我们建议解决方案是“去耦合期刊(DcJ)”。在这个系统中,功能被解耦并作为服务执行,能够竞争赞助并根据市场需求进行演变。例如,学者可以将一篇文章存入其机构知识库,由一家公司进行编辑和排版,由其他几家公司进行索引以进行搜索,通过自己的社交网络进行自我营销,并由一个或多个印章机构进行同行评审,这些印章机构将她的论文与外部评审者联系起来。DcJ 将出版业从当前的 17 世纪模式中解放出来,并创造了一个类似于 Web 的松散连接的环境——一个工具市场,它像 Web 一样,能够快速响应新技术和用户需求而发展。重要的是,这个系统能够从当前的系统中发展而来,只需要继续开发期刊外部的附加服务,特别是用于同行评审的服务。

相似文献

1
Decoupling the scholarly journal.解开学术期刊的束缚。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Apr 5;6:19. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019. eCollection 2012.
2
Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?科学作者在不断变化的学术交流世界中:未来会怎样?
Am J Med. 2020 Jan;133(1):26-31. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.07.028. Epub 2019 Aug 13.
3
Blacklists and Whitelists To Tackle Predatory Publishing: a Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis.黑名单和白名单应对掠夺性出版:横断面比较和主题分析。
mBio. 2019 Jun 4;10(3):e00411-19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00411-19.
4
Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles.医学期刊出版与编辑政策的近期问题:人工智能的应用、预印本、开放同行评审、模型文本回收政策、学术出版最佳实践第4版以及标题中的国名
Neurointervention. 2023 Mar;18(1):2-8. doi: 10.5469/neuroint.2022.00493. Epub 2023 Feb 1.
5
Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology.掠夺性出版还是缺乏同行评审透明度?-小儿泌尿外科索引开放和非开放获取文章的当代分析。
J Pediatr Urol. 2019 Apr;15(2):159.e1-159.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.08.019. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
6
Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review.创建学术生物医学期刊的建议和指南:范围综述。
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 31;18(3):e0282168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282168. eCollection 2023.
7
Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017.学术综合类大期刊的演变,2006 - 2017年
PeerJ. 2018 Feb 9;6:e4357. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4357. eCollection 2018.
8
A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals.学术开放获取期刊的创新特征研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 16;13(4):e115. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1802.
9
Scholarly publishing and journal targeting in the time of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and other specialists.在 2019 冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行时期的学术出版和期刊定位:风湿病学家和其他专家的横断面调查。
Rheumatol Int. 2020 Dec;40(12):2023-2030. doi: 10.1007/s00296-020-04718-x. Epub 2020 Oct 13.
10
A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.一个学术团体对出版的看法。
J Neurochem. 2016 Oct;139 Suppl 2:17-23. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13674. Epub 2016 Aug 17.

引用本文的文献

1
Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers.学术出版业隐藏的多样性:独家数据库如何维系学术出版商的寡头垄断。
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 26;20(6):e0327015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327015. eCollection 2025.
2
Open science in energy research.能源研究中的开放科学。
Open Res Eur. 2025 Jan 22;3:50. doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.15707.2. eCollection 2023.
3
Biomedical publishing: Past historic, present continuous, future conditional.生物医学出版:过去的历史,现在的延续,未来的条件。

本文引用的文献

1
The spread of scientific information: insights from the web usage statistics in PLoS article-level metrics.科学信息的传播:PLoS 文章级别计量学中网络使用统计数据的启示。
PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19917. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019917. Epub 2011 May 16.
2
Use of the Internet by print medical journals in 2003 to 2009: a longitudinal observational study.2003 年至 2009 年印刷医学期刊对互联网的使用:一项纵向观察研究。
Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Feb;57(2):153-160.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.10.008. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
3
Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study.
PLoS Biol. 2023 Oct 3;21(10):e3002234. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002234. eCollection 2023 Oct.
4
The limitations to our understanding of peer review.我们对同行评审理解的局限性。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 Apr 30;5:6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1. eCollection 2020.
5
Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How?透明度决策模型:是什么、为什么、谁和如何?
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Nov;37(11):1355-1369. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00819-z.
6
The state of the art in peer review.同行评审的当前技术水平。
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2018 Oct 1;365(19). doi: 10.1093/femsle/fny204.
7
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank.深度影响:期刊排名的意外后果。
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Jun 24;7:291. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291. eCollection 2013.
8
Scholarship: Beyond the paper.奖学金:超越纸面成绩。
Nature. 2013 Mar 28;495(7442):437-40. doi: 10.1038/495437a.
9
An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing.开放评估的新共识:科学出版未来的18种愿景。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Nov 15;6:94. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00094. eCollection 2012.
10
Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.公开评估:对科学进行完全透明的发表后同行评审和评级的愿景。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Oct 17;6:79. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00079. eCollection 2012.
作者对电子信件编辑提出的批评的回应是否充分:队列研究。
BMJ. 2010 Aug 10;341:c3926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3926.
4
An introduction to discussions on liquid-liquid/counter current/centrifugal partition chromatography biphasic solvent selection methodologies and instrumentation for target compound preparation from complex matrices.液-液/逆流/离心分配色谱双相溶剂选择方法及从复杂基质中制备目标化合物的仪器介绍
J Sep Sci. 2010 Apr;33(8):999-1003. doi: 10.1002/jssc.200900814.
5
Conditional survival after surgical treatment of melanoma: an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.黑色素瘤手术治疗后的条件生存:监测、流行病学和最终结果数据库分析。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun;17(6):1662-8. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-0965-8. Epub 2010 Feb 18.
6
Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs.寻找标志性成果:专家评审与文献计量分析在评估科学出版物产出中的作用
PLoS One. 2009 Jun 18;4(6):e5910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005910.
7
PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing.《公共科学图书馆》通过批量出版维持运营。
Nature. 2008 Jul 3;454(7200):11. doi: 10.1038/454011a.
8
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.用于提高生物医学研究报告质量的编辑同行评审。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;2007(2):MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.
9
Peer review and fraud.同行评审与欺诈。
Nature. 2006 Dec 21;444(7122):971-2. doi: 10.1038/444971b.
10
Revolutionizing peer review?革新同行评审?
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Apr;8(4):397. doi: 10.1038/nn0405-397.