GigaScience 同行评审探秘
Peering into peer-review at GigaScience.
机构信息
GigaScience, BGI HK Ltd,, 16 Dai Fu Street, Tai Po Industrial Estate, Hong Kong.
出版信息
Gigascience. 2013 Jan 24;2(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-2-1.
Abstract
Fostering and promoting more open and transparent science is one of the goals of GigaScience. One of the ways we have been doing this is by throwing light on the peer-review process and carrying out open peer-review as standard. In this editorial, we provide our rationale for undertaking this policy, give examples of our positive experiences to date, and encourage others to open up the normally opaque publication process.
摘要
促进和推动更开放和透明的科学是 GigaScience 的目标之一。我们一直在这样做的一种方式是揭示同行评审过程，并将公开同行评审作为标准。在这篇社论中，我们提供了我们采取这一政策的理由，给出了迄今为止我们积极经验的例子，并鼓励其他人开放通常不透明的出版过程。
相似文献
1
Peering into peer-review at GigaScience.GigaScience 同行评审探秘
Gigascience. 2013 Jan 24;2(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-2-1.
2
Re: Journal Standards - Editor's reply.关于：期刊标准——编辑回复。
N Z Vet J. 2003 Aug;51(4):199. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2003.36367.
3
Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.多阶段公开同行评审：将传统同行评审的优势与透明度和自我监管的优点相结合的科学评估。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Jul 5;6:33. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00033. eCollection 2012.
4
GigaDB: announcing the GigaScience database.GigaDB：发布 GigaScience 数据库。
Gigascience. 2012 Jul 12;1(1):11. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-1-11.
5
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.
6
Opening up Peer Review in Life: Towards a Transparent and Reliable Process.开启生命科学同行评审的透明度和可靠性。
Life (Basel). 2014 May 16;4(2):225-6. doi: 10.3390/life4020225.
7
Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science.让阳光照进来：审查评议者及其他提高科学透明度的方法。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Apr 3;6:20. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020. eCollection 2012.
8
Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview.四家STEM期刊的开放同行评审：一项观察性综述。
F1000Res. 2015 Jan 9;4:6. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6005.2. eCollection 2015.
9
On the evolving open peer review culture for chemical information science.论化学信息科学不断发展的开放同行评审文化。
F1000Res. 2015 Nov 25;4. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.7460.1. eCollection 2015.
引用本文的文献
1
Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.同行评审标签与现实之间的脱节是否解释了同行评审危机，开放同行评审或预印本能解决这一危机吗？一项叙述性综述。
Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2025 Aug 14. doi: 10.1007/s00210-025-04486-0.
2
: Publishing at the Speed of Research.以研究的速度进行出版。
GigaByte. 2020 Jul 1;2020:gigabyte1. doi: 10.46471/gigabyte.1. eCollection 2020.
3
A Decade of GigaScience: Milestones in Open Science.《GigaScience 十年：开放科学的里程碑》。
Gigascience. 2022 Jul 12;11. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giac067.
4
Looking back: forward looking.回顾过去：展望未来。
Gigascience. 2017 Sep 1;6(9):1-3. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/gix064.
5
Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?开放、单盲、双盲：你更喜欢哪种同行评审过程？
BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014 Sep 30;15:55. doi: 10.1186/2050-6511-15-55.
6
A sea of standards for omics data: sink or swim?组学数据标准的海洋：沉或浮？
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Mar-Apr;21(2):200-3. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002066. Epub 2013 Sep 27.
本文引用的文献
1
SOAPdenovo2: an empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler.SOAPdenovo2：一种经验丰富的、内存效率高的短读长从头组装器。
Gigascience. 2012 Dec 27;1(1):18. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-1-18.
2
Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review.从开源软件项目中学习以改进科学评审。
Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Apr 18;6:18. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00018. eCollection 2012.
3
Is open peer review the fairest system? No.开放同行评审是最公平的系统吗？不是。
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c6425. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6425.
4
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.告知审稿人他们签署的审稿意见可能会被发布到网上对同行评审的影响：随机对照试验。
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c5729. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729.
5
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.公开同行评审对评审质量及评审者建议的影响：一项随机试验
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
Zotero 插件