Suppr超能文献

奖励同行评审员:维护科学传播的诚信

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

作者信息

Gasparyan Armen Yuri, Gerasimov Alexey N, Voronov Alexander A, Kitas George D

机构信息

Departments of Rheumatology and Research & Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.

Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Stavropol State Agrarian University, Stavropol, Russian Federation.

出版信息

J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. Epub 2015 Mar 19.

Abstract

This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.

摘要

本文概述了目前可供选择的奖励同行评审员的方式。奖励和激励措施可能有助于维持学术出版物的质量和诚信。世界各地的出版商实施了各种财务和非财务机制来激励他们最优秀的评审员。但这些措施单独来看都未被证明有效。对评审员的创造性贡献采用奖励和积分相结合的策略似乎是一个可行的解决方案。开放评审的获取渠道并将发表积分授予最佳评审是数字化的最新成果之一。发布在学术网络平台(如Publons)上的评审增加了同行评审整个系统的透明度。评审员积分经过妥善计算并显示在个人数字档案中,有助于区分最佳贡献者,邀请他们进行评审并提供负责任的编辑职位。

相似文献

1
Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. Epub 2015 Mar 19.
2
Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication.
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Nov;30(11):1545-52. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.11.1545. Epub 2015 Oct 16.
3
Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication.
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Aug;30(8):1010-6. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010. Epub 2015 Jul 15.
4
Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers.
Reumatologia. 2021;59(1):3-8. doi: 10.5114/reum.2021.102709. Epub 2021 Feb 28.
5
Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?
Am J Med. 2020 Jan;133(1):26-31. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.07.028. Epub 2019 Aug 13.
6
Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research.
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 Oct;31(10):1511-3. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511.
8
Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools.
J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Jul 15;34(27):e184. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e184.
9
Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016 Feb;98(2):77-9. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056.
10
Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID.
J Korean Med Sci. 2014 Nov;29(11):1453-6. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1453. Epub 2014 Nov 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Peer Review in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Call for Developing Responsible Integration Guidelines.
Nat Sci Sleep. 2025 Jan 24;17:159-164. doi: 10.2147/NSS.S513872. eCollection 2025.
2
Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.
F1000Res. 2024 Aug 27;13:439. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.148985.1. eCollection 2024.
3
Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.
J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Dec 4;38(47):e405. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405.
4
Employing Unprofessional Editors for Handling Submissions in Scholarly Journals.
J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Oct 16;38(40):e354. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e354.
5
Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.
J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Oct 16;38(40):e324. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e324.
7
The potential use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in healthcare and medical research.
PLOS Digit Health. 2023 Jul 27;2(7):e0000312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000312. eCollection 2023 Jul.
8
Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey.
J Korean Med Sci. 2022 May 9;37(18):e142. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e142.
10
Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis.
J Korean Med Sci. 2021 Jun 28;36(25):e169. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e169.

本文引用的文献

1
Fortifying the external peer review: an editorial perspective.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Jan;25(1):2-3.
2
A praise for reviewers: how do we reward them?
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jan 20;65(2):212-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.002.
3
Publishing costs: Peer review as a business transaction.
Nature. 2015 Jan 8;517(7533):145. doi: 10.1038/517145a.
4
A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science.
PLoS Med. 2014 Dec 30;11(12):e1001772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001772. eCollection 2014 Dec.
5
Publishing: The peer-review scam.
Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):480-2. doi: 10.1038/515480a.
6
Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID.
J Korean Med Sci. 2014 Nov;29(11):1453-6. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1453. Epub 2014 Nov 4.
7
Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.
J Korean Med Sci. 2014 Nov;29(11):1450-2. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1450. Epub 2014 Nov 4.
8
Review rewards.
Nature. 2014 Oct 16;514(7522):274. doi: 10.1038/514274a.
9
Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.
J Psychosom Res. 2015 Jan;78(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015. Epub 2014 Oct 2.
10
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.
BMC Med. 2014 Sep 26;12:179. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验