Pierno Alessandro, Fruscio Robert, Bellani Giacomo
Firenze University Press, Università di Firenze.
Dipartimento di Medicine e Chirurgia, Università Milano-Bicocca, Milano - Ospedale San Gerardo, Monza.
Recenti Prog Med. 2017 Sep;108(9):355-359. doi: 10.1701/2745.27985.
Since several decades, peer review has become the standard to evaluate quality and priority of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals. During this process, manuscript is reviewed by scientists from the same field of the authors, with a competency on the topic of the manuscript (peer reviewers). Peer reviewers submit their comments to the journal editor, who then takes a decision on manuscript acceptance, need for revision of rejection. Several models for peer review exist, such as double-blind, single-blind, open, post publication. Hence the task of peer reviewer requires time, competency and carries a significant responsibility. Most peer reviewers perform these task as a service to the scientific community, but explicit recognition of this effort is still very limited. This has negative consequences on the publication process overall, since scientists often decline invitations to peer review and quality is not always ensured. In this article we overview the main options available for crediting peer reviewers for their efforts, focusing, in particular on the creation of a robust metrics able to attest the number and quality of peer reviews produced by this individual. This process implies the involvement of peer reviewers, journal editors and publishers and of a third, external, certification party. If implemented, this strategy could promote a virtuous circle, leading to an overall improvement of the process of peer review and ultimately of scientific publishing.
几十年来,同行评审已成为评估提交给科学期刊的稿件质量和优先级的标准。在此过程中,稿件由来自与作者同一领域、具备稿件主题相关能力的科学家(同行评审员)进行评审。同行评审员将他们的意见提交给期刊编辑,然后编辑决定稿件的录用、是否需要修改或拒稿。存在多种同行评审模式,如双盲、单盲、公开、发表后评审等。因此,同行评审员的任务需要时间、能力,且责任重大。大多数同行评审员将这些任务作为对科学界的服务来履行,但对这种努力的明确认可仍然非常有限。这对整个出版过程产生了负面影响,因为科学家们常常拒绝同行评审邀请,而且质量也并非总能得到保证。在本文中,我们概述了认可同行评审员努力的主要可选方式,尤其着重于创建一个强大的指标体系,以证明个人所进行的同行评审的数量和质量。这个过程需要同行评审员、期刊编辑和出版商以及第三方外部认证机构的参与。如果实施这一策略,可能会形成一个良性循环,从而全面改善同行评审过程,最终提升科学出版水平。