伦理视角下的同行评审:可能存在的问题

IF 0.1 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
A. Petrisor
{"title":"伦理视角下的同行评审:可能存在的问题","authors":"A. Petrisor","doi":"10.37083/bosn.2020.25.183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The pressure to publish and get cited along with the extensive use of citation metrics in individual career promotion, research funding and university ranking have radically changed the research ecosystem during the last few decades, favoring the rise of predatory journals. This phenomenon has shaken the very backbone of the system, represented by the peer review process. The present article builds up upon the recommendation for reviewers, including the ethical ones, and articles expressing some concerns related to the peer review in order not to answer, but merely ask several questions that could serve as the start point for a reform of the system. Overall, the role of peer review is not at stakes, but its intricate mechanisms need to adapt to the challenges of the new environment.-------------------------------------------------Stručna recenzija pod etičkim povećalom: moguća pitanjaPritisak da se rad objavi i citira zajedno s velikom upotrebom citatskih metrika u individualnoj promociji karijere, financiranju istraživanja i rangiranju univerziteta radikalno su promijenili istraživački ekosistem tijekom posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, pogodujući porastu grabežljivih časopisa. Ovaj fenomen je uzdrmao samu okosnicu sistema, predstavljenog postupkom stručne recenzije. Ovaj se članak temelji na preporuci za recenzente, uključujući etiku, te članci izražavaju zabrinutost koja se odnosi na recenziju, ne kako bi dali odgovor, već postavljajući samo nekoliko pitanja koja bi mogla poslužiti kao polazište za reformu sistema. Sveukupno, uloga stručne provjere nije na kocki, ali njeni zamršeni mehanizmi moraju se prilagoditi izazovima novog okruženja.","PeriodicalId":40324,"journal":{"name":"Bosniaca-Journal of the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peer review under the ethical lens: possible questions\",\"authors\":\"A. Petrisor\",\"doi\":\"10.37083/bosn.2020.25.183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The pressure to publish and get cited along with the extensive use of citation metrics in individual career promotion, research funding and university ranking have radically changed the research ecosystem during the last few decades, favoring the rise of predatory journals. This phenomenon has shaken the very backbone of the system, represented by the peer review process. The present article builds up upon the recommendation for reviewers, including the ethical ones, and articles expressing some concerns related to the peer review in order not to answer, but merely ask several questions that could serve as the start point for a reform of the system. Overall, the role of peer review is not at stakes, but its intricate mechanisms need to adapt to the challenges of the new environment.-------------------------------------------------Stručna recenzija pod etičkim povećalom: moguća pitanjaPritisak da se rad objavi i citira zajedno s velikom upotrebom citatskih metrika u individualnoj promociji karijere, financiranju istraživanja i rangiranju univerziteta radikalno su promijenili istraživački ekosistem tijekom posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, pogodujući porastu grabežljivih časopisa. Ovaj fenomen je uzdrmao samu okosnicu sistema, predstavljenog postupkom stručne recenzije. Ovaj se članak temelji na preporuci za recenzente, uključujući etiku, te članci izražavaju zabrinutost koja se odnosi na recenziju, ne kako bi dali odgovor, već postavljajući samo nekoliko pitanja koja bi mogla poslužiti kao polazište za reformu sistema. Sveukupno, uloga stručne provjere nije na kocki, ali njeni zamršeni mehanizmi moraju se prilagoditi izazovima novog okruženja.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bosniaca-Journal of the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bosniaca-Journal of the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37083/bosn.2020.25.183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bosniaca-Journal of the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37083/bosn.2020.25.183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的几十年里,论文发表和被引用的压力,以及在个人职业晋升、研究经费和大学排名中广泛使用的引用指标,从根本上改变了研究生态系统,有利于掠夺性期刊的崛起。这种现象已经动摇了以同行评审过程为代表的系统的核心。本文以审稿人的建议为基础,包括伦理方面的建议,以及表达与同行评议有关的一些问题的文章,这些文章不是为了回答,而是仅仅提出几个问题,这些问题可以作为系统改革的起点。总的来说,同行评议的作用并不重要,但其复杂的机制需要适应新环境的挑战。------------------------------------------------- stru na recenzija pod eti kim povećalom: moguća pitanjaPritisak da se rad objavi i citira zajedno s velikom upotrebom citatskih metrika u individualnoj promociji karijere, financiancirju istraživanja i rangiranju univerziteta radikalno su promijenili istraživački ekosystem tijekom posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, pogodujući porastu grabežljivih asopisa。Ovaj women je uzdrmao samu okosnicu sistema, preprestavljenog postupkom strum nerecenzije。Ovaj se temelji na preporuci za recenzente, uključujući etiku, the lanci izražavaju zabrinutost koja se odnosi na recenziju, ne kako bi dali odgovor, veki postavljajući samo nekoliko pitanja koja bi mogla poslužiti kao polazište za reformu sistema。Sveukupno, uloga strut, ne provjere nije na kocki, ali njeni zamršeni mehanizmi moraju se priilagoditi izazovima novog okruženja。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Peer review under the ethical lens: possible questions
The pressure to publish and get cited along with the extensive use of citation metrics in individual career promotion, research funding and university ranking have radically changed the research ecosystem during the last few decades, favoring the rise of predatory journals. This phenomenon has shaken the very backbone of the system, represented by the peer review process. The present article builds up upon the recommendation for reviewers, including the ethical ones, and articles expressing some concerns related to the peer review in order not to answer, but merely ask several questions that could serve as the start point for a reform of the system. Overall, the role of peer review is not at stakes, but its intricate mechanisms need to adapt to the challenges of the new environment.-------------------------------------------------Stručna recenzija pod etičkim povećalom: moguća pitanjaPritisak da se rad objavi i citira zajedno s velikom upotrebom citatskih metrika u individualnoj promociji karijere, financiranju istraživanja i rangiranju univerziteta radikalno su promijenili istraživački ekosistem tijekom posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, pogodujući porastu grabežljivih časopisa. Ovaj fenomen je uzdrmao samu okosnicu sistema, predstavljenog postupkom stručne recenzije. Ovaj se članak temelji na preporuci za recenzente, uključujući etiku, te članci izražavaju zabrinutost koja se odnosi na recenziju, ne kako bi dali odgovor, već postavljajući samo nekoliko pitanja koja bi mogla poslužiti kao polazište za reformu sistema. Sveukupno, uloga stručne provjere nije na kocki, ali njeni zamršeni mehanizmi moraju se prilagoditi izazovima novog okruženja.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
50.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信