Pass reviews are usually regarded as an important part of academic publishing，Prejudice in the current peer review、Drag the draft、Risk avoidance and other questions，Discussion on how to improve the peer evaluation system。March 24，Ludo Waltman, a professor of quantitative scientific research at Leiden University of the Netherlands、Senior Researcher Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, a senior researcher at the Center for Science and Technology Research Center, and Stephen Pinfield, Professor of Information Service Management at Shefield University in the United Kingdom, at the official website of the London School of Political Economics Written article，Sort out the different views of the current academic circles for the reform of peer review。They summarized the four representative four genres，And target、Analysis of the common points and differences。Walterman and others think，Understanding the reform positions of different genres can be expanded for peer reviews that are included in more forms of peer review。

　Bet365 app download

Caltenbron said in an interview with this reporter，The peer review system can largely guarantee the reliability and stability of scientific knowledge，Reflection and improvement of the system have significant significance。other，Single reviews also have some problems for a long time，If the reviewer has a personal prejudice during the evaluation process，bet365 live casino games The slow evaluation process caused some scientific results that needed urgently to be published.。Current，The number of submission of articles is increasing，The recruitment of the reviewer has become more difficult。

Related researchers think，The reviewer faces heavy tasks during the evaluation，To improve the integrity and scientificity of the thesis，They need to communicate with the author，While spending a lot of time, it may not be able to get the corresponding remuneration or recognition。So，Scholars have rarely reviewed colleagues to give priority to their busy academic schedule。Once the review process of the peers accelerates，Academic rigor will also face serious threats。other，The gender gap in the peer review is also obvious，The proportion of female reviewers is much lower than men。

Kaltenbron said，Clarify the purpose of the Prescription of the Reform Reform of the Peer，is a better understanding of the publisher、Researchers、Innovative measures on peer evaluations in academic exchange systems such as scientific activists and other academic exchanges。This study passed the method of reviewing peers into four genres，Determined the common attention and priority items of peer evaluation innovators。

　　Four "ideological genres"

Different peer evaluation reform measures are not only different from improvement，The key issues that need to be solved are also different。Walterman and others summarize it as four "ideological genres" -quality and reproduction faction、Democratic and Transparent School、Fair and tolerance School、Efficiency Bet365 app download and incentives。The key issues of each genre peer review system and different opinions related to them。

Quality and reproducible faction Focus on the role of peer evaluation in evaluation and improvement of research quality and reproduction。On the one hand，This genre pays great attention to innovation during the peer evaluation process，Specific methods include reviewers training、Discovery of the reviewer、Author anonymous, etc.。On the other hand，Reproduction of research is also considered the key。reproduction is an effective way to test the accuracy of scientific research results，Scientific research results can reproduce when different research teams do similar research，The final result should be roughly the same。Pass reviews can be available for preliminary report，Before data collection and analysis, conduct peer evaluation and preliminary acceptance of the research plan，To improve the quality of research and reproduction。other，Another focus of quality and reproduction of the attention is how to maintain scientific research integrity and identify academic misconduct。

Democratic and transparent factions focus on making the evaluation system of scientific research more democratic and transparent。The genre thinks，In a more democratic peer review method，Evaluation of scientific work must be opened to a wider population，instead of one or two editors and a few anonymous peer reviewers decide the evaluation results。This method allows the importance of the academic community to determine the results of a certain scientific Bet365 lotto review research results，instead of a few "watchmen" decide，Therefore, this method will be more democratic。Other innovative methods of democracy and transparent schools include publishing peer review reports、Public reviewer identity, etc.，This is also the method that more and more journals begin to adopt。Some scientific research release platforms are provided with the "release -filtering" method，That is to publish the thesis manuscript first，Perform peer reviews in an open manner，Integrate the concept of democracy and transparency。

Fair and tolerance is committed to achieving fairness and tolerance of the peer evaluation process。Recently, the school has promoted a joint commitment of Britain，This operation is led by the Royal Institute of Chemistry and received support from nearly 50 publishers，It aims to promote the inclusiveness and diversity of publishing。Another，The British Physical Society Press recently decided to convert all its issues from a single blind peer to dual -blind peer review，Because dual anonymous can hide the reviewer and author identity at the same time，Then reduce gender、race or national prejudice，Promote the formation of a more fair evaluation system。

Efficiency and incentives hope to improve the efficiency of the peer evaluation process and enhance the incentives to peer reviewers。The genre thinks，The pressure faced by the peer evaluation system will lead to the process of finding peer reviewers become more and more difficult，It may slow down the release speed of scientific research results。To reduce the pressure of the peer review system，Many journals have bet365 best casino games introduced various measures。For example，Some articles have been evaluated by the peer but failed to meet the requirements of the journal，New peer reviews still need to be performed after re -voting for other journals，This undoubtedly increased the overall workload and extended the publishing process。This genre advocates the journal to share the review opinions it obtained with other journals，so that these opinions can be used in the future，This is a way to improve the efficiency of peer evaluation。This genre also advocates the form of more attention and recognition through giving peer review activities，Provide incentive measures for researchers to participate in peer reviews。

　　conflict and reconciliation

In some aspects，These four genres are complementary。A person may highly recognize the point of view of a genre，But this does not mean that he does not support the point of view of other genres。If the main focus of someone may be the quality of improving peer evaluation，But at the same time, he may also think that peer evaluation needs more democracy and fairness。In short，Each genre has its emphasis on the focus，And not that is the relationship。

but，These four genres also have some views that are not compatible，The conflict in which the conflict brings challenges to the reform of the peer evaluation system。The more significant point is how to deal with the identity of the peer reviewer。Article thinks，Democratic and transparent schools tend to disclose the identity of the reviewer and share the review report，This is a way to establish a accountability system，bet365 live casino games and fairness and tolerance faction tend to evaluate the double -blind peer as a way to eliminate prejudice，The two factions are not compatible at this point。Another，Implementation of double -blind peer review may hinder the development of pre -print，Because if the paper is in advance in the form of pre -print，Anonymous peer review will become impossible。Members of quality and reproduction also have doubts about the open method，It is difficult for the reviewer to be very frank，Therefore, it is possible to damage the quality of research。Efficiency and incentives may also be considered，The openness of peer review makes recruitment reviewers more difficult，Bring additional pressure to the crumbling peer review system。Similar conflicts can also be seen in other aspects of peer review，If quality and reproduction tend to promote the creation of a stronger peer evaluation system，Therefore, the number of reviewers needs to be increased，This is obviously inconsistent with the view that the efficiency is trying to simplify the evaluation process。

Walterman and others think，It is necessary to make more dialogue on the future development of the peer evaluation system between different genres，To find a creative method to deal with conflicts between different genres。Of course，The peer evaluation system itself has great heterogeneity，Therefore, it is necessary to allow different forms of peer review coexistence。From a wider perspective，Pass review system needs to establish a wider connection，This highlights the need for publishers for peer evaluation reforms、Research Institutions、Journal Edit、Funding agency、Research bet365 Play online games Institutions、Coordination actions of many stakeholders such as government organizations。