期刊學術論文同儕審查制度之評述

目的：同儕審查制度是學術研究成果客觀審查程序，意旨研究者學術著作被同領域專家學者評審與篩選，確保著作水準並出版於特定期刊。同儕審查加強了期刊編輯者、審稿者、作者彼此互動；而以審稿者為主軸。素質良好的審稿者才能造就良好的期刊。同儕審查有四個主要目標：(1)選擇什麼論文應該發表，(2)改善出版論文專業性，(3)檢測錯誤，和(4)檢測欺詐等事項。本文僅就國外醫療及健康照護領域有關期刊同儕審查論文制度作一概述。方法：同儕審查執行方式有四，即：單盲、雙盲、開放式以及致編輯陳述。單盲是審查是作者不知審稿者，但審稿者知道論文作者，此乃時下最流行的方式。審查者多為同學門領域中的佼佼者，但多屬義務性質。審稿者對期刊編輯者而言，對外絕對保密，堅守學術倫理。各期刊編輯者對審稿者的要求，希望論文能符合讀者期望，但對審稿要求精細程度則因期刊而異，如：將審查事項的「質」予以量化，或如：將「創新性」項目再作分級等。分數越高越好。同樣對論文撰寫「方法」、「呈現」、和發表「優先」次序等也分5個「得分」點，經此量化加總後得到的結果較客觀。利弊與結論：同儕審查審稿者必須提供公正、獨立的評估，並視為科學進展的重要延伸。當然，同儕審稿也有反對聲音，常見不滿投訴包括：審稿或編輯者有偏見、不夠專業、剽竊資料、延遲審查以便審稿者先行發表同類文章，審稿者把論文創意竊為己有，而對作者人身攻擊。近年來最嚴重弊端是論文抄襲。然而；儘管弊端仍有，但此一方式乃是基於「人性本善」或「互信」原則對科學資料作出公正、客觀評估且廣泛使用的辦法。

關鍵字

作者；編輯者（主編）；抄襲；讀者；審稿者

並列摘要

Purpose: Peer review is an objective system by which to assess academic research achievement. In the system, an author's manuscript is reviewed by experts and scholars in the field to ensure the quality of a paper to be published in a particular journal. Moreover, peer review system increases interaction amongst journal editor, reviewer, and author. Peer review has four main objectives: (1) select which papers should be published, (2) improve the professional level of published papers, (3) identify errors, and (4) detect fraud and misconduct. This passage only provides explanations for overseas' medical and health care related journal peer review system. Methods: Peer review may be implemented in four ways: single-blind, double-blind, open and letter to the editor. In a single-blind review process, the authors are visible to the reviewers, while the reviewers are unknown to the authors. This is the most popular method used by journals. Reviewers are often leading researchers in the field and are normally not paid for their work. Journal editors will expect the reviewers to keep all manuscript and review details confidential, and follow academic ethics. As for the expectations of editors for reviewers, all journal editors have the same principle request to the reviewers, which is to ensure that papers meet readers' expectations. The detailed guidelines might differ due to variations in journals; for example, some journals quantify the ＂quality＂ of the manuscript using a scoring system, rating each item on a scale between 1 and 5: for the item of ＂innovative,＂ 1 represents that part of the results has been published by the author previously, 2 that similar data have been published by other researchers, 3 that the conclusion has been confirmed but more data are required to support it, 4 that the results are new and have been confirmed and proved, and 5 that the findings are confirmed and proved to be novel. In the same way, ＂methods,＂＂presentation,＂ and the ＂priority＂ of publication are also scaled between 1 and 5. Using this quantization method, the total score is a more objective way of deciding whether a manuscript should be accepted. In conclusion, reviewers in the peer review system should provide fair and independent assessment, and see the system as an important extension of the scientific process. However, there are different opinions of the peer review process, common complaints about peer reviewers including: bias of reviewers or the journal editor, unprofessionalism, plagiarism of data in the paper he/ she peer reviewed, delay of the review process in order to publish his/her own similar study, stealing authors' ideas, and personal attacks. In recent years, the most serious problem in academic publication has been plagiarism. However, despite the disadvantages and being based on the premises that ＂humanity is naturally good＂ and ＂trusting each other,＂ the peer review system is still a fair and objective way in which to assess the publication of scientific data. Therefore, without any better way, the peer review system is still the most just, unbiased, and widely used way in which to evaluate academic publication.

並列關鍵字

author ； (chief) editor ； plagiarism ； reader ； reviewer

國際替代計量

期刊學術論文同儕審查制度之評述

全文下載

主題瀏覽