找回密码
 注册新帐号

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

[论文写作与投稿]

开放评审,开放获取期刊之SciPost

一只虫子实名认证 发表于 2016-9-24 09:41 |查看: 38755|回复: 20|显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
一直以来有个理想就是,所有文章开放获取,开放评审,所有审稿意见公开。

刚刚收到原来同事的邮件,原来最近有个新期刊SciPost上线了。这个期刊的审稿过程是公开的,虽然只是审稿意见公开,审稿人依然可以选择匿名。作者的回复也是公开的。尤其值得肯定的是,发表是免费的!貌似创办人是颇有名气的物理学家Prof. dr Jean-Sébastien Caux。



The contents of Reports are publicly viewable, but the author of the Report can choose public anonymity (which is then known to Editors only). Authors are informed by email if a Report or a Comment on their paper is vetted through and published online (authors are welcome to respond, but should not feel obliged to do so before the refereeing round is closed).



这里有我原来一个同事Eoin Quinn正在审理中的稿子。做物理的可以看看审稿人意见和他的回复:

https://scipost.org/submission/1512.00261v3/

https://scipost.org/submission/1512.00261v2/#comment_id  

这里有发表出来的第一个文章:

https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.1.1.001/pdf  

作者是颇有名气的牛人。对SciPost投稿,必须先放到arxiv,然后把arxiv链接发过去。

这里有处在投稿阶段的文章:

https://scipost.org/submissions/

发现了很多牛人!

他们开放评审的理由是:

Moreover, the refereeing process currently used in most journals cannot call itself `open': a few editorially-selected referees are consulted, their reports are often not peer-verified in any way, and the editorial decision is mostly taken behind closed doors. One consequence is that refereeing work, despite representing a substantial investment in time and effort to the scientists who perform it, remains more or less completely uncredited. Applied here, the idea of openness calls for at least two improvements. First: giving the possibility to professional academics to provide pre-publication feedback on manuscripts, even if they have not been specifically invited to referee. Second: exposing the reports to the scrutiny of the community (not necessarily by removing anonymity: it is sufficient to make the report publicly accessible, though true openness ideally calls for signed reports). Some groundbreaking initiatives have clearly demonstrated the fact that the quality and the usefulness of the whole refereeing process is measurably enhanced by implementing more openness. It is natural to hope that habits will eventually change and these productive, efficient and quality-enhancing open methods be more generally implemented, because such changes are good for science.

不知道那些想发prl,但是被审稿人虐的人是否会有共鸣。



现在看来,中国人因为傻逼的论文分区制度,在科技出版上又会落后。

liu714 发表于 2016-9-29 03:49 显示全部楼层
好东西一定要看看!
常佳乐 发表于 2016-9-29 06:29 显示全部楼层
以后多分享一些这样的有价值的帖子啊
欢乐谷 发表于 2016-9-29 07:45 显示全部楼层
论坛有你更精彩!
971731043aaa 发表于 2016-9-29 09:29 显示全部楼层
论坛有你更精彩!
王军礼小木虫认证 发表于 2016-9-29 09:56 显示全部楼层
大家都不容易!
101055132 发表于 2016-9-29 10:17 显示全部楼层
论坛有你更精彩!
shj 发表于 2016-9-29 11:06 显示全部楼层
论坛有你更精彩!
Edison_yu 发表于 2016-9-29 12:30 显示全部楼层
好东西一定要看看!
yellowgirl21 发表于 2016-9-29 15:23 显示全部楼层
谢谢您的分享!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册新帐号

本版积分规则

Copyright 2014-2017 小木虫学术科研第一站(xmuchong.com)All Rights Reserved.

津公网安备 12011102000110号

      

津ICP备 14003772号-3

      

跟帖评论自律管理承诺书

      

知识共享署名-非商业性使用-相同方式共享3.0协议