同行評審

维基百科，自由的百科全书

同行評審（Peer review，在某些学术領域亦稱審查(refereeing)）為一種審查程序，即使一位作者的學術著作或計劃讓同一領域的其他專家學者來加以評審。在出版單位主要以同行評審的方法來選擇與篩選所投送的稿件錄取與否，再而資金提供的單位，也是以同行評審的方式來決定研究獎助金是否授予。同行評審的程序主要針對的是讓作者的著作使之符合一般的科學與學科領域的標準。在許多領域著作的出版或者研究獎金的頒發，如果沒有以同行評審的方式來進行就可能比較會遭人物議。

目录 1 同行評審之理由 2 評審過程如何運作 3 招募評審 4 不同形式的審查 5 同行評審的批評 6 同行評審的失敗 7 動態與開放的同行評審 8 同行評審歷史沿革 9 同行評審與偽作 9.1 同行評審與抄襲 9.2 評審者的內部資訊濫用 10 同行評審與軟件發展 11 同行評審政策 12 參考文獻 13 參見 14 外部連結

[编辑] 同行評審之理由

同行評審的其中一個理由是在複雜的工作中難以單憑個別作者或單一研究團隊的力量來指出當中所有錯誤及瑕疵。這不是因為缺憾彷如海底針，而是對於新的兼收並蓄的知識產品來說，某些專家能夠發掘改進的機會。因此向他人展示作品能夠更容易曝露弱點，獲得建議及鼓勵而最終得到修正。The 匿名 and 独立 of reviewers is intended to foster unvarnished criticism and discourage 結黨營私 in funding and publication decisions.

In addition, since the reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely to some degree on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research which they can build upon for subsequent or related research. As a result, significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as many other scholars, and the field of study itself, has relied upon that research. 〈參見底下‘同行評審與偽作’項目〉

[编辑] 評審過程如何運作

A publisher sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to others who are experts in the field (who serve as the referees). Usually, there are two or three referees. These referees each return an evaluation of the work, including suggestions for improvement, to one of the publisher's editors (typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author as well). 科學期刊 observe this convention universally.

Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from a menu provided by the journal or funding agency. 大多數文章審議過程如下程序：

• 無條件接受原稿，或者文章，
• 接受文稿不過就某些觀點上著者須再作增強，
• 退稿，不過鼓勵文稿修改後再重新投稿，
• 直接退稿。

During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics is substantially different from that of a jury. In situations where the referees disagree about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision.

When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, an editor will convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow referees to confer with each other, and the goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to convince anyone to change their opinions. Some medical journals, however (usually following the 开放获取 model), have begun posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors' comments, and revised manuscripts.

After reviewing and resolving any potential ties, there may be one of three possible outcomes for the article. The two simplest are outright rejection and unconditional acceptance. In most cases, the authors may be given a chance to revise, with or without specific recommendations or requirements from the reviewers.

傳統上評審者對於文章作者而言是保持匿名的，不過這種情況是會逐漸改變的。In some academic fields most journals now offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not; published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to (anonymous or named) referees who helped improve the paper.

[编辑] 招募評審

在期刊或書籍的出版者而言，文章審核人員選取的任務典型地是落在编辑的身上。When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from 學者 or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that 期刊 or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a 評審團 or 委員會 of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.

In some disciplines there exist refereed venues (such as conferences and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scholars and scientists must submit papers (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in advance. These papers are reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of an editorial board), who generally requests inputs from referees. The hard deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accept or reject the paper.

Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close 共治, relatives, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any 利益衝突 that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgments" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers).

Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because 学术 writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and may not be experts in any of them, since editors may be full time professionals with no time for 學術研究. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ between academic disciplines.

招募評審人員是一種政治藝術，因為評審為無給職，且會在評審他們主要的工作上頭佔用相當多的時間，比如他們的研究工作。 To the would-be recruiter's advantage, most potential referees are 作家 themselves, or at least readers, who know that the publication system requires that 專家 donate their time. 编辑 are at a special advantage in recruiting a 学者 when they have overseen the publication of his or her work, or if the scholar is one who hopes to submit manuscripts to that editor's publication in the future. Granting agencies, similarly, tend to seek referees among their present or former grantees. Serving as a referee can even be a condition of a grant, or professional association membership.

Another difficulty that peer-review organizers face is that, with respect to some manuscripts or proposals, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts. Such a circumstance often frustrates the goals of reviewer anonymity and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also increases the chances that an organizer will not be able to recruit true experts – people who have themselves done work like that under review, and who can read between the lines. Low-prestige journals and granting agencies that award little money are especially handicapped with regard to recruiting experts.

Finally, 匿名 adds to the difficulty in finding reviewers in another way. In scientific circles, credentials and reputation are important, and while being a referee for a prestigious journal is considered an honor, the anonymity restrictions make it impossible to publicly state that one was a referee for a particular article. However, credentials and reputation are principally established by publications, not by refereeing; and in some fields refereeing may not be anonymous.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues in 醫學期刊聯誼會. Here groups of colleagues review literature and discuss the value and implications it presents. Journal clubs will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an 線上醫學期刊聯誼會. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.

[编辑] 不同形式的審查

依據評審所使用的手法，同行評審可以是嚴苛的，不過不會非常嚴厲的。An agency may be flush with money to give away, for example, or a journal may have few impressive manuscripts to choose from, so there may be little incentive for selection. Conversely, when either funds or publication space is limited, peer review may be used to select an extremely small number of proposals or manuscripts.

Often the decision of what counts as "good enough" falls entirely to the editor or organizer of the review. In other cases, referees will each be asked to make the call, with only general guidance from the coordinator on what stringency to apply.

Very general journals such as 科學期刊, 自然期刊 have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers which report good quality scientific work that they feel are not breakthroughs in the field. Such journals generally have a two-tier reviewing system. In the first stage, members of the editorial board verify that the paper's findings -- if correct -- would be ground-breaking enough to warrant publication in Science or Nature. Most papers are rejected at this stage. Papers that do pass this 'pre-reviewing' are sent out for in-depth review to outside referees. Even after all reviewers recommend publication and all reviewer criticisms/suggestions for changes have been met, papers may still be returned to the authors for shortening to meet the journal's length limits. With the advent of electronic journal editions, overflow material may be stored in the journals online Electronic Supporting Information archive.

A similar emphasis on novelty exists in general area journals such as the 美國化學協會期刊 (JACS). However, these journals generally send out all papers (except blatantly inappropriate ones) for peer reviewing to multiple reviewers. The reviewers are specifically queried not just on the scientific quality and correctness, but also on whether the findings are of interest to the general area readership (chemists of all disciplines, in the case of JACS) or only to a specialist subgroup. In the latter case, the recommendation is usually for publication in a more specialized journal. The editor may offer to authors the option of having the manuscript and reviews forwarded to such a journal with the same publishers (e.g., in the example given, Journal of Organic Chemistry, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry,...). if the reviewer reports warrant such a decision (i.e., they boil down to "Great work, but too specialized for JACS: publish in ..."), the editor of such a journal may accept the forwarded manuscript without further reviewing.

Some general area journals, such as 物理報導期刊, have strict length limitations. Others, such as JACS, have Letters and Full Papers sections: the Letters sections have strict length limits (two journal pages in the case of JACS) and special novelty requirements.

More specialized scientific journals such as the aforementioned chemistry journals, 天文物理期刊, and 物理評論期刊 A/B/C/D/E/... use peer review primarily to filter out obvious mistakes and incompetence, as well as (borderline) plagiarism, overly derivative work, and straightforward applications of known methods. Different publication rates reflect these different criteria: Nature publishes about 5 percent of received papers, while Astrophysical Journal publishes about 70 percent. The different publication rates are also reflected in the size of the journals.

Screening by peers may be more or less 自由放任 depending on the discipline. 物理学家, for example, tend to think that decisions about the worthiness of an article are best left to the marketplace. Yet even within such a culture peer review serves to ensure high standards in what is published. Outright errors are detected and authors receive both edits and suggestions.

To preserve the integrity of the peer-review process, submitting authors may not be informed of who reviews their papers; sometimes, they might not even know the identity of the associate editor who is responsible for the paper. In many cases, alternatively called "masked" or "double-masked" review, the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers, lest the knowledge of authorship bias their review; in such cases, however, the associate editor responsible for the paper does know who the author is. Sometimes the scenario where the reviewers do know who the authors are is called "single-masked" to distinguish it from the "double-masked" process. In double-masked review, the authors are required to remove any reference that may point to them as the authors of the paper.

While the anonymity of reviewers is almost universally preserved, double-masked review (where authors are also anonymous to reviewers) is not always employed. Critics of the double-masked process point out that, despite the extra editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, notations, etc., may point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person. Proponents of the single-masked process argue that if the reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other, the associate editor responsible for the paper can easily verify the objectivity of the reviews. Single-masked review is thus strongly dependent upon the goodwill of the participants.

[编辑] 同行評審的批評

One of the most common complaints about the peer review process is that it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print. In practice, much of the communication about new results in some fields such as 天文学 no longer takes place through peer reviewed papers, but rather through preprints submitted onto electronic servers such as arXiv.org.

In addition, some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream'" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or 出版. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with 托马斯·库恩's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.

However, others have pointed out that there is a very large number of 科學期刊 in which one can publish, making control of 信息 difficult. In addition, the decision-making process of peer review, in which each referee gives his opinions separately and without consultation with the other members, is intended to mitigate some of these problems.

While some believe passing the peer-review process is a certification of validity, those who study that process often hold a far more skeptical view. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of 美國醫學協會期刊 is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986 [11]. He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print." [12]

Obviously, for those who continue to have their essays rejected, this simply isn't the case. Solidly written, well researched ideas are not seeing their way into "mainstream" journals. Consider, for example, the papers of Professor Tom Van Flandern [[13]] who disagrees with Special and General Relativity or those who do not support Stratfordians in their belief that a rustic hempen homespun wrote the works of "William Shakespeare," a belief based solely on the attribution to him in an advertisement placed in the First Folio [[14]] in 1623, seven years after the rustic's death.

A Folio which contained, for example, several plays, including Othello (1622) that had been modified on the face of editions published AFTER the actor's death, with said changes universally taken to be the Author's. This advertisement has been proven false in every other particular. Moreover the FF certifies to a literary canon of 36 plays only, and which therefore explicitedly excluded all of Shakespeare's poems and many of the plays now claimed as his by Stratfordians, such as Periclies and Two Noble Kinsmen.

For scholars suffering from this sort of ostracism, peer review is best thought of as a process of reviewing papers from a dock or a "pier." Perhaps it should be defined as a having a member of the "peerage" review one's paper?

This would be bad news for Stratfordians, since it was Sir Hugh Trevor Roper who wrote that the state of present scholarship on the connection between the rustic Stratfordian and the Author is not only subject to question, but scholarly doubt. Roper, perhaps the leading academic historian of the 20th Century, was created a life peer in 1979.

Sir Hugh noted, "of all the immortal geniuses of literature, none is personally so elusive as William Shakespeare." He continued: "It is exasperating and almost incredible that he should be so. After all, he lived in the full daylight of the English Renaissance, in the well-documented reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I…Since his death, and particularly in the last century, he has been subjected to the greatest battery of organized research that has ever been directed upon a single person. Armies of scholars, formidably equipped, have examined all the documents that could possibly contain at least a mention of Shakespeare's name. One hundredth of this labor applied to one of his insignificant contemporaries would be sufficient to produce a substantial biography. And yet the greatest of all Englishmen, after this tremendous inquisition, still remains so close to a mystery that even this identity can still be doubted."

And that's not all Sir Hugh Trevor Roper had to say about what should be a wide open question:

"During his lifetime nobody claimed to know him. Not a single tribute was paid to him at his death. As far as the records go, he was uneducated, had no literary friends, possessed at his death no books, and could not write. It is true, six of his signatures have been found, all spelt differently; but they are so ill-formed that some graphologists suppose the hand to have been guided. Except for these signatures, no syllable of writing by Shakespeare has been identified. Seven years after his death, when his works were collected and published, the other poets claimed to have known him, a portrait of him was painted. The unskillful artist has painted the blank face of a country oaf." ("What's in a Name," Realities [November 1962] 41.)

Unfortunately "peer review" is a process that suffers from abuse by established "cliques." Worse it is not a process that assures future success. Ideas, discoveries and research should be evaluated on merit, not on whether or not they have been approved of by a disinterested circle of experts in any give field. That merit will only become apparent over time, when the ideas, discoveries and research has had an opportunity to work itself into the fabric of intellectual life and/or technology, as Schopenhauer [[15]] pointed out several centuries ago. Academics and corporations who fear the publication of alternative views or technologies generally have good reasons for that fear. Reasons that are either anti-intellectual or anti-competitive. As Charles Darwin [[16]]pointed out it is "false evidence," not "false ideas" that are counterproductive.

[编辑] 同行評審的失敗

同行評審的失敗往往發生在一份同行評審的文章裡含有一些很明顯的錯誤，而這些錯誤至少會使得文章眾多主要結論中的一項造成破壞。Peer review is not considered a failure in cases of deliberate fraud by authors. Letters-to-the-editor that correct major errors in articles are a common indication of peer review failures. Few journals have a procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters. Some do not even publish letters. The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. Neither the letter or the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the corrections. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if there was a peer review failure.

An alternative method of dealing with peer review failures is correction via another peer-reviewed article. For example, a claim that the plant hormone, 乙烯, increased plant membrane permeability^[1] was shown to be an artifact caused by the low pH of the ethylene-releasing chemical, (2-chloroethyl)-phosphonic acid, employed.^[2] One disadvantage of this approach is that a reader who spots major flaws in an article may not have the time or resources to do the research and writing required for a peer-reviewed rebuttal article.

A famous peer review failure was the 1977 科學期刊 article on the 渡渡鳥 and seed germination^[3] that lacked the required control treatment for its main experiment among other major flaws.^[4] Another glaring peer review failure involved a 1993 Bioscene article^[5] on 海尔蒙特. It had several major factual errors and no references for those supposed facts.^[6] Bioscene refused to publish a letter pointing out the factual errors and would not consider publishing a peer-reviewed article correcting the original article.

Acknowledged deviations from the idealized outcome of the peer review process are readily observable at both extremes: successful without peer review prior to publication on the one hand; and unsuccessful despite peer review on the other extreme. Among the widely known examples of work later acknowledged to be successful without peer review prior to publication is that of 沃森與克里克's 1953 paper on the structure of DNA published in 自然雜誌^[7]. It also served as a rebuttal to a peer review failure.^[8] A widely known example of the other extreme is the 傑克·賓文尼斯特 affair, where peer review was exercised prior to publication in the journal Nature and the published results appear to have been unable to be replicated by other researchers.

[编辑] 動態與開放的同行評審

In 2006, a group of UK academics launched the online journal Philica, which tries to redress many of the problems of traditional peer review. Unlike in a normal journal, all articles submitted to Philica are published immediately and the review process takes place afterwards. Reviews are still anonymous, but instead of reviewers being chosen by an editor, any researcher who wishes to review an article can do so. Reviews are displayed at the end of each paper, and so are used to give the reader criticism or guidance about the work, rather than to decide whether it is published or not. This means that reviewers cannot suppress ideas if they disagree with them. Readers use reviews to guide what they read, and particularly popular or unpopular work is easy to identify.

Another approach that is similar in spirit to Philica is that of a 同行評審 site Naboj. Unlike Philica, Naboj is not a full-fledged online journal, but rather it provides an opportunity for users to write peer reviews of preprints at arXiv.org. The review system is modeled on 亞馬遜網站 and users have an opportunity to evaluate the reviews as well as the articles. That way, with a sufficient number of users and reviewers, there will be a convergence towards better quality of the review process.

In June 2006, 自然期刊 launched an experiment in parallel open peer review - some papers that have been submitted to the regular confidential process will also be available for open, identified public comment on the web.[17]

[编辑] 同行評審歷史沿革

Peer review has been a touchstone of modern scientific method only since in the middle of the twentieth century.[18] Before then, its application was lax. For example, Albert Einstein's revolutionary "Annus Mirabilis" papers in the 1905年 issue of 物理年報期刊 were not peer-reviewed. The journal's editor in chief (and father of quantum theory), 马克斯·普朗克, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and simply had the papers published; none of the papers were sent to reviewers. The decision to publish was made exclusively by either the editor in chief, or the co-editor 維爾黑爾姆·維恩—both certainly ‘peers’ (who were later to win the 诺贝尔奖 in 物理学), but this does not meet the definition of "peer review" as it is currently understood. At the time there was a policy that allowed authors much latitude after their first publication. In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that "in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas."

[编辑] 同行評審與偽作

Peer review, in scientific journals, assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect fraud. The reviewers usually do not have full access to the data from which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on trust (except perhaps in subjects such as mathematics).

The number and proportion of articles which are detected as fraudulent at review stage is unknown. Some instances of outright 科學研究舞弊 and 科學研究行為失當 have got through review and were detected only after other groups tried and failed to replicate the published results.

An example is the case of 強·亨德利克·尚, in which a total of fifteen papers were accepted for publication in the top ranked journals 自然期刊 and 科學期刊 following the usual peer review process. All fifteen were found to be fraudulent and were subsequently withdrawn. The fraud was eventually detected, not by peer review, but after publication when other groups tried and failed to reproduce the results of the paper.

最近挪威科學家約翰·蘇得博在柳葉刀醫學期刊發表了不實的文章。他本人目前也正在接受調查。

以一例來說明在學術出版上因欠缺同行評審的機制以致造成不好收拾的窘境，這就是纽约大学物理教授亞蘭·索卡所登在期刊Social Text(社會論文期刊)上的文章Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity(超越界線：走向量子引力的超形式解釋學)。結果咱們知道由"索卡"所投送出版的文章本身就是一件惡作劇，也是所謂的索卡事件。

[编辑] 同行評審與抄襲

A few cases of plagiarism by historians have been widely publicized.^[9] A poll of 3,247 scientists funded by the U.S. 美國國家衛生院 found 0.3% admitted faking data, 1.4% admitted plagiarism, and 4.7% admitted to autoplagiarism.^[10] Autoplagiarism involves an author republishing the same material or data without citing their earlier publication(s). An author often uses autoplagiarism to pad their list of publications. Sometimes reviewers detect cases of likely plagiarism and bring them to the attention of the editor. Reviewers generally lack access to raw data but do see the full text of the manuscript. Thus, they are in a better position to detect plagiarism or autoplagiarism of prose than fraudulent data.

Although more common than plagiarism, journals and employers often do not punish authors for autoplagiarism. Autoplagiarism is against the rules of most peer-reviewed journals, which usually require that only unpublished material be submitted. An example of autoplagiarism is that of an author publishing the same material, almost verbatim, as a major part of three peer-reviewed articles.^[11][12][13] Each article was published while the author was employed at a different university, and the second and third versions did not cite either of the previous versions.

[编辑] 評審者的內部資訊濫用

A related form of professional misconduct that is sometimes reported is a reviewer using the not-yet-published information from a manuscript or grant application for personal or professional gain. The frequency with which this happens is of course unknown, but the 美國研究誠實辦公室 has sanctioned reviewers who have been caught exploiting knowledge they gained as reviewers.

[编辑] 同行評審與軟件發展

參見 軟件同行評審。

[编辑] 同行評審政策

同行評審的技術也被用來促進政府的施政政策。尤其是，欧洲联盟在"雇傭"及"社會參與機會均等"的領域，使用同行評審政策來作為政策上'協調開放方法'的工具。

A programme of peer reviews in active labour market policy started in 1999, and was followed in 2004 by one in social inclusion. Each programme sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a 'host country' lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report on which participating 'peer countries' submit comments. 最後的結果是公布在網路上。

[编辑] 參考文獻

1. ↑ Poovaiah, B.W. 1979. Effects of inorganic cations on Ethephon-induced increases in membrane permeability. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104: 164-166.
2. ↑ Reid, M.S., Paul, J.L. and Young, R.E. 1980. Effects of pH and ethephon on betacyanin leakage from beet root discs. Plant Physiology 66: 1015-1016. [1]
3. ↑ Temple, S.A. 1977. Plant-animal mutualism: Coevolution with dodo leads to near extinction of plant. Science 197: 885-886.
4. ↑ Hershey, D.R. 2004. The widespread misconception that the tambalacoque or calvaria tree absolutely required the dodo bird for its seeds to germinate Plant Science Bulletin 50: 105-108. [2]
5. ↑ Allchin, D. 1993. Reassessing van Helmont, reassessing history. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching 19(2):3-5.[3]
6. ↑ Hershey, D.R. 2003. Misconceptions about Helmont's willow experiment. Plant Science Bulletin 49:78-84. [4]
7. ↑ Watson J.D. and Crick, F.H.C. 1953. A structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature 171: 737-738. [5]
8. ↑ Pauling, L. and Corey, R. B. 1953. A proposed structure for the nucleic acids. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A." 39(2): 84-97. [6]
9. ↑ Historians on the Hot Seat [7]
10. ↑ Weiss, Rick. 2005. Many scientists admit to misconduct: Degrees of deception vary in poll. Washington Post. June 9, 2005. page A03. [8]
11. ↑ Allchin, D. 1993. Reassessing van Helmont, reassessing history. BioScene: Journal of College Biology Teaching 19(2):3-5.[9]
12. ↑ Allchin, D. 1995. How not to teach history in science. IN F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rhees and S. Fifield (eds.), Proceedings, Third International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1, 13-22.
13. ↑ Allchin, D. 2000. How not to teach historical cases in science. Journal of College Science Teaching 30:33-37.[10]

[编辑] 參見

• 開放獲取期刊列表
• 學術會議(Academic conference)
• 學術期刊(Academic journal)
• 摘要管理(Abstract management)
• Adversarial review
• Code review
• 醫學期刊聯誼會
• 客观能力
• 開放同行評論(Open Peer Commentary)
• Publication bias
• Scholarly method
• 索卡事件
• Wikipedia:同行评审

[编辑] 外部連結

• Nature peer review debate June 2006
• Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication
• The Maharishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals, The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers
• Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas (Warning: 469 kB PDF)
• Sense About Science: Peer Review Features the PDF pamphlet "I don't know what to believe..."
• "Measuring the quality of peer review" Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 2786–2790 (2002).
• Peer review – process, perspectives and the path ahead
• Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
• Malice's Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review
• Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
• Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity
• Science and Politics: An Uneasy Mix
• The case against peer-review
• Medical Peer Review
• Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science
• The end of the Peer Show - scientists’ misguided attempt to solve a non-existent problem
• The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation
• Peer review is broken.
• Suppressing Dissent in Science
• Hampering the progress of science by peer review and by the 'selective' funding system
• A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation
• "A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine"
• A STUDY IN SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION
• Suppression of Dissent in Science
• Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? Frank J. Tipler
• Stevan Harnad:
  • 2003: PostGutenberg Peer Review
  • 2002: Self-Selected Vetting vs. Peer Review: Supplement or Substitute?
  • 2001: A Note of Caution About "Reforming the System"
  • 1999: Peer Review Reform Hypothesis-Testing
  • 1998: The Invisible Hand of Peer Review Nature version; Exploit Interactive version
  • 1997: Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright
  • 1996: Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals
  • 1985: Rational disagreement in peer review
  • 1984: Commentaries, opinions and the growth of scientific knowledge
  • 1982: Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control
  • 1979: Creative disagreement
• 1978 Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) editorial