...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Insights >Moving peer review transparency from process to praxis
【24h】

Moving peer review transparency from process to praxis

机译：将同行评审的透明度从流程转移到实践

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Scholarly publications often work to provide transparency of peer-review processes, posting policy information to their websites as suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Publishing. Yet this falls short in providing peer-review transparency. Using examples from an interview-based qualitative study, this article argues that scholarly publications should move from peer-review process transparency to a praxis of transparency in peer review. Praxis infers that values inform practices. Scholarly publications should therefore use clear communication practices in all matters of business, and bolster transparency efforts, delineating rights and responsibilities of all players in peer review. Moreover, the scholarly publishing community should offer improved and society-led referee and editor training, rather than leaving the commercial publishing industry to fill the gap which results in peer review as a service to industry’s needs – turning an efficient profit – and not the scholarly community’s needs for human-to-human discourse.
机译：学术出版物经常努力提高同行评审过程的透明度，并按照出版道德委员会（COPE）的透明度原则和出版最佳实践的建议在其网站上发布政策信息。但是，这在提供同行评审透明性方面达不到要求。本文使用基于访谈的定性研究的实例，认为学术出版物应从同行评审过程的透明度转变为同行评审透明度的实践。实践推断，价值观指导实践。因此，学术出版物应在所有业务事项上采用清晰的交流做法，并加强透明度，在同行评审中界定所有参与者的权利和责任。此外，学术出版界应该提供改进的，由社会主导的裁判和编辑培训，而不是让商业出版业填补空白，而导致同行评议是为满足行业需求而提供的服务–获得有效利润–而不是学术界社区对人与人话语的需求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号