Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/122770
|
| Title: | 臺灣圖書資訊學門學者對同儕評閱之認知與態度
The Acknowledgement and Attitudes of Open Peer Review amongst Library Information Researchers in Taiwan |
| Authors: | 張桓瑄
Chang, Huan-Hsuan |
| Contributors: | 邱炯友
Chiu, Jeong-Yeou
張桓瑄
Chang, Huan-Hsuan |
| Keywords: | 開放近用
同儕評閱
開放式同儕評閱
出版後同儕評閱
Open access
Peer review
Open peer review
Post-publication peer review |
| Date: | 2019 |
| Issue Date: | 2019-04-01 14:47:16 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 同儕評閱為學術期刊對於研究品質把關的重要決策機制，自二戰後在學術期刊普遍採用至今，同儕評閱制度的模式仍不斷地被討論與提出創新作為。開放式同儕評閱制度，主張將期刊從投稿至評閱過程透明化，向投稿者、讀者分享更加詳細的期刊資訊，改善同儕評閱制度中的「黑箱」問題。本研究透過文獻蒐集與整理，瞭解同儕評閱制度的發展，開放式同儕評閱制度特點與應用。再以問卷調查及深度訪談法，調查台灣圖書資訊領域學者及學術期刊主編，分析其對於同儕評閱制度之認知與圖書資訊學期刊之現況，進而探討未來可能導入開放式同儕評閱制度的可行性，及未來改善學術期刊提供參考。
本研究結論如下：1. 台灣圖書資訊學術期刊經營上遭遇許多限制，囿於人力編制、資金的限制，未能全面採用線上投審稿系統及採用學術傳播工具（如：DOI、ORCID）。2.目前台灣圖書資訊學門期刊實施同儕評閱制度認為雖有改善空間，但整體上為滿意。3.開放式同儕評閱制度目前未有明確定義，但主要是出版後評閱制度模式為主，為改善傳統單/雙盲評閱模式的不透明缺點，主張開放同儕評閱制度之評論與相關資訊及重視評閱者貢獻等。3.經問卷及訪談調查，目前台灣圖書資訊學者及期刊主編，對於開放式評閱制度認識不深，對於完全公開評閱意見及評閱者背景資料持保留態度，但對於開放式同儕評閱重視評閱者貢獻的這一項特點表示肯定。
最後，本研究針對學術期刊有下列四點建議：1.檢視學術期刊整體狀態，加速線上投審稿系統的導入，將有助於期刊運作的效率。2.學術期刊結合學術傳播工具，並重視評閱者的貢獻。3.研究機構對於學術期刊的重視與資金的挹注。4.導入開放式同儕評閱制度需要學術社群之間不斷溝通與共識的建立。
The Open Peer Review system advocates the process to be more transparent in order to share more details of journal information to contributors and readers, and also to improve the "black box" problem. This research first reviews literature concerning the development of the Peer Review system, features and applications. The methods to carry out this research were based on in-depth interviewing and questionnaire to investigate the current knowledge and attitudes of the Peer Review system and the status of the library information journals, and then to analyze the feasibility of introducing the open peer review system in the future, and to serve as reference for academic journals to further develop the strategies and marketing orientation.
The conclusions are as follows: (a) Library Information academic journals in Taiwan have encountered many restrictions. Due to human resources and financial constraints, they could not fully adopt the online review system and academic communication tools (such as DOI and ORCID). (b) Currently, the Peer Review system of Library and information journals in Taiwan consider that although there is space remaining to be improved, it is generally satisfactory. (c) The open peer review system is not clearly defined, and mainly based on the Post-Publication Peer Review system (PPPR) model. In order to improve the disadvantage of non-transparent of the traditional single/double-blind Peer Review model, it advocates comments and related information on the Open Peer Review system, and pay more attention to the contributions of reviewers. (d)The Library and Information researchers and journal editors in Taiwan still havenot acknowledged the Open Review system. Most of them are conservative about the fully public review comments and reviewers` backgrounds, but they are affirmative to the characteristics of reviewers’ contributions.
This research sums up four suggestions for academic journals: (a)Reviewing the overall status of academic journals and accelerating the introduction of online submission review systems will benefit the efficiency of journal operations. (b)Academic journals should combine academic communication tools with the contributions of reviewers. (c) It’s critical for Research institutions to pay more attention to academic journals and to sustain funding. (d) The introduction of an Open Peer Review system requires constant communication and consensus building among academic communities. |
| Reference: | 一、中文
Elsevier。「Scopus提升您的期刊國際能見度」。檢索於2018年3月15日。http://taiwan.elsevier.com/htmlmailings/training_website/Scopus/Journal_Selection_Brochure.pdf。
中華民國科技部。「科技部對研究人員學術倫理規範」。中華民國科技部。最後更新於2017年11月13日。檢索於2018年3月15日。https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/a8ff2bb9-84ae-41ec-b539-bc54d9085811?。
行政院國家科學委員會。「行政院國家科學委員會學術倫理案件處理及審議要點」。行政院國家科學委員會。最後更新於2000年4月20日。檢索於2016年3月15日。http://host.cc.ntu.edu.tw/sec/all_law/9/9-14.html。
林娟娟。「學術期刊之同儕審查」。大學圖書館1期（1997）：127-140。
林曉雲。「台灣高教奇特現象 學者：論文共同掛名200人」。自由時報。2016年12月17日。檢索於2018年3月15日。http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1920406。
傅雅秀。「科學社群與無形學院」。資訊傳播與圖書館學5卷。2期(1998): 77-85。
顏玉茵。「台灣學術期刊電子化同儕評閱系統建構之評析」。（碩士論文。南華大學出版與文化事業管理研究所。2004）。
二、英文
____. “A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200.000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting.” PLOS ONE. Accessed October 15, 2018.
____. “About ASAPbio.” ASAPbio. Accessed October 15, 2018.http://asapbio.org/about-.
____. “About PubPeer.” Pubpeer. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://pubpeer.com/static/about.
____. “About ScienceOpen.” ScienceOpen. Accessed October 12, 2018. http://about.scienceopen.com/.
____. “About The Winnower.” The Winnower. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://thewinnower.com/about.
____. “Become a master of peer review.” Publons. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://publons.com/blog/publons-academy/.
____. “Benefits of Membership.” Crossref. September 2018. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.crossref.org/membership/benefits/.
____. “Exporting Verified Reviews to Orcid - Is This Possible?” Publons. March 2018 Accessed October 15, 2018.
____. “General Information About arXiv.” arXiv. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://arxiv.org/help/general.
____. “Introducing metadata for peer review.” Crossref. June 2019. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.crossref.org/news/2018-06-05-introducing-metadata-for-peer-review/.
____. “Learned Society Defends Peer Review.” Times Higher Education. September 7. 2007. Accessed December 25, 2015, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/learned-society-defends-peer-review/310359.article.
____. “Open Access Survey: Exporing the Views of Taylor & Francies and Routledge Authors.” Taylor & Francis Group. March 2013. Accessed December 20, 2015, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/open-Access-survey-march2013.pdf.
____. “Open Letter on the Publication of Peer Review Reports.” ASAPbio. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://asapbio.org/letter.
____. “ORCID and CASRAI: Acknowledging Peer Review Activities.” ORCID. April 2014. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://orcid.org/blog/2014/04/08/orcid-and-casrai-acknowledging-peer-review-activities.
____. “Peer Review in 2015 A Global View: A White Paper from Taylor & Francis.” Taylor & Frances Group. October 2015, Accessed December 29, 2015, http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-in-2015/.
____. “Peer Review Week.” Peer Review Week. Accessed October 13, 2018. https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/
____. “Philosophical Transactions−the world`s first science journal.” The Royal Society. Accessed June 16, 2016. http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/.
____. “PubMed Commons to be Discontinued.” PubMed. Accessed October 12, 2018. https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/.
____. “PubMed Help.” PubMed. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/#pubmedhelp.PubMed_Quick_Start.
____. “Quality Indices.” Peerage of science. Accessed Discontinued, 2018. https://www.peerageofscience.org/how-it-works/quality-indices/.
____. “Sense about Science: Peer Review Survey 2009.” Sense About Science .Accessed December 29. 2015, http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html.
____. “Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.” World Conferences on Research Integrity. (September 22. 2010). Accessed December 25, 2015, http://www.researchintegrity.org/
____. “Terms. Policies & Guidelines.” Publon. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://publons.com/about/terms.
____. “Peer review in Scientific Publications: Eighth Report of Session 2010–12.” Publication prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in The Peer Review System Science and Engineering Ethics Science and Technology Committee. House of Commons (July 18. 2011). Accessed December 18, 2016. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf.
____. “Why PeerJ?.” PeerJ. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://peerj.com/benefits/.
____. “All Science Deserves to Be Published PLOS ONE.” Accessed October 28, 2018. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/static/publish.
Cat, Ferguson., Marcus, Adam., and Oransky, Ivan. "Publishing: The peer-review scam." Nature. No.515 (2014): 480-482.
COPE Council. “COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers–English.” COPE. September. 2017. Accessed December 20, 2018. https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.
Dorival, Paglione Laura. and Lawrence Rebecca Naomi. “Data Exchange Standards to Support and Acknowledge Peer‐Review Activity.” Learned Publishing no.28 (2015): 309-16.
Douglas, Peters. P. and Ceci , Stephen J.“ Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles. submitted again.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. no.5.1982: 187-105.
Faculty of 1000. “How it Works.” Faculty of 1000. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://f1000research.com/about.
https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000012212-exporting-verified-reviews-to-orcid-is-this-possible-.
Jordan, Katherine. “Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice.” (Paper presented Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web) . Oxford. (Jun 30 2015). Accessed October 15, 2018. http://oro.open.ac.uk/43538/.
Lutz, Bornmann. "Scientific peer review." Annual review of information science and technology no.45 (2011): 197-245.
Marshal, Barry l. “Helicobacter evolution.” Accessed October 15, 2018.https://www.scienceopen.com/collection/Helicobacter_evolution.
Pontille, David and Torny Didier. "From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review." Human Studies 38.1 (2015): 57-79.
Ray, Spier. "The history of the peer-review process." TRENDS in Biotechnology no.20.8 (2002): 357-358.
Rooyen, Susan van., Delamothe, Tony, and Evans, Stephen J. W. “Effect on Peer Review of Telling Reviewers That Their Signed Reviews Might Be Posted on the Web: Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMJ no.341 (November 2010). Accessed October 15, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729.
Ross-Hellauer, Tony. “Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two – Seven Traits of OPR.” OpenUP November 2, 2016. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410.
Tattersall , Andy. “For What It’S Worth–The Open Peer Review Landscape.” Online Information Review 39 (2015): 649-663.
Tennant, Jonathan P. et al. “A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review.” F1000Research 6. no. 1151 (2017). Accessed October 15, 2018. https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v1#ref-216.
Tennant, Jon. “Collections as The Future of Academic-Led Journals.” September 29. 2017. Accessed October 28, 2018. http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/03/collections-as-the-future-of-academic-led-journals/.
Ware, Mark. “Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community – An International Study.” Information Service & Use. January 2008. Accessed December 18, 2015. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7050/9ee2d48f00b0b5ed1d471773f6c0d9b45b30.pdf |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
103155010 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103155010 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LIAS.002.2019.A01 |
| Appears in Collections: | [圖書資訊與檔案學研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 501001.pdf | 10772Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 187 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
