学术期刊审稿理念及中西比较

学术期刊同行审稿制度产生260年来,人们尤其西方学者对其进行了广泛的研究、关注和强调。"同行审稿"制度实行以来,取得了巨大的成功,其中的代表性实例像《科学》、《自然》,等等。与之相应的是中国的"三审制",三审制是学术期刊审稿的主流制度,后者是一种主要在机构内部运作、计划色彩浓郁的审稿制度。通过中西方学者对审稿理念的理解比较,可以发现:西方学者100%持同行审稿观点,中国持此理念的仅占33%。在中国,主流工具书缺乏对审稿概念和研究成果的关注;自然科学界比社会科学界更加关注、重视审稿问题,社会科学界研究者则相对稀少;中国的同行审稿论者几乎都是自然科学工作者;尽管如此,中国的同行审稿论者呈增加趋势。同行审稿是一种开放型的审稿制度,因此,应当积极借鉴和采纳西方普遍采用的同行审稿制度,改进目前的审稿制度。

China and the West Philosophy Journals Reviewers Compare

Academic journal peer review system generates for 260 years, People, especially Western scholars have conducted extensive research, focus and emphasis. The peer review system has been a huge success. China executes "Triditing System". Through the comparison of Chinese and western scholars review concept can be found: Western scholars 100% view peer review, Chinese scholars hold the idea of only 33%. In China, the main reference books lack of awareness of the concept and research review. Natural science scientists pay more attention to attach importance to the review questions, social science researchers are relatively rare. An increasing trend of China's theory of peer review comes into being. Peer review is a review of open system. So, China should actively learn from and adopt the peer review system generally used in western countries.