評論
打印
Science and technology
科學技術
Academic publishing
學術出版
Peer to peer
同行評審機制
Portable reviews look set to speed up the publication of papers
便捷化同行評審將會加快文章的發表
ASK a researcher what annoys him most about scientific publishing, and slowness will come near the top of the list of gripes.
要是問研究員在學術論文發表中什么最令他煩惱，速度慢位居煩惱榜單之首。
It takes nearly six months, on average, for a manuscript to wend its way from submission to publication.
一篇文章從投給出版社到發表，通常需要將近六個月的時間。
Worse, before a paper is accepted by a journal, it is often rejected by one or more others.
更糟糕的是，在論文被一家期刊接受之前，通常會被一家或多家的期刊拒絕。
The reason need not be a fatal flaw in the research; sometimes the work is simply not splashy enough for outlets high up in the pecking order.
原因不一定是研究有致命的錯誤；有時只是因為研究內容受關注的程度達不到高級期刊的要求。
But in the process, each journal's editors send the paper for peer review—appraisal by experts in the relevant field—in much the way that each prospective purchaser of a house commissions his own survey.
而且，在論文從投稿到出版的過程中，每一期刊的編輯都會對文章做同行評審—由相關領域的專家評估—就像有意購樓者在購樓前要了解樓盤一樣。
And, unlike those multiple, parallel surveys, the reviewers do not even get paid for their efforts.
而且，不像那些多重平行的調查，評審專家甚至沒有勞動報酬。
Some publishers are at last beginning to twig that this is an awful waste of resources.
一些出版社終于開始意識到同行評審這一做法相當浪費資源。
Last month a number of them, including big ones like the Wellcome Trust, BioMed Central, the Public Library of Science and the European Molecular Biology Organisation,
上個月許多出版社，包括一些大型出版社，譬如維康基金會，生物醫學期刊出版中心，科學公共圖書館以及歐洲分子生物學組織，
said they would give authors of papers they reject the option of making referees' reports available to the other publishers.
聲明他們將會給予被拒文章的作者選擇權，決定是否讓文章的評審報告對其他出版社開放。
The practice is not unheard of within publishing groups.
這一做法在出版集團內部不是前所未聞的事。
Genome Biology, BMC's flagship journal, which accepts just one paper in ten, passes 40% of the sound but humdrum sort it spurns to its less prestigious sister publications with reviews attached, says Matthew Cockerill, the group's managing director.
BMC的重點期刊《基因生物學》，文章接收率只有10%，該期刊 40%的比較不錯但卻單調的被拒文章會轉投給比它名氣稍小的子期刊，這些文章都附有評審報告，出版中心的總經理馬修·柯克里爾說到。
Half of those end up in a BMC journal.
那些文章有一半會發表在BMC旗下的期刊。
But similar arrangements between competing publishers have not caught on.
但類似這樣的做法并沒有在競爭的出版商之間流行起來。
Other ways to speed up peer review are being tested, too.
其他加快同行評審的辦法也正經受考驗。
Rubriq, a company in North Carolina, plans to offer fast, independent reports to authors for a fee.
北卡羅來納州的Rubriq公司，計劃通過向作者收費從而提供快速、獨立的同行評審報告。
This includes a reality check on just how far up the publication pecking order a paper might be submitted with a reasonable expectation that it will be accepted.
該服務包含一項適應性評估，評估論文應該投給什么樣級別的期刊才有可能會被采用。
To reviewers, meanwhile, it is offering payment for the job.
同時，評審員是有報酬的。
The firm is in talks with publishers including BMC and PLoS.
該公司正與包括BMC和 PLoS在內的出版商協商。
Damian Pattinson, the editorial director of PLoS One, the latter group's biggest journal, calls Rubriq's service useful, though he admits that details of how it will work have yet to be sorted out.
PLoS的最大期刊PLoS One的編輯部主任達米安·帕丁森，認為Rubriq公司的服務有用，但他也承認這項服務運作的細節還未列出。
The customers of a Finnish firm, Peerage of Science, are not authors, but journals themselves; 23 have signed up so far.
名為Peerage of Science的一家芬蘭公司的顧客不是作者而是期刊；目前有23家期刊與之簽約。
Publications in effect outsource the organisation of peer review to the company on the understanding that other clients can look at the results, too.
實際上，出版商把同行評審組織外包給了公司，這樣的話，其他客戶也可以查看結果。
Then, if the first customer rejects a researcher's offering, those others can choose quickly whether to snap it up instead.
那么，如果第一個期刊顧客拒絕了一位研究員的論文，其他的期刊就可以很快的選擇是否要發表這篇論文。
Peerage's fee is paid by whichever journal ultimately publishes the offering in question.
評審人員的酬勞由最終發表這篇論文的期刊支付。
The number of submissions to journals is outpacing reviewers' capacity to deal with them, says Mr Cockerill.
柯克里爾先生說道，現在期刊投稿量使評審員負荷過大。
Mr Pattinson agrees.
帕丁森先生也承認這一點。
PLoS One already churns through 4,000 papers a month, putting its referees under tremendous strain, he says.
他說道，PLoS One 現在一個月有投稿論文4000份，這使得他們的評審員承受著巨大的壓力。
With luck, parallel processing of peer review in this manner will reduce the stress on the system, and thus the time frustrated researchers have to wait before their gems see the light of day.
如果一切順利的話，同行評審的這種并行處理模式將會為評審機制減輕壓力，同樣，那些在郁悶地等待自己的大作發表的研究員們也可以少等一些時間了。
