科学研究的同行评审:问题和潜在的解决方案
Sunanda Gupta1, Aruddha Sarkar2
1Community and Family Medicine, Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS-CAPFIMS), New Delhi, IND.
由于诸如偏见和延迟等漏洞,科学同行评审面临信任问题. 建议进行改革以提高信誉,包括专业化审查和使用人工智能.
科学领域:
- 学术传播学术交流
- 科学出版的完整性 科学出版的完整性
背景情况:
- 同行评审是科学可信度的传统基石.
- 它的有效性缺乏经验证据,目前的做法面临重大挑战.
- 问题包括偏见,延误,缺乏透明度和审查员参与度下降.
研究的目的:
- 批判性地检查当前同行评审系统中的漏洞.
- 探索加强科学出版的实用和伦理改革.
- 解决从结构性低效率到个人审查员行为的各种问题.
主要方法:
- 这篇社论分析了同行评审中的系统和个体缺陷.
- 它讨论了提交量增加和商业压力的影响.
- 它审查了关于同行评审挑战的现有文献和专家意见.
主要成果:
- 同行评审系统面临着广泛的问题:审查员过度负担,不一致的标准,缓慢的流程和缺乏多样性.
- 个人评审员的问题包括无意识的偏见,利益冲突和不充分的培训.
- 信任的侵蚀与这些持续的脆弱性有关.
结论:
- 加强同行评审需要多方面的改革.
- 建议的解决方案包括专业化审查员角色,激励,人工智能集成,提高透明度和多样性.
- 简化工作流程对于更强大,更值得信赖的系统至关重要.
更多相关视频
10:26Problem-Solving Before Instruction PS-I: A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities
Published on: September 11, 2021
06:16Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
相关概念视频
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Scientific Nature of Social Psychology
Blind Procedures
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
