文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：不同评审模式对出版偏倚的影响--基于文本挖掘的发现

英文题名：Impact of Different Review Modes on Publication Bias:Based on Text Mining

作者：贺颖[1] 刘小玲[1] 王治钧[2]

第一作者：贺颖

机构：[1]天津师范大学管理学院,天津300387;[2]中国林业科学研究院资源信息研究所,北京100091

年份：2024

卷号：68

期号：24

起止页码：124-132

中文期刊名：图书情报工作

外文期刊名：Library and Information Service

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2023】；CSSCI:【CSSCI2023_2024】；

基金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“基于区块链的科学论文开放式同行评议质量控制研究”(项目编号:20BTQ084);天津师范大学研究生科研创新项目“基于注册报告模式的出版偏倚与出版质量的实证研究”(项目编号:2024KYCX080Y)研究成果之一。

语种：中文

中文关键词：出版偏倚;审稿专家;同行评审

外文关键词：publication bias;reviewer;peer review

分类号：G239.2;G237.5

摘要：[目的/意义]通过对公开的同行评审报告进行文本挖掘,探寻隐藏在同行评审过程中的出版偏倚,为其解决方案提供理论支持。[方法/过程]对透明式同行评审TPR和结果盲态评审RBR两种评审模式的公开评审报告进行文本挖掘,采用LDA主题分析法、情感分析法、内容分析法进行对比分析,观察评审人的关注点、情感倾向、研究结果极性分布差异。[结果/结论]采用结果盲态评审RBR模式的评审人更注重研究方法与过程的质量与严谨性;而采用透明式同行评审TPR模式的评审人更关注学术论文的研究结果与研究结论,评审时情感更具主观性,在评审过程中容易导致“唯结果论”的出版偏倚现象。据此得到以下结论:论文评审环节的出版偏倚被证实;科研评价体系是造成出版偏倚现象的核心原因;积极推行评审过程的全要素开放模式;学界应转变出版观念、推行新兴出版模式。
[Purpose/Significance]By conducting text mining on open peer review reports,this study aims to explore the hidden publication bias in the peer review mode and provide theoretical support for its solutions.[Method/Process]The text mining analysis was conducted on the review reports of two modes:Transparent Peer Review(TPR)and Results-Blind Review(RBR).LDA topic analysis,sentiment analysis,and content analysis were used to compare and observe the differences in reviewers’focal points,emotional tendencies,and the distribution of research results polarity.[Result/Conclusion]Reviewers using the Results-Blind Review(RBR)model tend to focus more on the quality and rigor of research methods and processes,while those using the Transparent Peer Review(TPR)model pay more attention to the results and conclusions of academic papers,and the corresponding evaluations during the review process are more subjective,leading to a potential“results-oriented”publication bias.It draws the following conclusions.Firstly,publication bias in the paper review stage has been confirmed.Second,the core reason behind this bias is the research evaluation system.Third,actively promoting a fully open review process is necessary.Finally,the academic community should shift publishing perspectives and promote emerging publishing models.