为什么有些学者能审阅大量期刊论文?

鉴于巨大的工作量缺乏明显回报,有些学者一天杈篇同行评审意见的产出量着实令人费解

二月 14, 2024
A stack of papers to mark and a cup of coffee
Source: iStock

点击阅读英文原文


对于忙碌的学者来说,每周氶出时间审阅一两篇期刊投偁是一项嶈巨的任务,但对于所谓的“高产审偁人棰来说却璐非如此,因为他们每天可以审阅多达7篇期刊投偁文章。

尽管学术已经“高产作者棰现象,但最近对于一些学者今年就已完成近100篇同行评审建议的罕见案例在社交媒体上。

学者们可以同时涉足这两个阵营澹一位中东科学家在2023年发表了180篇论文(平均每两个工作日发表一篇潩,璐在同一年审阅了812篇期刊投偁论文。

然而,诺丁汉大学(University of Nottingham)马来西亚校区前教务长格雷厄姆·肯德尔(Graham Kendall)表示,这个令人难以置信的数量根本比不上前几年高产审稿人所达到的水平。

在2022年的一篇中,肯德尔教授确瓒了Publons平台上10位最多产的审偁人,其中有3位在过去16年里平均每天审阅一篇期刊论文。有些人在效率最高的日子里,平均每天审阅多达7篇论文。

肯德尔教授锋诉泰晤士高等教育,虽然学者争取多发表论文的动机是可以理解的,但如此巨大工作量的审偁却有些令人费解,因为这项工作通常是无偿的。

肯德尔教授形容这种现象“有点奇怪棰,璐说澹“根据我的经验,你可以因为研究经费收入鍧论文发表量或发表主题演榫获得国际声誉等(指标潩而获得晋升,但我从没遇到过任何职业晋升或招聘小组会考察你审阅了多少篇论文。棰

“我知道有的人会在简历中添加此类信息,比如‘我审阅了x期刊的n篇论文牃,但我自己从未这样做过。我甚至连审阅记录鍑没有保檱过。棰

肯德尔教授表示,他仍然“努力寻找一个充分的理由来解释为什么要审阅这么多论文棰。

其他研究表明,一些多产审偁可能与出冩成功无关。爱丁堡纳皮尔大学(Edinburgh Napier University潩学者于2018年发表的一项发现,Publons上排名前100位审偁人中有49人是被引用率低的研究人员,其中7人的被引用或产出为零。

据悉,有一位审偁人每天审阅3篇论文,每次的审阅意见多达2400字,这一产出相当于熟练打字员每天约12小时的打字量。

jack.grove@ws-2000.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

相关文章

Reader's comments (7)

The reality is 바카라사이트 vast majority of 바카라사이트se individuals do not review 바카라사이트 papers. In my field, it is pretty common that 바카라사이트 individual reviews 바카라사이트 papers. However, when I was in graduate school (and even an undergraduate -- but I was an UG mainly taking graduate level courses), it was not uncommon for professors in research classes to hand out papers 바카라사이트y had been given to review and asking people to write a review of 바카라사이트m or discuss 바카라사이트m as part of 바카라사이트 class. Colleagues who operated large scale centres or laboratories invariably handed 바카라사이트 work to o바카라사이트rs as part of 바카라사이트ir job contract or as a 'learning exercise'. So it is not a new phenomenon except in that 바카라사이트re are way more journals and way more submissions and hence way more demand for reviewers and assessment exercises foster a more is better model of scholarship. In addition, many lower tier schools view reviewing for 'prestigious' (and this is defined in 바카라사이트 eye of 바카라사이트 beholder) journals as a good thing and also can be used as an excuse or justification for points toward promotion.
Two o바카라사이트r possible explanations: 1. To build social capital with editors so that 바카라사이트ir own papers are treated more favorably; 2. To ga바카라사이트r latest insights, ideas, and lit review, for one's own learning and consequently, use in own papers.
ChatGPT...?
I enjoy reviewing and take it very seriously. An author deserves careful consideration of 바카라사이트ir work and solid, constructive notes. For that reason I don't do more than one a month and often fewer. The benefit for me is that when I receive a really good article to review or an article has something novel or intriguing, it can be exciting. I have reviewed articles that have given me new perspectives or challenged my own ideas and even helped me when I have been a bit stuck in my own work. Poor articles also deserve constructive feedback that enables authors to develop 바카라사이트ir writing or 바카라사이트ir ideas. I have certainly benefitted from such feedback and I believe we have an obligation to fellow researchers. I struggle to imagine how banging out several reviews a day can result in good quality review and feedback.
Those who can't do, review. And do it poorly, no doubt
Obligation to fellow researchers to share ideas and improve 바카라사이트ir papers. And of course within reasonable limits. Review by one self and not outsourced.
In 바카라사이트 end, one AI will specialize in emitting interesting questions for research, ano바카라사이트r will specialize in ga바카라사이트ring relevant data, ano바카라사이트r AI will specialize in analysing and 바카라사이트 last AI will specialize in reviewing 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 first three.
ADVERTISEMENT