Open Access and Quality Assurance / By Eberhard Bodenschatz, Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organisation, & Ulrich Pöschl, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry

开放获取与质量保证 / 艾伯赫·包登夏茨 马普学会动力学与自组织研究所，乌利希·波希尔 马普学会化学研究所


Introduction•••••••••••••

导论


Publications are the central product and lasting legacy of scientific and scholarly research. They document and explain discoveries and results in a precise fashion. While specialists are largely in a position to judge the quality and informative value of publications,this is often difficult or impossible for less experienced academics and those from outside the field. The quality of a publication lies in its factual correctness, its reproducibility and in how it relates to the specialist literature.

出版物是科学与学术研究的主要产物和持久遗存，它们以精确的方式记载及解释发明与成果。专家很容易判断出版物的质量和信息价值，但对经验不足的学者或外行人来说，却是很困难或不可能的事。出版物的质量在于事实的正确性、再现性，以及与专家文献的关联性。


In traditional academic publishing, quality assurance usually results from anonymous refereeing by others working in the field (peer review). The editor or the editorial board of the journal or other medium is responsible for choosing one or more referees and for the final decision on whether to accept a manuscript for publication. In the course of the review process, manuscripts are usually edited and improved, and only the revised manuscript is finally published.

传统的学术出版，通常由同领域的其它人士以匿名审查的方式（同行评审）确保其质量。期刊或其它媒体的编辑或编辑委员会负责挑选一名或多名评审者，并决定是否接受文稿出版。在评审过程中，文稿通常被编辑和修改，最终只出版经过修订的文稿。


Particularly in the natural sciences peer review is performed mostly electronically, using email and the Web, including in classical journals. This traditional process can be transferred to Open Access publications without change. The additional advantage of Open Access is that referees have unlimited access to other relevant Open Access publications, including those from other academic fields, and that it offers scope for new interactive approaches to quality assurance involving the whole academic community(36).

尤其在自然科学领域，包括知名的期刊在内，多半以电子邮件、网页等电子方式进行同行评审。这种传统程序，可以不经改变即转移至开放获取的出版物。开放获取还有其它优势，评审者可以无限制地获取其它学术领域的开放获取出版物，提供新的互动，确保整个学界的质量（注36）。


注36: 参见 Baldwin, I., Brammer, M., Newmark, P., Pöschl, U., Schutz, B. & von der Lieth, C., 'Quality Assessment Working Group Statement' = [质量评鉴工作组声明], Open Access Conference, Berlin, 2003; David, P.A. & Uhlir, P. F., Creating the Information Commons for e-Science, Paris, 2005; Pöschl, U., 'Gemeinschaftliche Begutachtung' = [合作评鉴], in: Wissenschaftsmanagement Special 1/2006 – Open Access, 6 (2006).


Overview of various quality assurance models•••••••••

质量保证模式概述


The Internet revolutionised scientific and scholarly publishing. For the first time in the history of mankind, it is now possible for a person, at relatively little expense, to place information at the disposal of abroad public worldwide, in other words, to publish it. These publications can then be retrieved at no cost with the aid of a search engine. This process involves no quality assurance of any kind, and the decision as to the correctness of the information is left to the reader alone. In academics, however, often only specialists are in a position to judge the quality of a publication. The following list provides a basic overview of different quality-assurance approaches which are conceivable or already in use for Open Access publications. It makes no claim to completeness, especially since electronic publishing allows a whole range of variations.

因特网带给科学与学术出版革命性的改变。人类历史上首次，一个人只需极少花费，就可以把信息公告在全球的公共区域，换言之，就是出版。而后经由搜索引擎，可以在无需费用的情况下，检索到这些出版物。这一过程不涉及任何质量保证，由读者自行判断信息的正确性。而在学术界，通常只有专家才有资格判断出版物的质量。下面列出开放获取出版物设想或已经使用的不同质量保证程序，它不是完整的，因为电子出版本身就是多变的。


1. Peer review

1、同行评审


In this well-established model based on editors and anonymous specialist referees, articles are only published after a non-public specialist review and revision process. Sometimes, however, original manuscripts are published electronically as so-called ‘preprints’ before the completion of the peer review process. This classical model is used by most Open Access journals.
这个久负盛名的模式，以编者和匿名专家评审者为基础，论文只有经过非公开专家的评审及修订过程，才能出版。但有时，在完成同行评审过程之前，原稿先以电子方式发表，即所谓的“预印本”。这一传统模式为大部份开放获取期刊所采用。

2. Collaborative peer review

2、协力同行评审


The publication and review process takes place publicly in two or more stages, starting with the preprint or discussion stage. While original manuscripts are being reviewed by editors and anonymous or known referees, readers can offer additional comments. With the editors’ approval, the authors have the chance to publish improved versions on the basis of these reviews and comments.
从预印本或讨论阶段开始，出版和评审过程以两个或更多阶段的方式公开进行。在编辑和匿名或具名评审者审查原稿的过程中，读者可以添加评论。通过编辑的审查后，作者可以根据评审的意见及读者的评论，修改其论文后出版。

3. Moderation

3、自我控制


Submitted manuscripts receive only a perfunctory review by a moderator. The original manuscript is published if it appears not to contain any gross defects. Further revision is in the hands of the authors, who can submit improved versions if they wish.
提交文稿由主持人做形式上的审查，只要没有显而易见的缺陷，就可以出版。后续的修订由作者自行决定，可以提交经修订的版本。


4. Automatic assessment

4、自动评价


Publication of the manuscript goes ahead without any kind of quality assurance. An automatic assessment on the basis of quality criteria comes later, e.g. number of citations, number of links to the page, number of downloads, historical assessment of the authors, etc.
未经任何质量保证程序就出版。自动评价来自出版后，基于如下质量标准：引用次数、页面链结数、下载数、作者的历史评价等。


5. Assessment by readers

5、读者评价


Publication of the manuscript goes ahead without any kind of quality assurance; it is followed by an assessment by readers, who can also make comments. These are published with the manuscript.
未经任何质量保证程序就出版，其后接受读者的评价及评论，这些评价及评论与文稿一同发表。


In practice, a whole variety of combinations of the above models is used. For example, traditional peer review is used in the Open Access New Journal of Physics (NJP, www.njp.org), while the Open Access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, www.atmos-chem-phys.org) combines collaborative peer review with public discussion. This approach is presented in greater detail below.

实际上，多半采用上述多种模式的组合。例如，《新物理学杂志》（NJP, www.njp.org）采用传统的同行评审制度，《大气化学与物理学》（ACP, www.atmos-chem-phys.org）则采用协力同行评审加公开讨论。详细的做法如下。


Interactive Open Access publishing combined with collaborative peer review•••

交互式开放获取出版模式加上协力同行评审


The Open Access journal ACP and a growing number of sister journals of the European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) practise a two-stage publication process comprising public peer review and interactive discussion. In the first stage, manuscripts which have passed a rapid pre-selection procedure by the editors known as ‘access review’ are published as discussion papers in the journal’s online discussion forum (ACP Discussions, ACPD). The comments of referees commissioned by the editors and additional comments by interested readers are published here together with the authors’ responses. The specialist referees have the option of remaining anonymous. In the second stage, the revision and refereeing of the manuscripts are completed as in the traditional peer-review process, if need be with further revision and review. An article is not published in the journal as a final paper until the editors have accepted a revised version of the manuscript. For the purposes of lasting documentation of academic discourse, the discussion forum is also ISSN-registered, and all discussion papers and comments are  ermanently archived and individually quotable, regardless of whether or not they result in final papers published in the journal(37).

开放获取期刊《大气化学与物理学》及不断增加的欧洲地球科学联盟（EGU, www.egu.eu）的姐妹刊，采取两阶段出版程序，包括公开同行评审及交互讨论。第一阶段，文稿由编者经“获取评审”通过快速预选程序，在期刊的网上论坛（(ACP Discussions, ACPD)）作为“讨论论文”发布，评审者及读者的意见都会被贴出来，作者可以回应这些意见，专家评审者可以选择匿名。第二阶段，完成文稿的修改与评审，如同传统的同行评审过程，如果需要，再作进一步修订与评审。修改后的文稿必须被编者认可，才会在期刊上作为“最终论文”出版。基于持续记录学术论文的目的，论坛同样注册国际标准刊号，所有“讨论论文”及评论都永久存档，无论其是否在期刊上作为“最终论文”出版，都可被单独引用（注37）。


注37 : Koop, T. & Pöschl, U., 'An open, two-stage peer review journal' =[一份开放的、两阶段同行评审期刊], Nature Web Debate on Peer Review, 2006; Pöschl, U., 'Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance' = [互动期刊概念改进科学出版与质量保证], in: Learned Publishing 17 (2004), pp 105–113; Pöschl, U., 'Open Access & Collaborative Peer Review: Öffentliche Begutachtung und interaktive Diskussion zur Verbesserung von Kommunikation und Qualitätssicherung in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft' = [开放获取与协力同行评审：公开审查与互动讨论，改善科学与社会的交流与质量保证], in: iFQ Working Paper No.1. 2006, pp 43–46.


The interactive two-stage process allows a combination of rapid communication and thorough quality control, in addition to promoting academic discussion:

交互式的两阶段过程，在推动学术讨论之外，还结合了快速交流和完整的质量控制：


1. Discussion papers allow authors to disseminate new results quickly. Readers can obtain up-to-date information and opinions almost directly from the source.

1、“讨论论文”使作者得以快速传播最新成果，读者也可直接从源头取得最新的信息和观点。


2. Comments, suggestions and criticisms made by specialist referees are available to the whole academic community and not just to authors and editors.

2、专家评审者给出的评论、建议和批评，可以让整个学界看到，不只是给作者或编者参考。

3. The transparency of the review process deters the submission of poor-quality original manuscripts. The resulting reduction in the number of rejected manuscripts and in the need for correction helps relieve the pressure on available referee resources.

3、透明的评阅过程防止提交质量较差的稿件，进而减少退稿量，也降低了提出修改意见的需求，从而减轻评审资源方面的压力。

4. For interested readers, the setting out and documentation of controversial issues and supplementary comments in the interactive discussion is often just as informative as the original article.

4、发布并保留交互式讨论中的争议问题及补充评论，对有兴趣的读者而言，通常与原始论文本身同样具有信息意义。

5. The combination of traditional peer review with interactive public discussion leads to high quality assurance and information density in the final papers.

5、结合传统的同行评审和交互式的公开讨论，保证“最终论文”的质量及信息密度。

The practical feasibility of the interactive Open Access publishing concept is confirmed by the rapidly growing number of articles and by citation statistics. Within five years, ACP achieved the highest impact factor of any journal in the field of atmospheric research, as well as one of the highest in the fields of earth and environmental sciences (ISI Journal Citation Report 2005).

快速增长的论文数及引证统计，证实交互式开放获取出版概念是可行的。五年时间里，《大气化学与物理学》的影响因子在大气研究领域期刊中达到最高，在地球与环境科学领域期刊中也是最高之一（ISI期刊引证报告2005）。


Initial doubts about the technical feasibility and academic value of the two-stage Open Access publication process have been dispelled by its results. Many scientists working in the aforementioned fields in Germany and worldwide are prepared to implement Open Access and collaborative peer review, and in some cases are already actively involved. As with other innovative Open Access publications, financial barriers were the major obstacle to establishing the ACP and its sister journals. Because of the lack of availability of Open Access grants, the publication costs for the first few years had to be borne from the EGU’s own funds. Most of the authors were not accustomed to the payment of publication fees, which continue to constitute a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis subscription-financed journals.

这个结果，不仅在技术上可行且具有学术价值，打消了对两阶段开放获取出版程序的怀疑。很多在德国和世界各地的上述领域的科学家，准备实施开放获取和协力同行评审，有些案例已经付诸实行。如同其它创新的开放获取出版物，建立《大气化学与物理学》及其姐妹刊物，财务是主要的障碍。由于缺乏开放获取的赞助，出版费用在创办的前几年，需要由欧洲地球科学联盟的自有基金来承担。由于大部分作者还不习惯支付出版费，相对于由订阅支持的期刊，作者付费仍是竞争劣势。


Even so, the interactive Open Access publishing concept has since moved into other academic fields. It can be applied to existing academic journals and to large-scale Open Access publishing systems. The ACP approach has been adopted largely unchanged by, for example, the journal Economics (www.economics-ejournal.org). Publishing forums that apply modified approaches to public peer review and interactive discussion include PLoS One (www.plosone.org) and Biology Direct (www.biology-direct.com) in the life sciences.

即便如此，交互式开放获取出版的概念，已经进入其它学术领域。它适用于现有的学术期刊，以及大型的开放获取出版系统。《大气化学与物理学》的做法，被《经济学家》（www.economics - ejournal.org）等期刊几乎全盘照搬。出版论坛则修改采用公开同行评议及交互式讨论的方法，如生命科学领域的科学公共图书馆（PLoS One, www.plosone.org）和生物学指南（Biology Direct, www.biology-direct.com）。


Conclusions•••••••••••••

结论


Open Access allows both the retention of traditional quality assurance by peer review and the development and deployment of a whole variety of supplementary or alternative quality assurance procedures. New approaches, such as the combination of collaborative peer review and public discussion, can enhance the efficiency of quality assurance. These approaches would in principle also be possible for articles published in traditional printed form, albeit at considerable financial and technical outlay. Their practical implementation and dissemination is really only made practical by electronic publishing and Open Access. Sometimes, the opinion is expressed that peer review is no longer necessary in the age of the Internet and electronic publishing. However, experience shows that, without peer review, the quality of publications varies considerably. Traditional or modified forms of peer review therefore still seem to be necessary for the efficient quality assurance of Open Access publications.
开放获取允许保留同行评审的传统质量保证机制，也可以发展另一个补充或替代的质量保证程序。结合协力同行评审和公开讨论等方式的新办法，可以强化质量保证的效率。原则上，以传统印本形式发表的论文，也可以采用这种办法，不过会有相当大的财务和技术支出。只有在电子出版及开放获取的前提下，这一办法才能实施并传播开来。有时有一种观点认为，在因特网和电子出版时代，不再需要同行评审。然而经验显示，没有同行评审，出版物的质量差异很大。传统或改良后的同行评审，似乎还是开放获取出版物质量保证的有效方法。

p. 54-57

Open Access: Opportunities and challenges. A handbook [开放获取 : 机会及挑战] / European Commission/German Commission for UNESCO). -- Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008. -- 144 pp., 14.8 x 21.0 cm. -- ISBN 978-92-79-06665-8. -- EUR 23459, http://tinyurl.com/3q8wo5