出版与作家生涯2022blog.peer-review.io
科学出版的一种可能修复方案
A Possible Fix for Scientific Publishing
导读
这篇文章讨论科学研究出版能否用众包投票、开放评议等方式改造传统同行评审。值得写作者读，是因为几位从业者在评论里把「技术方案」与「人的动机、社群信任、读者是谁」之间的落差讲得很透——任何写作与发表平台的设计，最终都要回答「谁来读、凭什么信、为什么愿意花时间」这三个问题。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
先想清楚社会动力学：技术是最容易的部分，真正难的是说服已有声望的同行和急需发表成果的年轻研究者迁移过来，写作项目/平台也应先找一个细分社群切入。
- 02
不要默认读者是「大众」：许多专业文本的默认读者是同领域的同行，可以保留术语与省略背景，面向公众的解读另交给书籍、博客和科普媒体。
- 03
投票式评价极容易被朋友圈和情绪操纵，要求评价者写出哪怕两百字的理由，才能逼出真正的思考与论证。
- 04
与其另建一套「谁知道是谁」的打分机制，不如沿用已被验证的信誉信号——引用、复现、领域内口碑。
- 05
想让一个写作社区起步，光招工程师不够，要进入目标社群、建立信任、参加会议，把自己嵌入其中。
HN 评论精选
技术不是难点，社会动员和社群信任才是；专业文献不必以大众可读为目标。
一位在职科学家的几点建议：第一，你的技术很好，但要仔细想清楚从现状到目标之间的社会路径，技术永远是最简单的部分，说服已成名的科学家和急需在好期刊发文的年轻学者要难得多，最好先找一个细分领域切入。第二，你提到招工程师、设计师、运维和测试，这说明你在用技术解决社会问题，不如考虑市场人员甚至社会科学家，帮你理解你想影响的社群；要嵌入其中、建立信任、参加会议甚至赞助会议。第三，关于让外行也能看懂研究，我认为这是个坏趋势：科学家需要一种用自己的语言彼此交流的渠道，不必每次都铺陈全部背景，学术出版正是这样的渠道；我发过很多没有两年研究生训练就完全看不懂的文章，它们不算突破性成果但仍然重要，科学在很多领域是逐步累积的。当然我完全同意论文应该开放免费，面向公众的解读可以交给书籍、博客和科普新闻。
sseagull查看英文原文
A few comments from a practicing scientist 1.) You have a lot of nice tech, but think long and hard about the social dynamics and how you can get from A->B. By far, the tech will be the easy part. Convincing established scientists and up-and-coming scientists who need publications in quality journals is much, much harder. As another comment says, try finding a niche first and build out. Particularly some less established fields. 2.) You mention hiring engineers, designers, devops, QE. This points to solving a social problem with technology. Consider marketing, or even social scientists who can guide you in understanding the communities you are attempting to influence. Become embedded in those communities, build trust, attend (and maybe sponsor) conferences, and then branch out. 3.) Sort of a pet peeve of mine (among many): You talk about making the studies accessible to the lay public (in terms of understandability). I feel this is a bad trend. Scientists need a way to talk to each other in their own language, without needing to lay out all the context every time. Academic publishing is that avenue. I have published many articles that will not be understandable to anyone without at least 2 years of graduate school in the field. They aren't groundbreaking, but can still be important. Science is very incremental in many areas. Although I 100% agree that it should be open and free. For the lay public, there are always books, blogs, and pop-sci news that put it into context. Anyway, I wish you success (truly, we need improvement over the status quo). It's easy for people to criticize, but think of all the things we don't criticize (which means we approve of them!)
简单投票必然被社交资本操纵，投票应当强制附带书面理由。
论文靠简单的点赞/点踩来评判，这想法让我害怕。受欢迎的学者把新论文发到 Twitter 上，立刻会得到朋友和粉丝的一轮点赞；而当下不受待见的人则会被集中点踩。文中没有给出任何阻止这种情况的办法，我希望没人真的认为学者们「不至于这样」。我建议把「点踩时可以自愿留言」改成「任何投票都至少需要 200 字的理由」；总的来说，评审需要思考和论证。
CJefferson查看英文原文
I find the idea that papers are judged by a simple up-vote/down-vote terrifying. Popular academics will post their new paper on Twitter, which will immediately lead to a round of upvotes from their friends and followers. People who are currently out of favour will be downvote-bombed. I see no suggested way of stopping this -- and I hope noone thinks the answer is academics are "above that". I'd suggest changing from "people may leave a comment if they wish when they downvote" to "any vote requires at least 200 words of justification". In general I think it's important reviewing requires thought and justification.
把社交媒体式投票引入学术出版会重演信息流的所有毛病，引用比投票更可靠。
我不理解那些正面反应。这听起来像是：把社交媒体对社会做过的事，也在科学出版上再做一遍，而且是为了几个钱，结果只会更糟。学者的晋升取决于发表成绩，如果这个平台不能帮他们拿到经费或终身教职，他们就会避开它；已经拿到的人会更避开。只有少数人愿意花时间评审和打分，而所谓评审往往只是扫三秒凭直觉，连最明显的造假论文都挡不住。会有几篇好文章得分很高，你会拿它们为平台辩护，但在那之下是一大堆不该得高分的论文，因为它们背后有团体在推动，或者有团体在刻意压低「竞争对手」的论文。正如别人所说，「普通公民」从来不在这套体系里，也不需要在这里；开放获取是给同行和极少数高度专业的爱好者看的。文中说「十万种学术期刊让外行无法分辨哪些可靠」，这不对：多数研究者只看少数几种期刊，就能分出好坏；而且你不会只有一万种期刊，你要面对的是几百万评审者。既然有现成的信誉机制——引用——为什么还要用不知名者投票？
tgv查看英文原文
I don't get the positive reactions. This sounds like: let's do to scientific publishing what social media have done to society. And that's make it worse. For fistful of dollars. - Academics advance based on your publication score. They will avoid your platform if it doesn't help them get grants or tenure. If they've got it, they will avoid it even more. - Only a few people will put time in reviewing and handing out points, where unfortunately reviewing means: three seconds of scanning and gut feeling. You won't be able to keep even the most blatantly fraudulent papers out. - There will be a few good articles that score well, and you'll defend your platform by pointing that out, but below that there will be a mass of highly rated papers that don't deserve it. They'll be there because a group with an agenda put them there, or because groups actively keep papers of "competitors" down. - As said by others: the "average citizen" isn't part of this. Never has been, and doesn't need to. Open Access is for fellow scientists and very specialized citizens. - "With over 10,000 academic journals, it’s impossible for the lay public to track which journals are reputable and which are not." That's not true. Most researchers only look in a small number of journals and can distinguish wheat from chaff. But you won't have 10k journals: you're aiming at millions of reviewers. - Why use voting by god-knows-whom if you can use the same "trust" mechanism that's used today: citations? Because you'll only become a record keeper. There won't be a need to fund your system.
学术信誉由领域内专家判断，公众误读并不是出版体系的核心问题。
文章说「付费即发」让传统同行评审崩坏，不诚实的研究者被好期刊拒稿后可以转投付费期刊发表，十万种期刊让外行分不清哪些可靠，于是在公众眼里发表即等于有效——我对这段有异议。大多数科学论文本就不是写给大众的，而是写给该领域的专家；很多论文连领域外的博士都看不懂，更别说普通人了。哪些期刊和作者可靠，领域内的专家心里有数；发在冷门期刊上的「付费即发」论文不会获得多少关注，也不会被当真。
ta123456789查看英文原文
"The ultimate effect of pay-to-play is that the traditional peer review and refereeing process has broken down. If a dishonest researcher gets rejected from a reputable journal, they can take their paper to a pay-to-play journal and have it published there. With over 10,000 academic journals, it’s impossible for the lay public to track which journals are reputable and which are not. As far as the public is concerned, a published paper is a valid paper." Ok, but I take some issue with this. Most scientific papers are not intended at the general public, but at experts working in the specific area that the paper covers. Also, often these papers are not even understandable by a phd outside the area, let alone a lay person. Which journals and authors are reputable are known to experts in the area. "Pay to play" papers published in obscure journals will not get much attention or be taken seriously.
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选