Group 1 - The core issue is the overwhelming demand for telescope time, particularly for the MUSE instrument at the European Southern Observatory (ESO), leading to a significant backlog of applications [1][3] - The traditional peer review system is under strain due to the increasing volume of academic papers, resulting in declining research quality and innovative ideas being overlooked [5][7] - The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the situation, with a surge in paper submissions further stressing the peer review system [7][8] Group 2 - ESO has implemented a new "applicant peer review" system where applicants must also review their competitors' proposals, aiming to alleviate the burden on traditional reviewers [3][10] - Various methods are being explored to incentivize peer reviewers, including non-monetary rewards and integrating peer review contributions into performance evaluations [13][14] - The debate over whether to pay peer reviewers continues, with proponents arguing it reflects the value of their work, while opponents warn of potential conflicts of interest [15][17] Group 3 - Recent experiments with paid peer review have shown mixed results, with one journal reporting a slight increase in acceptance rates and reduced review times, while another experienced significant improvements in processing speed and quality [21][22][24] - Funding agencies are also struggling to find qualified reviewers, even when offering substantial compensation [26][28] - A successful trial in the UK demonstrated that a new review model could double the speed of funding application reviews while mitigating concerns about bias [29][30] Group 4 - The need to expand the pool of reviewers is critical, as the number of papers is increasing, particularly from emerging research countries, while the reviewer base remains limited [31][33] - Collaborative review models pairing senior scholars with junior researchers are gaining traction, providing training opportunities while increasing reviewer capacity [34] - Structured peer review methods, which involve specific questions for reviewers, have shown promise in improving consistency and quality of reviews [36][38] Group 5 - Transparency in the peer review process is being advocated, with suggestions to publish review reports alongside final papers and to attribute reviews to individual reviewers [41][42] - This push for transparency is believed to enhance the quality of reviews, as reviewers may be more diligent knowing their work will be publicly accessible [42]
同行评审濒临崩溃，一篇审稿报告450美元？科学家不再愿意「用爱发电」
3 6 Ke·2025-09-01 07:54