本文转自 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3453320-1265920.html

审稿人，请别再在鸡蛋里挑骨头啦

每一篇发表在学术期刊杂志上的文章，都会经历同行评审（Peer Review）。顾名思义，跟你做着相似研究的同行给你的文章把关，以他们的经验和学识来衡量文章的质量高低，以此决定该文章是否适合发表。

作为一种学术成果审查程序，同行评审程序的主要目的是确保作者的著作水平符合一般学术与该学科领域的标准。严格、透明和无偏见的同行评审过程被认为是学术诚信和质量的保证，也是整个学术生态圈最重要的一环。我们诚挚感谢审稿人为提高研究水平和稿件质量作出的努力！同时，同行评审的质量也引起广泛关注甚至是来自学术界的担忧。加拿大渔业和海洋部门政府科学家Jeff C. Clements认为最近有一些审稿人的评审意见正在变得“为了批判而批判”。

Jeff C. Clements原文翻译

其实我非常喜欢担任同行评审人。因为审稿不仅能使我及时了解该领域的最新研究进展，而且在帮助作者有效传播其科学知识时，我也会感到很有成就感。

但是，我对审稿人传达给作者的一些评审意见感到有些沮丧。我发现，在与所有审稿人共享的多个审阅意见中有时充斥着一些不必要的个人评论，而这些评论仅仅是对作者能力的主观批评，并不是对研究的建设性意见。甚至有个别评审意见暗示着作者们本身既不讲逻辑也不明智。

同行评审的过程非常关键。但是，许多研究人员并没有接受过有效的同行评审的规范化培训（我也没有）。我们知道，作为审稿人是很关键的，但是很少有人教我们要友善和礼貌。我认为，对批评而不是同情的关注常常被解读为是对刻薄的纵容。

尽管有些期刊删除了一些评论者过于主观的评审意见，但仍有许多期刊对此不予置评，那么作者就会收到这些不够客观和理性的评审意见。在生态与进化领域，我和同事分析发现，提供给作者的同行评议中有10–35％包含贬义词语，而43％的评论中至少包含一项不专业的评论。但大家不得不忍受类似此类评审意见：“作者在这里所做的一切，我甚至都不认为可以称得上是科学。”

这些评论可能会减慢文章发表过程。对我来说，回应这种非专业的评论要比建设性的评论花费更长的时间，因为这种反馈很少能提供切实可行的建议来解决真正的问题。因此，作者将花费更多的时间思考和做出回应。

更重要的是，此类评论可能会对作者产生破坏性影响。去年的Nature的一项调查显示，霸凌是博士生心理健康状况较差的潜在重要根源。就个人而言，苛刻的审稿人评论会让我感到焦虑，甚至感觉自己像个冒名顶替者。

如果我看到或收到不专业的评论该怎么办？

当我收到来自文章审稿人的严厉批评时，最初我会感到烦恼和浮躁，因此我尽量告诉自己不要立即做出回应。相反，我会花一些时间来消化这些负面评论，这使我能够以更中立的语气回应。

但是，有时很难超越这些言论的主观性质。在这种情况下，我会直接与相关编辑联系（某些期刊已经为类似的事件制定了反馈流程，有些期刊则没有）。如果我看到其他人的这些负面评论被转达给了作者，我会以审稿人的身份进行反馈，因为许多作者可能对此类恶评并不满意。以我的经验，编辑通常会接受这样的反馈，并将其传递给其他审稿人。更多的作者和评审者提出的反馈意见只是引起编辑的注意，但这可能会是改变这种风气的开始。我已经在Twitter上提供了此类交涉文件的模板（https://twitter.com/biolumiJEFFence/status/1260674806346854400），任何人都可以使用。

今年，我审阅了一些包含“积极评论”部分的期刊，审稿人可以在其中赞扬文章手稿做得好的方面。我会尝试在自己的评论中尽可能地做到这一点，但是将积极评论作为评论结构的一部分的期刊，也将帮助评审者提供令人振奋的评审意见。

当我在渥太华担任科学出版物 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 的共同编辑时，我也是研究科学家，但我不会编辑审稿人的原始文字。相反，我会将非专业的评论发回给修订，并以非判断性的方式指出具体问题。我认为，让更多的作者和审稿人直接将此类问题反馈给编辑并引起注意，可以促使更多的编辑者也这样做。

一些期刊正在尝试将同行评审的全文发表在手稿中。这可能有助于提高对此问题的认识，但是由于审阅者的身份是匿名的，因此仍然没有什么理由让他们彬彬有礼。

除了以上所提到的，审稿人个人可以采取的方法外，有关如何对审稿人进行建设性地、学术地和礼貌地审阅稿件的正确指导和培训也将大有帮助。此类培训可以集中到研究生院的“研究方法”类课程中，也可以作为机构研讨会提供。如果我上了一门如何写好论文的课程，那我为什么不应该参加一个关于同行评审的课程呢？

在当前的新冠疫情下，也许没有比现在更好的时机，来积极地促进和培养同行审查中同理心的力量——不仅是为了科学，而且是为了在做同行评审的我们自己。

Nature 585, 472 (2020)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02512-0

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged.

    I very much enjoy being a peer reviewer. Reviewing manuscripts allows me to stay up to date on the most-current research in my field, and I feel a sense of accomplishment when helping authors to effectively disseminate their science.

However, I have been discouraged by some comments from fellow reviewers that I’ve seen relayed to authors. Multiple reviews, which were shared with all reviewers, were rife with unnecessary, personal comments that merely served as subjective criticisms of the authors’ competencies, rather than as constructive assessment of the research. One comment went as far as implying that the authors themselves were illogical and unintelligent.

The process of peer review is meant to be highly critical. Many researchers, however, don’t receive proper training on being effective peer reviewers (I didn’t). We know that we should be critical as reviewers, but we are rarely taught to be kind and courteous. I think that, all too often, this focus on criticism rather than compassion is interpreted as a licence to be mean.

Although some journals redact ad hominem reviewer comments, many do not, and authors commonly receive them. In my field of ecology and evolution, an analysis conducted by myself and colleagues found that 10–35% of peer reviews provided to authors contain demeaning language and 43% of reviews include at least one unprofessional comment. Indeed, I’ve endured similar comments, including this one: “What the authors have done here I would not even consider science.”

These comments can slow down the publishing process. For me, it takes much longer to respond to unprofessional comments than to constructive ones, because it’s rare that such feedback provides tangible suggestions to address. Therefore, authors will spend more time thinking about and crafting responses.

More important are the damaging effects that such comments can have on authors. A Nature survey last year revealed that bullying is a potentially significant source of poor mental health in PhD students. Personally, harsh reviewer comments have made me feel anxious and like an impostor.

What can I do if I see or receive unprofessional comments?

When I receive harsh comments from reviewers as an author, I initially feel annoyed and slighted, so I try not to respond right away. Instead, I take some time to digest the comments and not take them personally, which allows me to respond in a more neutral tone.

Sometimes, however, it is hard to get past the personal nature of these remarks. In such situations, I contact the relevant editors directly (some journals have defined policies for these instances; others do not). I do this as a reviewer if I see such comments from others relayed to authors, because many authors might not be comfortable doing this themselves. In my experience, editors are usually receptive to such feedback and often pass it along to the other reviewers. More authors and reviewers bringing comments that are just plain mean to the attention of editors might start changing the culture. I have provided a template for such communications on Twitter, which anyone can use.

This year, I reviewed for a journal that included a ‘positive comments’ section, where reviewers can praise aspects of the manuscript that were well done. I try to do this wherever possible in my own reviews, but journals having this section as part of the review structure will help reviewers to provide uplifting comments.

When I work as a co-editor for scientific publications at Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Ottawa, where I also work as a research scientist, I do not edit original reviewer text. Instead, I send unprofessional reviews back for revision and specifically point out problems in a non-judgemental way. Having more authors and reviewers bring such issues directly to the attention of editors can, I think, facilitate more editors to do this.

Some journals are experimenting with publishing the full text of peer reviews in a manuscript. This could help to raise awareness of the problem, but because reviewers’ identities are hidden, there might still be little reason for them to be courteous.

Alongside the personal steps that individual reviewers can take, proper instruction and training on how to review manuscripts constructively, collegially and courteously would go a long way. Such training could be integrated into ‘research methods’-type courses in graduate school or offered as institutional workshops. I did a course on writing a good paper; why shouldn’t I do a course on how to peer review?

In this dark and strange global pandemic, there is perhaps no better time to actively promote and foster the power of compassion in peer review — not just for the sake of science, but for the people who do it.