作者对同行评议意见异议申诉的必要性及期刊编辑对策

【目的】 了解作者在对退稿意见有异议时的申诉意愿,探讨申诉流程的建立。【方法】 采用麦客表单制作“作者申诉意愿调查”问卷,通过微信向作者发放问卷。收集问卷数据,分析作者既往的申诉情况及结果,探讨申诉策略以保证优秀稿件被录用。【结果】 41%的作者(306/738)在投稿过程中出现过对审稿专家意见有异议的情况,91%的作者(279/306)认为有必要向编辑部申诉,仅9%的作者(27人)认为不必申诉,不申诉的原因为浪费时间、申诉渠道不明、可以改投他刊、成功希望小。16%的作者(117/738)有过既往申诉史,23%(27/117)申诉成功。作者意向申诉的途径为致电编辑部、发邮件说明情况和请同行专家帮助。【结论】 作者的申诉意愿强烈,但最终进行申诉的作者却很少。期刊出版部门需健全作者的申诉渠道,鼓励作者进行申诉;编辑也要总结作者申诉原因,总结经验,不断提高业务能力。

Necessity of authors' appeal against opinions of peer review and journal editors' countermeasures

[Purposes] This paper aims to gain an insight into authors' appeal against opinions of peer review in the case of a dissent and further establish a flowchart for the appeal. [Methods] The questionnaire "Authors' Appeal Willingness Survey" was designed with MikeCRM and sent to authors via WeChat. Then the questionnaires were recovered and authors' appeal histories and results were analyzed. Furthermore, we discussed the strategies for the appeal to ensure that excellent papers can be accepted. [Findings] A total of 41% of the respondents (306/738) once disagreed on opinions of peer review, and 91% of them (279/306) held it was necessary to appeal to the editorial office, while the rest 9% (27/306) had a different view because of the waste of time, unclear appeal channels, opportunities from other journals, and slim hope of success. A total of 16% of respondents (117/738) once appealed to editorial offices, mainly by phone, e-mail, or consultation with experts in related field, and 23% (27/117) of them succeeded. [Conclusions] Despite strong desire, authors rarely appeal against opinions of peer review. Periodical publishing departments should establish a sound channel for the appeal and encourage authors to put the appeal into practice. Editors should summarize the reasons for authors' appeals and share related experience to improve their competence.