来源：《自然》
原文刊登日期：2022年3月1日
Research papers are the product of lengthy discussions between authors and reviewers — guided by editors. These peer-review conversations can last for months at a time and are essential to progress in research. There is widespread agreement that the robustness and clarity of papers are enhanced in this process.
研究论文是作者和审稿人在编辑指导下进行长时间讨论的产物。这些同行评议的对话可能会持续数月之久，这对研究的进展至关重要。人们普遍认为，在这个过程中，论文的健壮性和清晰性得到了增强。
Peer-review exchanges are mostly kept confidential, meaning that the wider research community and the world have few opportunities to learn what is said in them. Such opacity can fuel perceptions of secrecy in publishing — and leaves reviewers and their key role in science publication underappreciated. It also robs early-career researchers of the opportunity to engage with examples of the inner workings of a process that is key to their career development.
同行评议交流大多是保密的，这意味着更广泛的研究界和全世界几乎没有机会了解其中的内容。这种不透明会助长人们对出版保密的看法，并使审稿人及其在科学出版领域的关键作用得不到充分重视。它还剥夺了职业生涯早期的研究人员接触过程内部工作原理的机会，而这对他们的职业发展至关重要。
In an attempt to change things, Nature Communications has since 2016 been encouraging authors to publish peer-review exchanges. In February 2020, Nature announced that it would offer a similar opportunity. Authors of new manuscript submissions can now have anonymous referee reports — and their own responses to these reports — published at the same time as their manuscript. Those who agree to act as reviewers know that both anonymous reports and anonymized exchanges with authors might be published. Referees can also choose to be named, should they desire.
为了改变现状，《自然通讯》自2016年以来一直鼓励作者发表同行评议交流。2020年2月，《自然》杂志宣布将提供类似的机会。提交新稿件的作者现在可以在提交稿件的同时发布匿名审稿人报告——以及作者自己对审稿人报告的回复。那些同意担任审稿人的人都知道，匿名报告和与作者的匿名交流都可能会被发表。如果审稿人愿意，他们也可以选择具名。
A full year’s data are now in, and the results are encouraging. During 2021, nearly half of authors chose to publish their discussions with reviewers, although there is variation between disciplines. Early data suggest more will do so in 2022. This is a promising trend. And we strongly encourage more researchers to take this opportunity to publish their exchanges. Last year, some 69% of Nature Communication’s published research articles were accompanied by anonymous peer-review reports together with author–reviewer exchanges.
一整年的数据已经出炉，结果令人鼓舞。在2021年期间，近一半的作者选择发表与审稿人的讨论，尽管不同学科之间存在差异。早期数据显示，2022年将有更多的人这样做。这是一个有希望的趋势。我们强烈鼓励更多的研究人员利用这个机会发表他们的交流。去年，《自然通讯》发表的约69%的研究论文都附有匿名的同行评审报告以及作者与审稿人的交流。
The benefits to research are huge. Opening up peer review promotes more transparency, and is valuable to researchers who study peer-review systems. It is also valuable to early-career researchers more broadly. Each set of reports is a real-life example, a guide to how to provide authors with constructive feedback in a collegial manner.
透明同行评议对研究的好处是巨大的。开放同行评议有助于提高透明度，这对研究同行评议制度的研究人员很有价值。更广泛地说，它对早期职业研究人员也有价值。每一组报告都是一个真实的例子，是如何以合作的方式向作者提供建设性反馈的指南。
Publishing peer-review exchanges, in addition, recognizes the effort that goes into the endeavour. Peer review is integral to being a researcher. Making reviewers’ work public illustrates the lengths that researchers will go in the service of scholarship. According to one study, reviewers in total do tens of millions of hours of peer review each year. Yet this contribution is rarely recognized in research evaluation systems. As we have reported, there is growing interest in reforming these systems to better represent how science is done. If more researchers agree to open up their peer-review exchanges, we can all play a part in making that happen.
此外，发表同行评议交流也认可了这项活动所付出的努力。同行评议是研究人员不可或缺的一部分。将审稿人的作品公之于众说明了研究人员将为学术服务而付出的努力。根据一项研究，审稿人每年总共要做数千万小时的同行评议。然而，这种贡献在研究评价体系中很少得到认可。正如我们所报道的，人们越来越有兴趣改革研究评价系统，以更好地代表科学研究的进行方式。如果更多的研究人员同意开放他们的同行评议交流，我们都可以为实现这一目标发挥作用。