论文标题
同行评审：客观性，匿名性，信任
Peer Review: Objectivity, Anonymity, Trust
论文作者
论文摘要
本文的重点是客观性在同行评审中的作用。通过对同行评审的各个方面的检查，包括匿名性，信任，专业知识以及谁具有评估研究的问题的问题，我们发现同行评审中的客观性与科学客观性一词的其他用途有很大不同。在同行评审中，这种客观性不需要与外部世界具有通信，而是足以在社区的“规则”内运行。在使用有关有关科学问题的数据的意义上，这里的客观性也不是经验。相反，客观性是判断之一，它是由背景假设和信念形成的社区的认识论标准。结果，我们强调了主观性在通常作为客观性实践中的作用，并得出的见解是，客观性不是由一个核心价值来定义的，而是透明度，保密性，信任，表示，表现和符合社区标准的平衡。因此，同行评审中的客观性是对科学实践其他方面所使用的术语的高度特定意义。
This dissertation is focused on the role of objectivity in peer review. Through an examination of aspects of peer review including anonymity, trust, expertise, and the question of who has standing to evaluate research, we find that objectivity in peer review differs significantly from other uses of the term objectivity in science. In peer review it is not required for this objectivity to have correspondence to an outside world, instead it is enough for it to operate inside the "rules" of the community. Neither is the objectivity here empirical in the sense of using data about the scientific problem in question. Rather, the objectivity is one of judgment, cleaving to the epistemological standards of a community that are formed by background assumptions and beliefs. As a consequence, we highlight the role of subjectivity in what is usually taken as a practice of objectivity, and arrive at the insight that objectivity is not defined by one core value, but a balance of transparency, confidentiality, trust, representation, and living up to community standards. As such, objectivity in peer review is a highly specific sense of the term that is not reducible to that used in other aspects of scientific practice.
