|
| 同行评阅“恶意评审”的概念澄清与规制研判 |
| Concept Clarification and Regulatory Analysis of “Malicious Peer Review” in Academic Evaluation |
| 投稿时间：2025-08-29 |
| DOI：10.19834/j.cnki.yjsjy2011.2026.03.11 |
| 中文关键词: “恶意评审”;合理否定意见;社会系统论;同行评阅;学术复核 |
| 英文关键词: “malicious review”;reasonable adverse opinion;social systems theory;peer review;academic re-evaluation |
| 基金项目:国家社会科学基金教育学青年项目“我国教育法典编纂中'多元法律资源整合模式’研究”(CAA250265) |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 刘旭东 | 江苏师范大学 法学院/教育科学学院, 徐州 221116
南京师范大学 中国法治现代化研究院, 南京 210097 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 112 |
| 全文下载次数: 580 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 学位论文同行评阅中的“恶意评审”严重侵犯了学位申请人的学位获得权。与同行评阅中的合理否定意见相异,“恶意评审”呈现出评价动机的非学术性、评价逻辑的矛盾性、评价程序的违规性三项表征。同行评阅的行政属性决定了“恶意评审”不应豁免于立法规制;社会系统论的理论指向决定了“恶意评审”的规制应坚持对内完善同行评阅、对外健全学术复核的双重方案;“恶意评审”的三重诱因进一步决定了规制方案的重心所在。在内部规制方案上,应通过彻底的盲审机制、“小同行”评审机制等举措,规避同行评阅中潜在的利益冲突并确保专家责任意识时时在场;在外部规制方案上,应重点通过重启同行评阅、采用双重裁决机制并借助数字技术等举措,确保学术复核因应“恶意评审”的专业性与高效性。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Malicious review during thesis peer review processes seriously undermines doctoral candidates’ rights to secure their degrees. Unlike legitimate negative feedback, "malicious review" presents three behavioral characteristics: non-academic evaluation motives, inconsistencies in evaluation logic, and violations of evaluation procedures. The administrative nature of peer review determines that legal regulation should address "malicious review" practices; the theoretical orientation of social systems theory suggests that the regulation of "malicious review" should adopt a two-pronged approach: strengthening internal peer review processes and institutionalizing external academic review mechanisms; the three precipitating factors of "malicious review" further determine the focus of regulatory frameworks. Therefore, the author proposes that regarding internal regulatory framework, we should adopt thorough blind review mechanisms, "peer-of-narrow-field" review systems, and other measures to avoid potential conflicts of interest in peer reviews and ensure constant presence of expert accountability awareness; and regarding external regulatory framework, we should prioritize restarting peer review processes, adopt dual adjudication mechanisms, and leverage digital technologies to ensure the professionalism and efficiency of academic re-evaluations in response to "malicious reviews". |
|
查看HTML全文
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
