Peer Review: The communication of research results through peer-reviewed published literature is an essential part of scientific discovery. In fact, ‘peer review’ has been in existence long before the advent of academic journal publishing [1]. The purpose of peer review is to ensure an author’s scholarly work is scientifically and ethically sound and meets standards of quality, originality, and scope. It separates scientific conclusions from the questionable interpretation and speculative opinion, increasing the quality of scientific research. Most importantly, this process establishes a trust that a scholarly manuscript has been scrutinized to ensure that the conclusions drawn from the experimental methods are sound. Despite its honorable intentions, the peer-review system is not perfect and detractors have criticized the process for perceived bias on the part of the journals, editors and referees, not to mention the lengthy period from submission to publication. Nevertheless, peer review is the foundation of contemporary scholarly publishing and the academic community generally does not accept hypotheses until published in a peer-reviewed journal [1]. Publish or Perish: From established researcher to graduate student, the maxim means exactly what it says; produce publications or risk your job. With funding scarce and pressure to produce cutting-edge results increasing, institutions rely on high-visibility publications in prestigious journals to attract research dollars and to leverage philanthropy [2,3]. For investigators, successful publication of research brings attention, promotion, and advancement in their chosen field.While this approach intended to motivate academics to pursue peer-reviewed, high-value research, it has led to an opposite state. Wasteful research for the sake of publication has undermined scientific credibility. The need to quickly publish research and gain academic ‘credit’ or pad ones CV gives rise to dubious research practices; ‘salami slicing’, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and ghost authoring [3]. The sheer number of publications submitted for peer review is staggering. The global refereed publication output was approximately 2.3 million in 2014, taxing an already slow refereeing system [4]. This, combined with publication bias and compromised research, has greatly contributed to the ‘reproducibility crisis’ that has garnered public attention as of late [5,6]. With taxpayer-funded government grants paying for the bulk of research, it is not surprising calls for transparency and public access have increased. In 2008, the National Institutes of Health enacted into law the NIH Public Access Policy. This requires manuscripts describing research funded by the NIH to be available to the public, free of charge through PubMed Central within a year of publication. The Open Access Movement: The ‘open access’ (OA) movement began in the mid-to-late 1990s as the internettransformed publishing with direct to consumer digital content delivery. A consequence of publishing reform in the internet era; open access intends to create a system where research literature is distributed free of cost and without restrictions on copyright and license [7]. Prior to this, published academic literature was largely inaccessible to the layperson. To cover printed publishing costs (proofreading, typesetting, copy editing, and printing), journals used ‘access tolls’. Revenue was generated by distributing these costs to journal subscribers, especially academic libraries. Individuals needed an affiliation with an institutional subscription for access to top tier journals or had to pay individual subscription fees. A journal's survival was based on subscriber sustainability, which was directly related to the editorial board, reviewer network, and ultimately scientific content [7,8]. Since the mid-1990s, publishers have had to adapt to the open-access model. No longer content providers, publishers transformed themselves into service providers, supplying page layout, peer review, indexing services, and online hosting. The result is a number of alternative publishing business models colorcoded to distinguish between types of open access. Gold OA is full, open access where the publisher makes content immediately available. The author permits sharing or reuse under a public copyright license such as creative commons. Green OA is known as self-archiving. After peer review by a journal, the authors post the same content on their own webpage or in an institutional repository. Bronze OA follows the traditional route. Initially, content is available to subscribers only butmade available to the public after an embargo period has passed. Hybrid OA is a combination of both open and closed access. The publisher charges a publication fee and only provides open access to the specific content covered by the fee [7]. Since subscriptionbased revenue is no longer a viable option, some journals began applying article-processing charges or APCs as JOURNAL OF HISTOTECHNOLOGY 2019, VOL. 42, NO. 3, 95–97 https://doi.org/10.1080/01478885.2019.1636554

中文翻译：

---

不断变化的科学出版格局

同行评审：通过同行评审的已发表文献交流研究结果是科学发现的重要组成部分。事实上，“同行评审”早在学术期刊出版出现之前就已经存在 [1]。同行评审的目的是确保作者的学术工作在科学和道德上是合理的，并符合质量、原创性和范围的标准。它将科学结论与有问题的解释和推测性意见区分开来，提高了科学研究的质量。最重要的是，这个过程建立了一种信任，即学术手稿已经过仔细审查，以确保从实验方法中得出的结论是可靠的。尽管它的意图是光荣的，同行评审制度并不完美，批评者批评该过程对期刊、编辑和审稿人存在偏见，更不用说从提交到发表的漫长时间。尽管如此，同行评审是当代学术出版的基础，学术界通常不接受假设，直到发表在同行评审的期刊上 [1]。发表或灭亡：从资深研究员到研究生，这句格言如其所言；出版出版物或冒着工作风险。随着资金稀缺和产生前沿成果的压力越来越大，机构依靠着名期刊上的高知名度出版物来吸引研究资金并利用慈善事业 [2,3]。对于研究人员来说，研究的成功发表会带来关注、促进、在他们选择的领域取得进步。虽然这种方法旨在激励学者进行同行评审的高价值研究，但它导致了相反的状态。为了发表而进行的浪费性研究损害了科学的可信度。需要快速发表研究并获得学术“学分”或填写简历，这导致了可疑的研究实践；'salami slicing'、抄袭、重复发表和幽灵创作 [3]。提交同行评审的出版物数量之多令人震惊。2014 年全球审阅出版物产量约为 230 万份，对本已缓慢的审阅系统造成负担 [4]。这一点，再加上发表偏倚和妥协的研究，极大地促成了最近引起公众关注的“可重复性危机”[5,6]。由于纳税人资助的政府拨款支付了大部分研究，因此对透明度和公众访问的呼声增加也就不足为奇了。2008 年，美国国立卫生研究院将 NIH 公共获取政策颁布为法律。这要求描述由 NIH 资助的研究的手稿在出版后一年内通过 PubMed Central 免费向公众提供。开放获取运动：“开放获取”(OA) 运动始于 1990 年代中后期，当时互联网通过直接面向消费者的数字内容交付改变了出版业。互联网时代出版改革的结果；开放获取旨在创建一个系统，在该系统中，研究文献可以免费分发，并且不受版权和许可的限制[7]。在此之前，已发表的学术文献对于外行来说基本上是无法获得的。为了支付印刷出版成本（校对、排版、编辑和印刷），期刊使用了“通行费”。收入是通过将这些成本分配给期刊订阅者，尤其是学术图书馆而产生的。个人需要与机构订阅有联系才能访问顶级期刊，或者必须支付个人订阅费。期刊的生存基于订阅者的可持续性，这与编辑委员会、审稿人网络以及最终的科学内容直接相关 [7,8]。自 1990 年代中期以来，出版商不得不适应开放获取模式。出版商不再是内容提供商，而是转变为服务提供商，提供页面布局、同行评审、索引服务和在线托管。结果是许多替代出版业务模型的颜色编码，以区分开放获取的类型。黄金 OA 是完整的、开放的访问，出版商可以立即提供内容。作者允许在公共版权许可（例如知识共享）下共享或重用。绿色 OA 被称为自存档。经过期刊同行评审后，作者在自己的网页或机构知识库中发布相同的内容。Bronze OA 遵循传统路线。最初，内容仅对订阅者可用，但在禁运期过后向公众开放。混合 OA 是开放访问和封闭访问的结合。出版商收取出版费，并且只提供对费用所涵盖的特定内容的开放访问 [7]。由于基于订阅的收入不再是可行的选择，一些期刊开始将文章处理费用或 APC 作为 JOURNAL OF HISTOTECHNOLOGY 2019, VOL。42，没有。3, 95–97 https://doi.org/10.1080/01478885.2019.1636554