Abstract:While the spread of open access publishing for technical and scientific papers has improved some long-standing problems in the scientific publishing pipeline, it has worsened others. Meanwhile, peer review and the scientific publication system in general have come under increasingly intense criticism, provoking many reform ideas. Despite the strident language of reformists and the widespread opinion that the situation is worsening, reform ideas have generally received a lukewarm response among researchers. I argue that this complacency is a reaction to reforms that ignore the priorities of readers and how readers' needs have shaped the publishing world today. I outline a path for improving the peer-review system through the use of permanent review boards—to accommodate the needs of readers, reviewers, and authors alike—and show how to get from where we are now to where we should be.

中文翻译：

---

科学出版审查委员会

摘要：虽然技术和科学论文的开放获取出版的普及改善了科学出版渠道中一些长期存在的问题，但也加剧了其他问题。与此同时，同行评审和一般科学出版制度受到越来越强烈的批评，引发了许多改革思路。尽管改革派的言辞刺耳，而且普遍认为情况正在恶化，但改革思想在研究人员中普遍反应冷淡。我认为，这种自满是对忽视读者优先事项以及读者需求如何塑造当今出版界的改革的一种反应。我概述了通过使用永久性审查委员会来改进同行审查系统的途径——以满足读者、审查者、