Abstract:The one quality claimed universally by all forms of scholarly publishing, and that distinguishes this form of publishing from all others, is the practice of assuring some means of prior review and critique of proposed publications by readers qualified to make informed judgments of a work's credibility and contribution to a field or discipline. Peer review—the shorthand way of describing this practice—has long been simply assumed by readers and claimed by scholarly publishers, without any means of disclosing to readers the nature of the review undertaken or the specific object that was reviewed. This article examines why this longstanding modesty among scholarly publishers is now contributing to the challenges faced by scholarly publishing in asserting its distinct authority as a source of knowledge; describes ways in which definitions of peer review could be made clear and public, and proposes a system for signalling to readers (and capturing in metadata associated with individual scholarly works) the nature of the peer review to which a work has been subjected; and explores a range of approaches to how such a system of signalling could be implemented and policed.

中文翻译：

---

失去谦虚：同行评议的内容与交流

摘要：所有形式的学术出版都普遍要求一种品质，并将这种出版形式与所有其他出版形式区分开来，是确保有资格对作品的内容做出明智判断的读者对拟议出版物进行某种事先审查和批评的做法。对某个领域或学科的可信度和贡献。同行评议——描述这种做法的速记方式——长期以来一直被读者简单地假设并被学术出版商所声称，没有任何方式向读者披露所进行的审查的性质或审查的具体对象。本文探讨了为什么学术出版商长期以来的这种谦虚态度现在导致学术出版在维护其作为知识来源的独特权威方面面临的挑战；描述了可以明确和公开同行评审定义的方式，并提出了一种向读者发出信号的系统（并在与个人学术作品相关的元数据中捕获）作品所接受的同行评审的性质；并探讨了如何实施和监管这种信号系统的一系列方法。