tillich
高级会员
9月16日出版的《自然》杂志刊登社论——《出版或灭亡》（Publish or perish），阐述中国学术期刊目前的颓势，并建议制定详细计划来挽救衰退的中国学术期刊。以下为文章主要内容：
中国的学术出版正处在令人为难的窘境当中。中国学术期刊的数量已达到5000份还多，然而，其发表的文章很多都未被关注，无人引用。这不得不让人产生疑问：这样的研究还有没有意义？同时，中国学术出版的有效性也遭受许多质疑——毕竟，学术出版的目的是为了向更多人传播详细的研究信息，以推进科学的发展。
比较在英文国际期刊中发表的学术文章数量，中国科学家位居第二，仅次于美国。在中国国内开始质疑为什么自己的期刊发表的高质量文章那么少的时候，中国国家新闻出版总署（GAPP）开始试图推进革新，振兴本土的学术出版业。这是好事，但目前GAPP并未透露革新措施的具体细节。人们不免感到困惑：接下来到底要怎么做？
正如它所承诺的那样，GAPP应该大刀阔斧地实行改革，对期刊进行重新评估，精简期刊数量，将各种资源和出版发行权给予那些熟悉国际出版的科学家和知道如何物尽其用的出版社。同时，期刊可以适时地推出英文版，并通过其他一些手段增加学术文章同行评审的公正性及学术成果传播的广泛性。
此外，中国的学术公开程度也是需要强调的，要想重振中国的学术出版，不论是中文版还是英文版，一个最好的机会便是建立一个开放获取的平台——这在西方国家的期刊中已经成为主流趋势。许多中文期刊对文章作者是收取版面费的，所以他们应该有能力实现期刊向开放获取模式的平稳转变。同时，政府也应该通过引入投资、提供经费和专业意见引导出版商走入一个新阶段。（科学网 张笑/编译）
Publish or perish
China needs to elaborate on plans to modernize its flagging academic journals.
Scientific publishing in China is in a quandary. Many articles in the country's 5,000-plus science and technology journals go unread and uncited, calling into question the value of the research. It also raises doubts over the effectiveness of China's scientific publishing — which, after all, is to disseminate details of research for others around the world to build on. One Chinese scientist has referred to the majority of China's publications as “pollution”.
Yet when it comes to publishing in international journals in English, Chinese scientists are second by volume only to those in the United States. Now, librarians and government officials in China are beginning to question why their own journals publish so few of these quality papers. The country's General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), which regulates all publishing, is to make reforms to strengthen its home-grown industry. This makes sense. And publishers in China could no doubt beat their Western counterparts at their own game. But GAPP has so far given few details of the reforms, causing confusion among the people most closely involved: the publishers. How should it be done?
GAPP should be aggressive — as it has promised (see page 261) — in evaluating its journals, improving the strong and killing off the weak. The resources and publishing rights currently allotted to eliminated journals could be transferred to the growing number of scientists and publishers who are familiar with the international publishing landscape and are finding niche areas for new products. Many of these journals will be in English, and additional resources will be needed to help ensure that articles read well and are peer-reviewed fairly.
Clearly, there is a strong demand for more information on the best science in China. This is especially true in fields in which the country excels, such as optics and materials, but also in areas such as public health, where data from China have been overlooked (see Nature 430, 955; 2004). If done well, these new journals could bridge a gap between the stronger Chinese literature and foreign scientists. A publisher of optics and photonics journals at the Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics, for example, already plans an English-language publication to replace its weakest optics journal. It is a response to increasing demand from those researchers who have read abstracts in English and want a full translation. The journal will publish reviews that put Chinese experiments into the wider context of global trends.
The best opportunity to revive Chinese publishing, whether in Chinese or English, probably lies in an open-access platform — increasingly popular in Western journals. Many Chinese journals already charge authors a publication fee, so should be able to make a smooth transition to the open-access model, in which they are supported by fees rather than by subscription revenues. Making content freely available would help to popularize journals, and would encourage them to develop an online presence. Too many operate without one, enjoying a captive audience at their home institutions and lacking any competitive spur to bring themselves up to speed on Internet publishing. The government could provide the interest, investment and expertise to bring these publishers into the twenty-first century.
It would, however, be a mistake for government agencies to give themselves too strong a role in this transition. GAPP has mentioned the creation of five to ten strong publishing houses that would concentrate on science and technology. This could work well, provided that they are able to move freely and openly, and can compete both with each other and with foreign publishers.
Most importantly, GAPP needs to consult quickly with its publishers if reform measures are to be put in place by next January, as intended. The lack of details mean that resistance to the reforms from publishers seems unavoidable. GAPP needs to make its expectations and evaluation methods transparent and bring in its reforms consistently. So far, that does not seem to be happening.
中国的学术出版正处在令人为难的窘境当中。中国学术期刊的数量已达到5000份还多，然而，其发表的文章很多都未被关注，无人引用。这不得不让人产生疑问：这样的研究还有没有意义？同时，中国学术出版的有效性也遭受许多质疑——毕竟，学术出版的目的是为了向更多人传播详细的研究信息，以推进科学的发展。
比较在英文国际期刊中发表的学术文章数量，中国科学家位居第二，仅次于美国。在中国国内开始质疑为什么自己的期刊发表的高质量文章那么少的时候，中国国家新闻出版总署（GAPP）开始试图推进革新，振兴本土的学术出版业。这是好事，但目前GAPP并未透露革新措施的具体细节。人们不免感到困惑：接下来到底要怎么做？
正如它所承诺的那样，GAPP应该大刀阔斧地实行改革，对期刊进行重新评估，精简期刊数量，将各种资源和出版发行权给予那些熟悉国际出版的科学家和知道如何物尽其用的出版社。同时，期刊可以适时地推出英文版，并通过其他一些手段增加学术文章同行评审的公正性及学术成果传播的广泛性。
此外，中国的学术公开程度也是需要强调的，要想重振中国的学术出版，不论是中文版还是英文版，一个最好的机会便是建立一个开放获取的平台——这在西方国家的期刊中已经成为主流趋势。许多中文期刊对文章作者是收取版面费的，所以他们应该有能力实现期刊向开放获取模式的平稳转变。同时，政府也应该通过引入投资、提供经费和专业意见引导出版商走入一个新阶段。（科学网 张笑/编译）
Publish or perish
China needs to elaborate on plans to modernize its flagging academic journals.
Scientific publishing in China is in a quandary. Many articles in the country's 5,000-plus science and technology journals go unread and uncited, calling into question the value of the research. It also raises doubts over the effectiveness of China's scientific publishing — which, after all, is to disseminate details of research for others around the world to build on. One Chinese scientist has referred to the majority of China's publications as “pollution”.
Yet when it comes to publishing in international journals in English, Chinese scientists are second by volume only to those in the United States. Now, librarians and government officials in China are beginning to question why their own journals publish so few of these quality papers. The country's General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), which regulates all publishing, is to make reforms to strengthen its home-grown industry. This makes sense. And publishers in China could no doubt beat their Western counterparts at their own game. But GAPP has so far given few details of the reforms, causing confusion among the people most closely involved: the publishers. How should it be done?
GAPP should be aggressive — as it has promised (see page 261) — in evaluating its journals, improving the strong and killing off the weak. The resources and publishing rights currently allotted to eliminated journals could be transferred to the growing number of scientists and publishers who are familiar with the international publishing landscape and are finding niche areas for new products. Many of these journals will be in English, and additional resources will be needed to help ensure that articles read well and are peer-reviewed fairly.
Clearly, there is a strong demand for more information on the best science in China. This is especially true in fields in which the country excels, such as optics and materials, but also in areas such as public health, where data from China have been overlooked (see Nature 430, 955; 2004). If done well, these new journals could bridge a gap between the stronger Chinese literature and foreign scientists. A publisher of optics and photonics journals at the Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics, for example, already plans an English-language publication to replace its weakest optics journal. It is a response to increasing demand from those researchers who have read abstracts in English and want a full translation. The journal will publish reviews that put Chinese experiments into the wider context of global trends.
The best opportunity to revive Chinese publishing, whether in Chinese or English, probably lies in an open-access platform — increasingly popular in Western journals. Many Chinese journals already charge authors a publication fee, so should be able to make a smooth transition to the open-access model, in which they are supported by fees rather than by subscription revenues. Making content freely available would help to popularize journals, and would encourage them to develop an online presence. Too many operate without one, enjoying a captive audience at their home institutions and lacking any competitive spur to bring themselves up to speed on Internet publishing. The government could provide the interest, investment and expertise to bring these publishers into the twenty-first century.
It would, however, be a mistake for government agencies to give themselves too strong a role in this transition. GAPP has mentioned the creation of five to ten strong publishing houses that would concentrate on science and technology. This could work well, provided that they are able to move freely and openly, and can compete both with each other and with foreign publishers.
Most importantly, GAPP needs to consult quickly with its publishers if reform measures are to be put in place by next January, as intended. The lack of details mean that resistance to the reforms from publishers seems unavoidable. GAPP needs to make its expectations and evaluation methods transparent and bring in its reforms consistently. So far, that does not seem to be happening.
