为何投稿顶级期刊，拒稿率和造假率增高？

　　

生物通报道：一份来自Nature，Science，Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)，Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology和 the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)等各大权威杂志的数据表明生命科学领域权威杂志拒稿率和造假率近些年来越来越高，科学家们认为这是由几方面原因引起的。

Journal	Submissions	Acceptance Rate	Workload	Review Criteria	Editor Demographics
JAMA	6,000 major manuscripts in 2005, a doubling since 2000.	Approximately 55%. Close to two-thirds are rejected before peer review.	All papers that are eventually accepted are first presented and discussed at a twice-weekly manuscript meeting, attended by the editor-in-chief, other decision-making editors, and statistical editors.	In addition to scientific rigor, the journal triages submissions according to importance and to ensure subject has general medical interest. before review.	There are 25 decision making editors; the age range is 40ñ70.
PLoS Biology	Doubled in the last six months.	~15%, this fluctuates wildly because publication is so new.	Each paper has a hybrid team of one academic and one professional editor.	Most reviewers are asked to complete reviews within seven working days.	Editorial board contains ~120 members.
Science	12,000/yr, increasing "at a rate of growth rivaling the rate of Chinese economic growth," says editor Don Kennedy.	<8%, about half are rejected before peer review.	Papers reviewed by an editor and two members of the board of reviewing editors before peer review.	Most reviewers are asked to return comments within one to two weeks.	Editorial board contains ~120 members (26 PhD editors). Median age: mid-40s. NCB
Nature Cell Biology	Increasing by 10% each year.	All Nature journals have an acceptance rate of less than 10%.	Each editor sees an average of 470 papers per year.	Besides scientific rigor, the journals look for general interest (especially at Nature), conceptual advance, and breadth/scope of study.	NCB has four editors; Nature journals have no editorial boards. Average age: mid-30s.
New England Journal of Medicine	Received 5,000 submissions in 2005, as of press time. Submissions increase 10% to 15% each year.	6% of submissions are eventually published, approximately 50% of papers are rejected before peer review.	A deputy editor must approve the assigned editor's decision to reject before review.	Other than scientific rigor, editors judge submissions according to "suitability and editorial consistency," says editor Jeffrey Drazen. For instance, the journal does not publish animal studies.

曾经担任Cell杂志编辑，现在是Development杂志编辑的发育生物学家Peter Lawrence表示在他过去的40年学术期刊投稿生涯中，之前的70多篇文章“never rejected”，但是现在他发现如果投稿顶级杂志就会遇到越来越多的问题。他认为这是由于许多科学家会把自己的研究成果投向顶级权威的但并不相属领域的杂志，而权威杂志并不是很多，这样就造成了投稿量增多，审评负担加重，拖延了时间，也耽误了研究成果的公布日期。

最近Science杂志发生的黄禹锡事件也让人对于peer review（同行审评）这个过程产生了疑惑。Science杂志编辑部于2005年3月收到黄禹锡的论文，当时各高级编辑都认为这篇论文可能是一个“爆炸性进步”，并将其先后提交给9位匿名审稿人审阅。这9名审稿人不仅有美国本土大学和科研机构的教授，也包括欧洲的高级研究人员，他们都是在干细胞研究领域具有深厚造诣的顶级专家。这一形式是学术刊物发表成果的通行制度，多年来很少受到挑战，但是近期频频发生的造假事件也让人怀疑起了这一制度的可靠性和有效性。

除此之外，作者署名混乱、审评流程不完备，跟不上技术更新等方面也造成了目前投稿权威杂志拒稿率持高不下，造假愈演愈烈的现状，各大杂志也在这些方面采取了一些措施，像Science杂志在黄禹锡事件后就表示将增加三点举措（要求论文所有作者说清楚自己在科研中的具体贡献，就是针对黄禹锡研究小组发表论文时署上不少无关人员的名字、出问题时互相推诿责任；要求所有作者签署同意论文观点的声明，就是要保证造假者无法通过自己研究小组的“内部关”；改进图像识别技术，就是为了防范黄禹锡那样用假照片“蒙混”的人）来补充审稿制度。
（生物通记者：张迪）