FORCE2026 回顾：研究评估改革、科研诚信与模块化学术出版

 阅读约需6分钟。

 6 minute read.

今年的FORCE11会议由新加坡管理大学于六月主办。其主题“行远必自迩，携手共前行：跨越边界与颠覆，推进学术传播”与Crossref的信条真正产生了共鸣；这需要众人拾柴！Crossref只有在学术研究界愿意跨越所有学科、为科学记录的诚信与开放而在全球范围内携手合作时，才能发挥作用。与会对话受到了由图书馆员、研究人员、开放基础设施和服务提供商组成的真正多元群体的影响，而这种多元性塑造了我们在会议上的几乎每一次互动。

This year’s edition of the FORCE11 conference was hosted in June by Singapore Management University. Its title, “To Go Far, Go Together: Advancing Scholarly Communication Across Boundaries and Disruptions” truly resonates with Crossref’s truths; it takes a village! Crossref only works as long as the scholarly research community wants to work together globally, across all disciplines, for integrity and openness of the scientific record. The conversations were influenced by a genuinely diverse mix of librarians, researchers, open infrastructures, and service providers, and that mix shaped almost every interaction we had at the conference.

我们参加的几乎每一场会议都贯穿着两个主题：研究评估改革和研究诚信。第三条更安静的线索——向更模块化学术研究的转变——不断浮现，被视为对前两个主题所引发的复杂性问题的一种可能答案。以下是值得关注的亮点。

Two themes ran through nearly every session we attended: research assessment reform and research integrity. A third, quieter thread, a move towards more modular scholarship, kept surfacing as a possible answer to the complexities arising from the two previous themes. Here’s what stood out.

研究评估改革

Research assessment reform

会前的CoARA-DORA活动在FORCE2026正式开幕之前就已定下基调。包括图书馆员、研究人员和资助者在内的约30人齐聚一天，明确了一件事：研究评估改革不再是政策领域里的理论探讨——它已成为一种植根于地方特殊性的全球实践。

The pre-conference CoARA-DORA event set the tone before FORCE2026 had even officially started. Around 30 people including librarians, researchers, and funders, gathered for a day that made one thing clear: reforming research assessment is no longer a theoretical conversation happening in the policy space – it’s a global practice, rooted in local particularities.

我们听取了CoARA和DORA的领导者介绍这些倡议如何通过指南和专门工作组，支持社区将政策抱负转化为实践。我们听取了CLACSO、昆士兰科技大学、京都大学以及新西兰商业、创新和就业部关于变革如何需要顾及本地情境的分享。听到政策制定者、资助者和大学实践者关于各自杠杆如何不同的观点也很有意思。

We heard from leaders from CoARA and DORA about how these initiatives are supporting the community in translating policy ambitions into practice through guidelines and dedicated working groups. We heard from CLACSO, Queensland University of Technology, Kyoto University, and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment of New Zealand how change needs to account for local contexts. It was also interesting to hear perspectives from policymakers, funders, and practitioners at universities on how the levers are different for each one.

这一主题直接延续到了主会议。Lily Kong的主旨演讲“从发表或灭亡到以人为本与使命”直白地指出了现状的代价：受损的研究文化、被抑制的合作，以及研究人员彻底离开学术界。她的论点不是我们需要更好的指标，而是我们需要一套不同的价值观：将影响力视为人力资本发展、社区参与以及“学术工作的完整生态”，在其中人和学科能在不同的光照下闪耀，而不是被用单一标准来衡量。

This theme carried straight into the main conference. Lily Kong’s keynote, “From Publish or Perish to People and Purpose,” was blunt about the cost of the status quo: a damaged research culture, disincentivised collaboration, and researchers leaving academia altogether. Her argument wasn’t that we need better metrics, but that we need a different set of values: recognising impact as human capital development, community engagement, and a “full ecology of academic work,” where people and disciplines are allowed to shine under different lights rather than being measured against one standard.

研究诚信与AI

Research integrity and AI

如果说评估改革是会议的结构性主题，那么AI则定下了会议焦虑的基调。第二天的主旨演讲“在颠覆中生存：AI时代的学术传播”捕捉到了我们一直担忧的许多问题。AI已经到来并将长期存在，它可以改善许多重要方面，但它也放大了危险之处：低质量信息和诚信问题。最重要的收获是，尽管我们应该拥抱新的现状，但人类需要始终处于这一过程的核心。

If assessment reform was a structural theme of the conference, AI was setting its anxious mood. The Day 2 keynote, “Surviving the Disruption: Scholarly Communication in the Age of AI,” captured a lot of what we’d been worrying about. AI is here to stay and it can improve much of what is important, but it also amplifies what is dangerous: poor quality information and integrity issues. The most important takeaway was that although we should be embracing the new status quo, humans need to stay central to the process.

这与Lily Kong的主旨演讲直接呼应，她在演讲中指出AI是一股可能加剧而非解决研究文化中已存在的压力和扭曲的力量。在两场主旨演讲之间，研究诚信变成了一个非常具体的问题：一旦AI完全进入流程，我们如何构建能够站得住脚的体系、激励机制和评审流程？

This connected directly back to Lily Kong’s keynote, where she flagged AI as a force that could intensify, not solve, the pressures and distortions already present in research culture. Between the two keynotes, research integrity became a very concrete problem: how do we build systems, incentives, and review processes that hold up once AI is fully in the loop?

模块化学术：打破PDF的束缚

Modular scholarship: breaking out of the PDF

一个持续存在的基调是推动学术超越静态的、以叙事为驱动的PDF。关于开放交换架构（Open Exchange Architecture）的会议最直接地说明了这一点：研究目前被困在一个“论文形状的盒子”里，数据、软件和代码被降级为补充性材料，而它们本应本身就是一等公民、可被引用的组成部分。

A persistent undertone was the push to move scholarship beyond the static, narrative-driven PDF. The session on Open Exchange Architecture made the case most directly: research is currently trapped in a “paper-shaped box,” with data, software, and code relegated to supplementary status, when they should be first-class, citable components in their own right.

在资助者论坛上，有一场讨论完全聚焦于将研究软件整合进开放学术。这种整合的一个重要方面是，如何确保这些“组件”从被创建的那一刻起就可被发现、可互操作、可查找。当开放元数据和持久标识符被描述为解决方案时，在场的人并没有多少感到意外，而我们对此表示赞同。

At the funder forum, one discussion was entirely dedicated to integrating research software in open scholarship. An important aspect of this integration is how to ensure that these ‘components’ are discoverable from the moment they are created, interoperable, and findable. Not many people in the room were surprised when open metadata and persistent identifiers were described as a solution, and we agree.

关于开放研究信息的全球视角

Global perspectives on open research information

我们与Bianca Kramer（《开放研究信息巴塞罗那宣言》）和Cameron Neylon（科廷大学）共同组织了一场题为“关于开放研究信息的全球视角”的研讨会。该研讨会旨在探讨研究信息——书目元数据、关于研究软件和数据的元数据、资助信息以及贡献者信息——为何重要，以及为何它应当是开放的。我们论证了封闭数据会损害公平评估、公平决策以及开放科学本身。我们梳理了各类来源的全貌，并更详细地介绍了Crossref的基础设施。

Together with Bianca Kramer (Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information) and Cameron Neylon (Curtin University), we organised a workshop “Global Perspectives on Open Research Information”. The workshop set out to explore why research information — the bibliographic metadata, metadata on research software and data, funding, and contributors — matters, and why it should be open. We made the case that closed data undermines fair assessment, equitable decision-making, and open science itself. We ran through the landscape of sources, and described Crossref infrastructure in more detail.

这场会议是参与式和互动式的，我们让与会者绘制自己的用例和数据来源，随后进行了讨论和问答。参与者分享了自己使用不同来源的经验，从CRIS系统和商业数据库，到存储库、聚合器和开放数据库。我们讨论了Crossref数据库的价值——它是一个大型、开放、丰富且由社区治理的数据库，有25,000个成员为其做出贡献并投入其中。

The session was participatory and interactive, we had attendees map their own use cases and data sources, followed by discussions and Q&A. Participants shared their own experiences with different sources, from CRIS systems and commercial databases to repositories, aggregators, and open databases. We discussed the value of the Crossref database as a large, open, rich, and community-governed database that 25,000 members contributed to and invested in.

最后，我们有机会主持了一场关于亚洲开放学术基础设施可及性的专题讨论。参与讨论的有来自Relawan Journal Indonesia的Mochammad Tanzil Multazam、来自PKP的Maria Lamury、来自Sin-Chn SCIENTIFIC PRESS且身为Crossref大使的Xiaofeng Guo，以及来自DOAJ的Joanna Ball，进行了一场富有洞见的对话。在我们探讨基础设施要实现可及需要什么时，有一个问题贯穿始终：如果社区无法有效地参与其中，它真的算开放吗？

To finalise, we had the opportunity to facilitate a panel on the accessibility of open scholarly infrastructure in Asia. We were joined by Mochammad Tanzil Multazam, from Relawan Journal Indonesia, Maria Lamury, from PKP, Xiaofeng Guo, Sin-Chn SCIENTIFIC PRESS and Crossref Ambassador, and Joanna Ball, from DOAJ, for an insightful conversation. As we explored what is needed for infrastructure to be accessible, one question kept coming up throughout the conversation: if communities can’t engage with it effectively, is it really open?

所有专题讨论嘉宾都呼应了社区在技能建设、以本地语言支持学者以及向基础设施分享社区反馈方面的作用。这凸显出，开放基础设施不仅需要支持技术层面，还需要支持社区层面，而后者对于任何基础设施在本地实现可及性都是根本性的。这给基础设施提供者提出了一个问题：真正赋能社区实现有意义的参与，究竟需要什么？在Crossref，我们试图通过与赞助者、大使以及GEM项目的合作来弥合这一差距（但总有更多事情要做！）。

The role of community in skill building, supporting scholars in local languages, and sharing community feedback to the infrastructures was echoed by all panelists. This highlighted that open infrastructures need to support not only the technological layer, but the community layer too, which is fundamental for the accessibility of any infrastructure locally. This raised a question for infrastructure providers: what does it actually take to empower communities toward meaningful participation? At Crossref, we try to close that gap through our work with sponsors, ambassadors, and the GEM program (but there is always more to do!).

结语

Closing thoughts

FORCE2026 并未化解指标与意义之间的张力，也未化解 AI 的能力与我们负责任地驾驭这些能力之间的张力。但它确实表明，这些讨论正从原则与宣言走向落地实施。改革在京都、昆士兰和布宜诺斯艾利斯呈现出不同的面貌，这不是缺陷，而是特性。协作与社群在实现更开放的学术图景方面的作用怎么强调都不为过，而我们尤其迫不及待地要尽自己的一份力。

FORCE2026 didn’t resolve the tension between metrics and meaning, or between AI’s capabilities and our ability to harness them responsibly. But it did make clear that these conversations are maturing from principles and manifestos toward implementation. Reform looks different in Kyoto than in Queensland, and different again in Buenos Aires, and that’s not a bug, but a feature. The role of collaboration and community to realise a more open scholarly landscape can’t be overstated and we for one can’t wait to do our part.

注意转载授权 · 阅读原文。中文正文为 AI 翻译，请以原文为准。

注意转载授权 · 阅读原文