medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Digital)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2013, Número 3

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2013; 24 (3)


La revisión editorial por pares: rechazo del manuscrito, deficiencias del proceso de revisión, sistemas para su gestión y uso como indicador científico

Rodríguez EG

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 72
Paginas: 313-329
Archivo PDF: 82.48 Kb.


RESUMEN

Las plataformas digitales y la dinámica y evolución de las revistas científicas han permitido desarrollar diversos modelos del proceso de revisión editorial por pares para la evaluación de manuscritos científicos previo a su publicación. En este artículo se continúa el análisis de la revisión por pares, con énfasis en la gestión de artículos rechazados, la designación de revisores, las deficiencias principales de la revisión por pares (según la asignación de revisores, el desempeño de los roles de autor, revisor y editor, y los intentos por paliar las deficiencias del proceso), los sistemas para su gestión en línea y el empleo de la revisión por pares como indicador del desempeño investigativo. Todos estos temas se analizan en el contexto de los sistemas y comunidades de ciencia, su impacto en la citación, y para facilitar su posible integración con fines prácticos según los requerimientos de cada revista.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Rodríguez EG. La revisión editorial por pares: Roles y procesos [Internet]. RCICS. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013];24(2). Disponible en: http://acimed.sld.cu/index.php/acimed/article/view/410

  2. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2805-8.

  3. Fahy K. Perceived journal quality: An indicator of research quality. Women Birth. 2008;21(3):97-8.

  4. Journal of Bacteriology [Internet]. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://jb.asm.org/content/190/1/1.full

  5. Artificial DNA: PNA & XNA [Internet]. Landes Bioscience Journals. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/artificialdna/guidelines/

  6. Sandewall E. Maintaining live discussion in two-stage open peer review. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:9.

  7. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1323-9.

  8. Ali J. Manuscript rejection: causes and remedies. J Young Pharm. 2010;2(1):3-6.

  9. Lumb PD. Conflict of interest; disclosure; peer review. J Crit Care. 2011;26(4):333-4.

  10. Akst J. I hate your paper. Scientist. 2010;24:36.

  11. Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, Guidi L, Ruths D, de Mazancourt C. Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns. Science. 2012;338(6110):1065-9.

  12. Scientific Reports [Internet]. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.nature.com/srep/authors/index.html

  13. Sen CK. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors? Antioxid Redox Signal. 2012;16(4):293-6.

  14. Pulverer B. Peer reviews: some are already public. Nature. 2011;474(7351):285.

  15. Saper CB. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium. Neurobiol Dis. 2009;33(3):313-4.

  16. Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ. 2010;341:c6425.

  17. Demystifying peer review. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12(5):413.

  18. Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium. Information for authors [Internet]. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://nprc.incf.org/authors/information-for-authors

  19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Editorial policies [Internet]. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/editorialpolicies.xhtml

  20. Ploegh H. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature. 2011;472:391.

  21. Waltman L, van Eck NJ, van Leeuwen TN, Visser MS, van Raan AF. On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Scientometrics. 2011;88(3):1017-22.

  22. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22475.

  23. Parker R, editor. Response to Sandewal´s alternative to peer review. AAAS/UNESCO/ICSU Workshop on Developing Practices and Standards for Electronic Publishing in Science; Paris; 1998.

  24. Young K. Rethinking peer review. CMAJ. 2010;182(3):281.

  25. Loonen MP. Alternative peer review system: Peer agreement system. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(11):1931-2.

  26. O'Dowd A. Peer review must stay as guarantee of quality, research leaders tell MPs. BMJ. 2011;342:d3656.

  27. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2786-90.

  28. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2007(2); [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/MR000016/fram e.html

  29. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006;295(3):314-7.

  30. Peering into review. Nat Med. 2010;16(3):239.

  31. Kadar N. Systemic bias in peer review: suggested causes, potential remedies. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20(2):123-8.

  32. Raff M, Johnson A, Walter P. Painful publishing. Science. 2008;321(5885):36.

  33. Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP, Cowling WR. Authors' and Editors' Perspectives on Peer Review Quality in Three Scholarly Nursing Journals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010;42(1):58-65.

  34. Resnik DB, Gutierrez-Ford C, Peddada S. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008;14(3):305-10.

  35. Rangachari PK. Teaching undergraduates the process of peer review: learning by doing. Adv Physiol Educ. 2010;34(3):137-44.

  36. Reynolds JA, Thompson RJ, Jr. Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011;10(2):209-15.

  37. Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty M. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Prof Nurs. 2009;25(2):101-8.

  38. Peternelj-Taylor C. Licking your wounds: responding to the peer review process. J Forensic Nurs. 2011;7(4):157-8.

  39. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(10):507-14.

  40. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280(3):237-40.

  41. Callaham M, McCulloch C. Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(2):141-8.

  42. Smith A, Barrandon Y, Buckingham M, Eaves C, Enver T, Fuller M, et al. Open letter to Senior Editors of peer-review journals publishing in the field of stem cell biology | Europe's stem cell hub | EuroStemCell. EuroStemCell; 2009 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.eurostemcell.org/commentanalysis/peerreview/

  43. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934-9.

  44. Mirkin JN, Bach PB. Outcome-blinded peer review. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1213-4; author reply 4.

  45. Altschuler EL. Peer reviews: in praise of referees (traducción de Rodríguez EG). Nature. 2011;473(7348):452.

  46. Martinson EA, Piper HM, Garcia-Dorado D. How to catch a cheat: an editor's perspective on a new age of plagiarism and data manipulation. Cardiovasc Res. 2011;92(1):1-2.

  47. Gibson M, Spong CY, Simonsen SE, Martin S, Scott JR. Author perception of peer review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):646-52.

  48. Li L. A different form of editor-author interaction: the approach of university journals in China. Learn Publ. 2009;22(3):187-90.

  49. Tananbaum G, Holmes L. The evolution of Web-based peer-review systems. Learn Publ. 2008;21(4):300-6.

  50. Lee C. Open peer review by a selected-papers network. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:1.

  51. Ginsparg P. The global villaje pioneers. Learn Publ. 2009;21(2):95-100.

  52. DeShaw-Wilner G. Peer review: a premier member benefit. J Mich Dent Assoc. 2007;89(10):48-50.

  53. E-Journal Publishing Tools & Services [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/planning/e-journal_publishing_support.htm

  54. Bingham C, Coleman R. Enter the Web: an experiment in electronic research peer review. Med J Aust. 1996;164(1):8-9.

  55. Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden MB. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study. Lancet. 1998;352(9126):441-5.

  56. Oxford Journals. Oxford Journals Language Services [Internet]. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/for_authors/language_services.html

  57. Rebholz-Schuhmann D, Kavaliauskas S, Pezik P. PaperMaker: validation of biomedical scientific publications. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(7):982-4.

  58. Sellwood S. Editorial processing: to outsource or not? Learn Publ. 2012;25(3):225-30.

  59. English Editing & Academic Peer Review. Journal Prep [Internet]. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.journalprep.com/index.php

  60. Davies S, Delamothe T. Revitalising rapid responses. We're raising the bar for publication. BMJ. 2005;330(7503):1284.

  61. Paskin N. Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. London: Taylor & Francis; 2010. p. 1586-92.

  62. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals [Internet]. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: www.ICMJE.org

  63. Janowicz B, Hitzler P. Open and transparent: the review process of the Semantic Web journal. Learn Publ. 2012;25(1):48-55.

  64. Ferris LE, Brumback RA. Academic merit, promotion, and journal peer reviewing: the role of academic institutions in providing proper recognition. J Child Neurol. 2010;25(5):538-40.

  65. Giles CL, Councill IG. Who gets acknowledged: measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proc Natl Acad Sci EE.UU. 2004;101(51):17599-604.

  66. Kravitz RL, Feldman MD. From the editors' desk: peer review now and in the future. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(12):1385-90.

  67. Baveye PC. Wanted: a 'Reviewer Effectiveness Index'. Learn Publ. 2012;25(3):232-4.

  68. Parra C, Birukou A, Casati F, Saint-Paul R, Wakeling JR, Chlamtac I, editors. UCount: A community-driven approach for measuring scientific reputation. Proceedings of Altmetrics11: Tracking Scholarly Impact on the Social Web; Koblenz; 2011.

  69. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(7):625-9.

  70. e-Scripts - Online Publication System. [Internet]. 2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://escripts.icst.org/

  71. Birukou A, Wakeling JR, Bartolini C, Casati F, Marchese M, Mirylenka K, et al. Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2011;5:56.

  72. Vinther S, Haagen Nielsen O, Rosenberg J, Keiding N, Shroeder TV. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger". Dan Med J. 2012;59(8):A4479.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com