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

2013, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2013; 24 (2)

Editorial peer review: roles and processes

Rodríguez EG

Language: Spanish
References: 65
Page: 160-175
PDF size: 365.98 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The digital platforms and the dynamics and evolution of scientific journals have allowed the development of different models of the editorial peer review to evaluate scientific manuscripts before their publication. The nature, evolution and principal characteristics of peer review are presented in this article. A comparative and integrated analysis of the models of conventional peer review (simple and double blind) and open (either by identity or by process) is made, also considering their advantages and limitations. A new classification system is proposed for the Open peer review, divided in Open published peer review (spreading the information of the conventional process) and Open process peer review (in which the information is spread in a digital platform as the manuscript is reviewed prior to an academic report). All these topics are analyzed through the context of the systems and communities of science and their impact in the citation, to facilitate their possible incorporation with practical aims according to the requirements of each journal.


REFERENCES

  1. Day R, Gastel G, editors. Cómo escribir y publicar trabajos científicos. Washington, D.C: OPS; 2008.

  2. Rodríguez EG. La revisión editorial por pares. II. Rechazo del manuscrito, deficiencias del proceso de revisión, sistemas para su gestión y uso como indicador científico. Rev Cubana Inform Cienc Sal. 2013;24(3):en edición.

  3. Friedberg EC. Peer review of scientific papers--a never-ending conundrum. DNA Repair. 2010;9(5):476-7.

  4. Triaridis S, Kyrgidis A. Peer review and journal impact factor: the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing. Hippokratia. 2010;14(Suppl. 1):5-12.

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

  6. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1321-2.

  7. Fogelholm M, Leppinen S, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, Nuutinen A, Vaananen K. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(1):47-52.

  8. English D. PR vs. PR: will press release top peer review in stem cell research? Stem Cells Dev. 2004;13(2):157-9.

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

  10. Emmett M. Referencing retracted articles. Am J Med. 2006;119(7):e7.

  11. Stang A, Poole C, Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A. Pre-peer review, peer review and post-peer review: three areas with potential for improvement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):309-10.

  12. 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.

  13. Annesley TM. Seven reasons not to be a peer reviewer and why these reasons are wrong. Clin Chem. 2012;58(4):677-9.

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

  15. Errami M, Wren JD, Hicks JM, Garner HR. eTBLAST: a web server to identify expert reviewers, appropriate journals and similar publications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Web Server issue):W12-5.

  16. Errami M, Sun Z, Long TC, George AC, Garner HR. Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):D921-4.

  17. Butler D. Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature. 2010;466(7303):167.

  18. Garner HR. Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(1):95-9.

  19. Wilbanks J. I Have Seen the Paradigm Shift, and It Is Us. In: Hey T, Tansley S, Tolle K, editors. The Fourth Paradigm Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond: Microsoft Corporation; 2009. p. 211.

  20. Shashok K. Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5(3):303-7.

  21. Bechhoefer J. Plagiarism: text-matching program offers an answer. Nature. 2007;449(7163):658.

  22. Giles J. Preprint analysis quantifies scientific plagiarism. Nature. 2006;444(7119):524-5.

  23. Marušic A, Petrovecki M. Science publishing: How to stop plagiarism. Nature. 2012;481:21-3.

  24. Bazdaric K, Bilic-Zulle L, Brumini G, Petrovecki M. Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian medical journal. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011;18(2):223-9.

  25. Brand A. CrossRef: From cross-publisher reference linking to cross-publisher plagiarism screening in eight short years. The Write Stuff. 2008;17(4):171-2.

  26. Hollyfield JG. Manuscript fabrication, image manipulation and plagiarism. Exp Eye Res. 2012;94(1):1-2.

  27. Fraud-Detection Tool Could Shake Up Psychology-ScienceInsider. 2012 [citado 6 de julio de 2012]; Available from: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/frauddetection- tool-could-shake.html

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

  29. Chabner BA. Self-plagiarism. Oncologist. 2011;16(10):1347-8.

  30. Silva Ayçaguer LC. Declaración de conflictos de intereses de los autores en las revistas científicas. [Internet]. ACIMED. 2010;21(2); [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1024- 94352010000200001&lng=es

  31. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(10):e13345.

  32. IDICT. Quién es quién en las ciencias en Cuba. La Habana: IDICT; 1998.

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

  34. Bjork BC. A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e115.

  35. Elsevier Pilots PeerChoice in Chemical Physics Letters [Internet]. 2010 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Available from: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01567

  36. e-Scripts - Online Publication System [Internet]. 2011 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Available from: http://aescripts.com

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

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

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

  40. Herron DM. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2275-80.

  41. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e10072.

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

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

  44. Jefferson T. Quality and value: Models of quality control for scientific research [Internet]. 2006 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05031.html

  45. Rocha-e-Silva M. Continuously Variable Rating: a new, simple and logical procedure to evaluate original scientific publications. Clinics. 2011;66(12):2099-104.

  46. Vaux DL. Double blind review. Learn Publ. 2011;24(3):165-7.

  47. Macri EM, Khan KM. Single-blind peer review: an appropriate compromise between two ideals? Learn Publ. 2011;24(3):164-5.

  48. Altschuler EL. Peer reviews: in praise of referees. Nature. 2011;473(7348):452.

  49. Pulverer B. Close one eye and open wide! Learn Publ. 2011;24(3):167-9.

  50. 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 Neuroscienc. 2011;5:56.

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

  52. 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.

  53. Groves T. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ. 2010;341:c6424.

  54. Mietchen D. Peer reviews: make them public. Nature. 2011;473(7348):452.

  55. Liesegang TJ. Peer review should continue after publication. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(3):359-60.

  56. BioMed Central. What is 'open peer review' as operated by the medical journals in the BMC series? [Internet]. London: Biomed Central; c2013 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. BioMed Central Ltd. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/authorfaq/medical

  57. 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; Available from: http://www.eurostemcell.org/commentanalysis/peer-review/

  58. ACP - Review Process & Interactive Public Discussion. 2012 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Available from: http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-andphysics. net/review/review_process_and_interactive_public_discussion.html

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

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

  61. Greaves S, Scott J, Clarke M, Miller L, Hannay T, Thomas A, et al. Overview: Nature's peer review trial. Nature [Internet]. 2006 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html

  62. WebMedCentral. London: Webmed Limited, UK. 2012 [citado 4 de abril de 2013]. Available from: www.webmedcentral.com

  63. Horton R. Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. JAMA. 2002;287:2843-7.

  64. Hunter J. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neuroscienc. 2012;6:63.

  65. Sandewall E. Exercising moral copyrights for evolving publications. ScieCom Info. 2010;6:1-4.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com