15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      La revisión editorial por pares: rechazo del manuscrito, deficiencias del proceso de revisión, sistemas para su gestión y uso como indicador científico Translated title: Editorial peer review: manuscript rejection, peer-review deficiencies, systems for management and use as scientific performance indicator

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Translated 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. In this article, the PR analysis is continued, on the models to manage rejected papers, the proper designation of reviewers and PR main limitations (reviewers' assignment, author-reviewer-editor performance and the attempts to palliate process' deficiencies), the online PR management systems and the use of PR as scientific performance indicator. 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.

          If positive-outcome bias exists, it threatens the integrity of evidence-based medicine. We sought to determine whether positive-outcome bias is present during peer review by testing whether peer reviewers would (1) recommend publication of a "positive" version of a fabricated manuscript over an otherwise identical "no-difference" version, (2) identify more purposefully placed errors in the no-difference version, and (3) rate the "Methods" section in the positive version more highly than the identical "Methods" section in the no-difference version. Two versions of a well-designed randomized controlled trial that differed only in the direction of the finding of the principal study end point were submitted for peer review to 2 journals in 2008-2009. Of 238 reviewers for The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research randomly allocated to review either a positive or a no-difference version of the manuscript, 210 returned reviews. Reviewers were more likely to recommend the positive version of the test manuscript for publication than the no-difference version (97.3% vs 80.0%, P < .001). Reviewers detected more errors in the no-difference version than in the positive version (0.85 vs 0.41, P < .001). Reviewers awarded higher methods scores to the positive manuscript than to the no-difference manuscript (8.24 vs 7.53, P = .005), although the "Methods" sections in the 2 versions were identical. Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

            To analyse data from a trial and report the frequencies with which major and minor errors are detected at a general medical journal, the types of errors missed and the impact of training on error detection. 607 peer reviewers at the BMJ were randomized to two intervention groups receiving different types of training (face-to-face training or a self-taught package) and a control group. Each reviewer was sent the same three test papers over the study period, each of which had nine major and five minor methodological errors inserted. BMJ peer reviewers. The quality of review, assessed using a validated instrument, and the number and type of errors detected before and after training. The number of major errors detected varied over the three papers. The interventions had small effects. At baseline (Paper 1) reviewers found an average of 2.58 of the nine major errors, with no notable difference between the groups. The mean number of errors reported was similar for the second and third papers, 2.71 and 3.0, respectively. Biased randomization was the error detected most frequently in all three papers, with over 60% of reviewers rejecting the papers identifying this error. Reviewers who did not reject the papers found fewer errors and the proportion finding biased randomization was less than 40% for each paper. Editors should not assume that reviewers will detect most major errors, particularly those concerned with the context of study. Short training packages have only a slight impact on improving error detection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.

              Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals. To estimate the effect of processes in editorial peer review. The following databases were searched to June 2004: CINAHL, Ovid, Cochrane Methodology Register, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: ACP Journal Club, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed. We included prospective or retrospective comparative studies with two or more comparison groups, generated by random or other appropriate methods, and reporting original research, regardless of publication status. We hoped to find studies identifying good submissions on the basis of: importance of the topic dealt with, relevance of the topic to the journal, usefulness of the topic, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of reporting. Because of the diversity of study questions, viewpoints, methods, and outcomes, we carried out a descriptive review of included studies grouping them by broad study question. We included 28 studies. We found no clear-cut evidence of effect of the well-researched practice of reviewer and/or author concealment on the outcome of the quality assessment process (9 studies). Checklists and other standardisation media have some evidence to support their use (2 studies). There is no evidence that referees' training has any effect on the quality of the outcome (1 study). Different methods of communicating with reviewers and means of dissemination do not appear to have an effect on quality (3 studies). On the basis of one study, little can be said about the ability of the peer-review process to detect bias against unconventional drugs. Validity of peer review was tested by only one small study in a specialist area. Editorial peer review appears to make papers more readable and improve the general quality of reporting (2 studies), but the evidence for this has very limited generalisability. At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research. However, the methodological problems in studying peer review are many and complex. At present, the absence of evidence on efficacy and effectiveness cannot be interpreted as evidence of their absence. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review should be urgently launched.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Journal
                ics
                Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud
                Rev. cuba. inf. cienc. salud
                Editorial Ciencias Médicas (La Habana )
                2307-2113
                September 2013
                : 24
                : 3
                : 313-329
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centro de Ingeniería Genética y Biotecnología Cuba
                Article
                S2307-21132013000300008
                796810c6-e390-4c46-a145-10fdeef3032c

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Cuba

                Self URI (journal page): http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=2307-2113&lng=en
                Categories
                HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

                Health & Social care
                Peer-reviewed publication,peer-reviewed research,academic review,journal article,electronic publication,scientific and technical publications,evaluación por los pares para publicación,revisión de la investigación por pares,revisión académica,artículo de revista,publicación electrónica,publicaciones científicas y técnicas

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content213

                Cited by16

                Most referenced authors611