21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      La revisión editorial por pares: roles y procesos Translated title: Editorial peer review: roles and processes

      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 editorial de revisión por pares para la evaluación de manuscritos científicos previo a su publicación. En este artículo se aborda la naturaleza, evolución y características principales de la revisión por pares. Se hace un análisis comparativo e integrador de los modelos de revisión por pares convencionales (a simple y doble ciegas) y abiertos (ya sea por identidad o por proceso), sus ventajas y limitaciones. Se propone un nuevo sistema de clasificación de la revisión por pares por publicación (divulgación de la información del proceso convencional) y revisión por pares de proceso abierto (cuya información se divulga según se revisa el manuscrito previo al dictamen académico en una plataforma digital). 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. 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • 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: found
            Is Open Access

            Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?

            Background Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM). Methodology/Principal Findings We examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p<.01). In mixed effects models adjusting for study year and manuscript type, the reviewer-level ICC was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19–0.29) and the manuscript-level ICC was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12–0.22). The editors' overall rejection rate was 48%: 88% when all reviewers for a manuscript agreed on rejection (7% of manuscripts) and 20% when all reviewers agreed that the manuscript should not be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01). Conclusions/Significance Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers' recommendations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network

              A selected-papers (SP) network is a network in which researchers who read, write, and review articles subscribe to each other based on common interests. Instead of reviewing a manuscript in secret for the Editor of a journal, each reviewer simply publishes his review (typically of a paper he wishes to recommend) to his SP network subscribers. Once the SP network reviewers complete their review decisions, the authors can invite any journal editor they want to consider these reviews and initial audience size, and make a publication decision. Since all impact assessment, reviews, and revisions are complete, this decision process should be short. I show how the SP network can provide a new way of measuring impact, catalyze the emergence of new subfields, and accelerate discovery in existing fields, by providing each reader a fine-grained filter for high-impact. I present a three phase plan for building a basic SP network, and making it an effective peer review platform that can be used by journals, conferences, users of repositories such as arXiv, and users of search engines such as PubMed. I show how the SP network can greatly improve review and dissemination of research articles in areas that are not well-supported by existing journals. Finally, I illustrate how the SP network concept can work well with existing publication services such as journals, conferences, arXiv, PubMed, and online citation management sites.
                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
                June 2013
                : 24
                : 2
                : 160-175
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Editorial Elfos Scientiae Cuba
                Article
                S2307-21132013000200006
                a4160d10-28d4-4ef2-9d33-18d54ac2e8c8

                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