Recomendaciones a los editores para fortalecer la revisión por pares en su revista científica

  1. Luis Rodríguez-Yunta 1
  2. Carlos-Miguel Tejada-Artigas 2
  1. 1 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, España
  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España
Journal:
Anuario ThinkEPI

ISSN: 1886-6344

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 10

Issue: 1

Pages: 222-227

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3145/THINKEPI.2016.44 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Anuario ThinkEPI

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of the critical aspects that editors must consider when managing the peer-review process. While the evaluators assure the quality of a journal, the editor(s) must take steps to improve the process with two main objectives: promoting academic recognition and establishing communication and training tools. In this paper the authors offer concrete recommendations for pursuing these objectives.

Bibliographic References

  • Cantor, Maurício; Gero, Shane (2015). “The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers”. Royal Society Open Science, 2: 140540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140540
  • Casrai (s.d.) Peer review citations. http://casrai.org/Peer_Review_Citations
  • Gallo, Stephen A.; Lemaster, Michael; Glisson, Scott R. (2015). “Frequency and type of conflicts of interest in the peer review of basic biomedical research funding applications: Self-reporting versus manual detection”. Science and engineering ethics. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7
  • Li, Lei; Wang, Yan; Liu, Guanfeng; Wang, Meng; Wu, Xindong (2015). “Context-aware reviewer assignment for trust enhanced peer review”. PLoS one, v. 10, n. 6, e0130493. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130493
  • Meadows, Alice (2015). “Welcome to peer review week!”. The scholarly kitchen, September 28. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/09/28/welcometo-peer-review-week
  • Research Information Network CIC (2015) Scholarly communication and peer review: The current landscape and future trends. A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. http : / /www.wel l come.ac .uk / s te l lent /groups / corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/ web_document/wtp059003.pdf
  • Rodríguez-Yunta, Luis; Tejada-Artigas, Carlos-Miguel (2013). “El editor técnico: un perfil necesario para la profesionalización de la edición de revistas científicas en el entorno digital”. Anales de documentación, v. 16, n. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesdoc.16.2.176391
  • SciELO (2015). “Fortaleciendo la evaluación por pares: guías, tutoriales y manuales de buenas prácticas”. SciELO en perspectiva, Mayo 12. http://blog.scielo.org/es/2015/05/12/fortaleciendo-laevaluacion-por-pares-guias-turoriales-y-manuales-debuenas-practicas
Data source: Dialnet