Potencialidad y viabilidades de los procesos de evaluación por pares abiertoel caso de "Encrucijadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales"

  1. Medina Chirino, Dara 1
  2. García González, Juan Manuel 2
  3. Grande, Rafael 3
  4. Prieto Serrano, David 4
  1. 1 Socióloga.
  2. 2 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

  3. 3 Universidad de Málaga
    info

    Universidad de Málaga

    Málaga, España

    ROR https://ror.org/036b2ww28

  4. 4 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Show affiliations +
Journal:
Teknokultura: Revista de Cultura Digital y Movimientos Sociales

ISSN: 1549-2230

Year of publication: 2017

Issue Title: TIC y difusión de los CTS: regulación y estrategias de resistencia de los diferentes actores

Volume: 14

Issue: 1

Pages: 35-56

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/TEKN.55575 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Teknokultura: Revista de Cultura Digital y Movimientos Sociales

Abstract

Evaluation processes of scientific and academic journals have been transformed in recent years due to the increase in both the number of journals and the volume of papers received. Furthermore, the use of Internet has generated a strong openness of science, with more and more open access journals. Editorial teams have had to adapt to this new setting and decide on an evaluation model. In this context, this paper presents the case of the evaluation system of the Spanish journal Encrucijadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales. This journal proposes an open peer review in which both authors and reviewers are known each other during all the evaluation process. We use a precoded semi-open questionnaire in order to analyze the opinion of both authors and reviewers about this type of evaluation. We conclude that there is an acceptance of the model of review by the two groups, although there are some slight differences by age, sex, and type of contribution.

Bibliographic References

  • Cruz Castro, L., & Sanz Menéndez, L. (2010). Endogamia, productividad y carreras académicas. Recuperado a partir de https://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/24401
  • Csiszar, A. (2016, mayo 3). La revisión por pares (peer review) ha sido problemática desde sus comienzos [Blog]. Recuperado 18 de junio de 2017, a partir de http://www.sinpermiso.info/textos/la-revision-por-pares-peer-review-ha-sido-problematica-desde-sus-comienzos
  • Ford, E. (2013). Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Litera-ture. Library Faculty Publications and Presentations. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
  • Mehmani, B. (2016, septiembre 22). Is open peer review the way forward? Recuperado 18 de junio de 2017, a partir de https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward
  • P2PFoundation. (s. f.). Open Peer Review. En P2PFoundation Wiki. Recuperado a partir de https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Peer_Review
  • Prado Arreaza, C., Velasco Ortuño, S., González Padial, V., & Sanromán Rodríguez, T. (s. f.). Peer Review¿Garantía de la calidad de la investigación científica? Recuperado a partir de http://www.ugr.es/~setchift/docs/peer_review.pdf
  • Rooyen, S. van, Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers9recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
  • Ross-Hellauer, T. (2016a, octubre 30). Defining Open Peer Review: Part One – Competing Definitions. Recuperado 18 de junio de 2017, a partir de https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1371
  • Ross-Hellauer, T. (2016b, noviembre 2). Defining Open Peer Review: Part Two – Seven Traits of OPR : OpenAIRE blog [Blog]. Recuperado 18 de junio de 2017, a partir de https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1410
Data source: Dialnet