Los editores opinan sobre la política editorial y los aspectos de la revisión por pares (Editors weigh in on editorial policy and peer review issues) | SciELO en Perspectiva

flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks 2021-03-03


via Googe Translate


By Lilian Nassi-Calò

Peer review, a process by which material submitted for publication is reviewed by specialists who are not typically part of the editorial team, varies greatly between journals and disciplines.

The peer review process in journals is relatively recent. It has been present in the vast majority of journals since the second half of the 20th century, and the scientific community considers it a critical function of scientific communication, from the perspective of, on the one hand, improving the quality and giving credibility to the reports of published research and, on the other hand, avoid the publication of irrelevant or false results. In fact, peer review is almost always expected to be more than it can, as it does not always catch errors, false data, and some types of plagiarism and cannot always check for reproducibility. Furthermore, it is known that controversial or highly innovative research results tend to be rejected in peer review,at the same time, peer-approved articles were retracted due to serious errors, detected after their publication.

For these and other reasons, the classic anonymous pre-publication peer review model has been found to be inefficient, slow, unable to detect errors and keep up with scientific advances and the need for greater transparency, openness and accountability. in evaluating search results.

Several authors have proposed open peer review (OPR) models . Among them, Ross-Hellauer , who focused on making the identity of authors and referees known, a greater interaction between the actors involved in the process and publication of opinions, as well as the innumerable possible results that arise from the combination of these variables. . Klebel, et al . 1 recently proposed the Transparency in Scholarly Publishing for Open Scholarship Evolution (TRANSPOSE) initiative , noting the low level of information on preprint policiesand types of peer review adopted by journals, which is in contrast to the Open Science movement, supported by initiatives such as the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines ( TOP guidelines ), the European Commission's Open Science Monitor and the UNESCO recommendation on open science , among others.

A study recently published in eLife 2 aimed to assess the stance of journal editors from five disciplines (ecology, economics, medicine, physics, and psychology) on their way of conducting peer review. Of the 1,500 3 journals selected according to the Impact Factor in their respective areas of knowledge, the editors of 332 of them (21%) answered survey A, consisting of questions on peer review policies and practices. Of these, 233 editors (78%) also responded to survey B, this time comprised of questions on five topics related to publishing ethics and peer review. Although many results confirm the expected behavior, others were surprising.

The results of the first survey (A) can be summarized below:

  • 49% of publishers routinely check for plagiarism electronically.
  • 61% of the journals accept that the authors recommend for and against specific referees.
  • Two journals report that they outsource the peer review process to a commercial company.
  • 73% of the journals encourage interaction between the reviewers and the editor in charge.
  • Only 2% of journals encourage interaction between reviewers and 6% encourage interaction between reviewers and authors.
  • 57% of journals adopt single-blind peer review, 36% double-blind, and 4% adopt single-blind peer review, but leave the option of disclosing their identity to the reviewers. This option in the double blind mode is 1% of the journals that adopt it.
  • Only 8% of the editors declare they agree to publish Registered Reports 4 , especially psychology journals.
  • Only 1% of the editors reported having published the opinions (the refer



From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks


oa.new oa.scielo oa.policies oa.peer_review oa.publishing oa.practices oa.journals oa.spanish oa.gold

Date tagged:

03/03/2021, 13:36

Date published:

03/03/2021, 08:36