Titulo:
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process
.
Sumario:
Este trabajo presenta los problemas relacionados con la revisión por pares de los artículos de investigación; los autores han observado algunos problemas y se han estudiado otros en investigaciones anteriores. El objetivo es identificar y clasificar los problemas y, por consiguiente, proponer futuras investigaciones que continúen con nuestra investigación y que los autores puedan iniciar en el campo de la revisión por pares. El proceso de revisión de los artículos de investigación ha sido investigado y modelado en investigaciones anteriormente publicadas. Sobre la base de la experiencia de los autores, como de colegas revisores expertos en el campo, se han buscado recomendaciones sobre cómo realizar un proceso de revisión. Luego, sobre la b... Ver más
Guardado en:
2311-7915
2311-7613
2
2016-03-07
114
125
Saber y Hacer - 2015
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
| id |
metarevistapublica_usil_saberyhacer_9_article_44 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| spelling |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process Este trabajo presenta los problemas relacionados con la revisión por pares de los artículos de investigación; los autores han observado algunos problemas y se han estudiado otros en investigaciones anteriores. El objetivo es identificar y clasificar los problemas y, por consiguiente, proponer futuras investigaciones que continúen con nuestra investigación y que los autores puedan iniciar en el campo de la revisión por pares. El proceso de revisión de los artículos de investigación ha sido investigado y modelado en investigaciones anteriormente publicadas. Sobre la base de la experiencia de los autores, como de colegas revisores expertos en el campo, se han buscado recomendaciones sobre cómo realizar un proceso de revisión. Luego, sobre la base de las entrevistas hechas a colegas que trabajan en la universidad y que tuvieron que realizar la revisión de los artículos, los autores han encontrado problemas relacionados con el proceso de revisión por pares. A partir de investigaciones anteriores, se identifican y se describen los problemas. Algunos de los problemas encontrados en las investigaciones anteriores coinciden con los problemas hallados en las entrevistas. Como resultado, se presenta una lista de problemas relacionados con el proceso de revisión por pares y el perfil del colega revisor experto en el campo. En conclusión, existen problemas relacionados con el proceso de revisión por pares y con el perfil del colega revisor experto en el campo que no han sido estudiados aún. Todavía no se ha modelado la relación entre los diversos problemas encontrados. Esta investigación presenta una lista de problemas que conducirán a futuros estudios sobre la revisión por pares. This study presents problems related to the peer review of research articles; some problems have been observed by the authors, and other problems have been studied in previous researches. The objective is to identify and classify the problems, and therefore suggest future researches that can be initiated in the field of peer review by authors that continue our research. The process of reviewing research articles has been investigated and modeled in previous published researches. Based on the experience of the authors as peer reviewers, recommendations have been searched on how to do a review process. Next, based on interviews to colleagues who work at the university and had to do article review, the authors have found problems related to the peer review process. From previous researches, problems are identified and described; some of the problems found in previous researches match the problems found in the interviews. As a result, a list of problems related to the peer review process and to the peer reviewer profile is presented. In conclusion, problems related to the peer review process and to the peer reviewer profile exist that have not been studied yet. The relationship among the various problems encountered has not been modeled yet. This research presents a list of problems that will conduct to future studies about peer review. Un Jan, Alberto Contreras, Vilma A. Peer reviewed approval peer review process 2 1 Artículo de revista Journal article 2016-03-07T00:00:00Z 2016-03-07T00:00:00Z 2016-03-07 application/pdf Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola Saber y Hacer 2311-7915 2311-7613 https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/syh/article/view/44 https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/syh/article/view/44 spa https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Saber y Hacer - 2015 114 125 Baggs, J.G.; Broome, M.E.; Dougherty, M.C.; Freda, M.C. & Kearney, M.H. (2008). Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64(2), 131-138. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H. (2009). Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 262-272. Broome, M.; Dougherty, M.C.; Freda, M.C.; Kearney, M.H. & Baggs, J.G. (2010). Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey. Nursing Ethics 17(6) 741-748. Cummings, P. & Rivara, F.P. (2002). Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Submitted Articles. Arch Pediatric Adolesc Med., 156(2), 105. Fischer, C.C. (2011). A Value-Added Role for Reviewers in Enhancing the Quality of Published Research. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 226-237. Godlee, F. (2002). Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. Journal of the American Medical Association. 287(21), 2762-2765. Happell, B. (2011). Responding to reviewers’ comments as part of writing for publication. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 23-27. Kearney, M.H.; Baggs, J.G.; Broome, M.E.; Dougherty, M.C. & Freda, M.C. (2008). Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40(4), 395-400. Kleinert, S. (2008). Peer reviewers deserve recognition. Lancet 371 (9615), 798-798. Kolasa, T. & Krol, D. (2011). A Survey of Algorithms for Paper-reviewer Assignment Problem. IETE Technical Review 28(2). Kranish, M. (2005). Flaws are found in validating medical studies. The Boston Globe. 15 August 2005. Lovejoy, T.I.; Revenson, T.A. & France, C.R. (2011). Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13. Un Jan, A. & Contreras, V. (2011). Technology acceptance model for the use of information technology I universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 845-851. Wager, E.; Parkin, E.C. & Tamber, P.S. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BioMed Central BMC Medicine, 4(13). Wang, F.; Shi, N. & Chen, B. (2010). A Comprehensive Survey of the Reviewer Assignment Problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 9(4), 645-668. Wing, D.A.; Benner, R.S.; Petersen, R.; Newcomb, R. & Scott, J.R. (2010). Differences in Editorial Board Reviewer Behavior Based on Gender. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(10). Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Y. & Jiang, Y. (2003). An international peer review system for a Chinese scientific journal. Learned Publishing, 16(2), 91-94. https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/syh/article/download/44/42 info:eu-repo/semantics/article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Text Publication |
| institution |
UNIVERSIDAD SAN IGNACIO DE LOYOLA |
| thumbnail |
https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/USIL/logo.png |
| country_str |
Perú |
| collection |
Saber y Hacer |
| title |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process |
| spellingShingle |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process Un Jan, Alberto Contreras, Vilma A. Peer reviewed approval peer review process |
| title_short |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process |
| title_full |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process |
| title_fullStr |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process |
| title_full_unstemmed |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process |
| title_sort |
list of research problems encountered in the peer review process |
| title_eng |
A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process |
| description |
Este trabajo presenta los problemas relacionados con la revisión por pares de los artículos de investigación; los autores han observado algunos problemas y se han estudiado otros en investigaciones anteriores. El objetivo es identificar y clasificar los problemas y, por consiguiente, proponer futuras investigaciones que continúen con nuestra investigación y que los autores puedan iniciar en el campo de la revisión por pares. El proceso de revisión de los artículos de investigación ha sido investigado y modelado en investigaciones anteriormente publicadas. Sobre la base de la experiencia de los autores, como de colegas revisores expertos en el campo, se han buscado recomendaciones sobre cómo realizar un proceso de revisión. Luego, sobre la base de las entrevistas hechas a colegas que trabajan en la universidad y que tuvieron que realizar la revisión de los artículos, los autores han encontrado problemas relacionados con el proceso de revisión por pares. A partir de investigaciones anteriores, se identifican y se describen los problemas. Algunos de los problemas encontrados en las investigaciones anteriores coinciden con los problemas hallados en las entrevistas. Como resultado, se presenta una lista de problemas relacionados con el proceso de revisión por pares y el perfil del colega revisor experto en el campo. En conclusión, existen problemas relacionados con el proceso de revisión por pares y con el perfil del colega revisor experto en el campo que no han sido estudiados aún. Todavía no se ha modelado la relación entre los diversos problemas encontrados. Esta investigación presenta una lista de problemas que conducirán a futuros estudios sobre la revisión por pares.
|
| description_eng |
This study presents problems related to the peer review of research articles; some problems have been observed by the authors, and other problems have been studied in previous researches. The objective is to identify and classify the problems, and therefore suggest future researches that can be initiated in the field of peer review by authors that continue our research. The process of reviewing research articles has been investigated and modeled in previous published researches. Based on the experience of the authors as peer reviewers, recommendations have been searched on how to do a review process. Next, based on interviews to colleagues who work at the university and had to do article review, the authors have found problems related to the peer review process. From previous researches, problems are identified and described; some of the problems found in previous researches match the problems found in the interviews. As a result, a list of problems related to the peer review process and to the peer reviewer profile is presented. In conclusion, problems related to the peer review process and to the peer reviewer profile exist that have not been studied yet. The relationship among the various problems encountered has not been modeled yet. This research presents a list of problems that will conduct to future studies about peer review.
|
| author |
Un Jan, Alberto Contreras, Vilma A. |
| author_facet |
Un Jan, Alberto Contreras, Vilma A. |
| topic |
Peer reviewed approval peer review process |
| topic_facet |
Peer reviewed approval peer review process |
| citationvolume |
2 |
| citationissue |
1 |
| publisher |
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola |
| ispartofjournal |
Saber y Hacer |
| source |
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/syh/article/view/44 |
| language |
spa |
| format |
Article |
| rights |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Saber y Hacer - 2015 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| references |
Baggs, J.G.; Broome, M.E.; Dougherty, M.C.; Freda, M.C. & Kearney, M.H. (2008). Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64(2), 131-138. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H. (2009). Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 262-272. Broome, M.; Dougherty, M.C.; Freda, M.C.; Kearney, M.H. & Baggs, J.G. (2010). Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey. Nursing Ethics 17(6) 741-748. Cummings, P. & Rivara, F.P. (2002). Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Submitted Articles. Arch Pediatric Adolesc Med., 156(2), 105. Fischer, C.C. (2011). A Value-Added Role for Reviewers in Enhancing the Quality of Published Research. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 226-237. Godlee, F. (2002). Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. Journal of the American Medical Association. 287(21), 2762-2765. Happell, B. (2011). Responding to reviewers’ comments as part of writing for publication. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 23-27. Kearney, M.H.; Baggs, J.G.; Broome, M.E.; Dougherty, M.C. & Freda, M.C. (2008). Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40(4), 395-400. Kleinert, S. (2008). Peer reviewers deserve recognition. Lancet 371 (9615), 798-798. Kolasa, T. & Krol, D. (2011). A Survey of Algorithms for Paper-reviewer Assignment Problem. IETE Technical Review 28(2). Kranish, M. (2005). Flaws are found in validating medical studies. The Boston Globe. 15 August 2005. Lovejoy, T.I.; Revenson, T.A. & France, C.R. (2011). Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13. Un Jan, A. & Contreras, V. (2011). Technology acceptance model for the use of information technology I universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 845-851. Wager, E.; Parkin, E.C. & Tamber, P.S. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BioMed Central BMC Medicine, 4(13). Wang, F.; Shi, N. & Chen, B. (2010). A Comprehensive Survey of the Reviewer Assignment Problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 9(4), 645-668. Wing, D.A.; Benner, R.S.; Petersen, R.; Newcomb, R. & Scott, J.R. (2010). Differences in Editorial Board Reviewer Behavior Based on Gender. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(10). Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Y. & Jiang, Y. (2003). An international peer review system for a Chinese scientific journal. Learned Publishing, 16(2), 91-94. |
| type_driver |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| type_coar |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| type_version |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| type_coarversion |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| type_content |
Text |
| publishDate |
2016-03-07 |
| date_accessioned |
2016-03-07T00:00:00Z |
| date_available |
2016-03-07T00:00:00Z |
| url |
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/syh/article/view/44 |
| url_doi |
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/syh/article/view/44 |
| issn |
2311-7915 |
| eissn |
2311-7613 |
| citationstartpage |
114 |
| citationendpage |
125 |
| url2_str_mv |
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/syh/article/download/44/42 |
| _version_ |
1811200336116842496 |