Resumen
Presentación de la naturaleza, fases y procedimientos principales del peer review en revistas científicas. Razones éticas para ser evaluador. Razones egoístas para ser evaluador. Principales problemas. Procedimientos prácticos. Argumentos a favor del reconocimiento del peer review como parte de la evaluación de carreras académicas. La oportunidad de la evaluación abierta para mejorar la ciencia abierta y el peer review.
Palabras clave
Revistas científicas, peer review, evaluación de carreras académicas, bases de datos académicas, Web of Science
Descargar / Leer la presentación
Referencias
Akers KG. (2017) Being critical and constructive: a guide to peer reviewing for librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. Jan;105(1):1-3. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.100. PMID: 28096739; PMCID: PMC5234464.
Blocken, Bert (2017). «Ten tips for a truly terrible peer review». Reviewer’s Update. September 12, 2017.
COPE Council (2017). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. [pdf]. September 2017
COPE Council (2018). Guías éticas para revisores pares [pdf]. Hampshire: COPE, 2018.
Falkenberg, Laura J.; Soranno, Patricia A. (2018). «Reviewing Reviews: An Evaluation of Peer Reviews of Journal Article Submissions». ASLO, February 2018. Acceso: https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/lob.10217.
Hames, Irene (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. London: Blackwell.
Hames, Irene (2013). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. March 2013
Huisman, Janine; Smits, Jeroen. (2017). «Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective». Scientometrics, October 2017, v113, n. 1. Acceso. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5.
Faff, Robert (2015). Advice for early career peer reviewers. Publons. October 2015.
SAGE Publishing (2019). Resources for reviewers & Frequently Asked Questions [Consulta: 25/1/2019]
Stiller-Reeve, Mathew (2018). A Peer Review Process Guide [pdf]. April 2018
Stiller-Reeve, Mathew (2018). «How to write a thorough peer review». Nature, October 2018.
Taylor and Francis (2019). Understanding peer review [Consulta: 25/1/2019]
Ware, Mark (2011) «Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future Directions». New Review of Information Networking, 16:1,23-53, DOI: 10.1080/13614576.2011.566812
Wilson, Julia (2012). Peer review: the nuts and bolts [pdf]. London: Sense About Science.
Wiley (2019). How to perform a peer review [Consulta: 25/1/2019]
Yankauer A. (1990). Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA. 263(10):1338-40. PMID: 2304210.