Scientific writing and referee professional training
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Several researchers refer the determining function of the scientific writing in the reflexive construction of knowledge (Chun et al. 2022). The scientific writing, as being a complex process because its style and impact of the results (Lu et al. 2019, Chen et al. 2020 and Ante 2022), require clarity and precision in the information, abilities that with frequency are loss when it is not answer to the research question during the writing process (Simón et al. 2020). In consequence, in the scientific field, the feasible, the ethical, the interest, the discoveries and the relevance as criteria to be measure, influence on the decisions of accepting or rejected a paper which is subjected to a checking process for their publication. From this perspective, the referee represents one of the attention centers due to the decision they emit in the publishing process, whose responsibility is to keep the quality and integrity of the scientific literature (Grimaldo et al. 2018 and Libby et al. 2022).
Detalles del artículo
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cuál estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista. Bajo esta licencia el autor será libre de:
- Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato
- Adaptar — remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del material
- El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia
Bajo las siguientes condiciones:
- Reconocimiento — Debe reconocer adecuadamente la autoría, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo de cualquier manera razonable, pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene el apoyo del licenciador o lo recibe por el uso que hace.
- NoComercial — No puede utilizar el material para una finalidad comercial.
- No hay restricciones adicionales — No puede aplicar términos legales o medidas tecnológicas que legalmente restrinjan realizar aquello que la licencia permite.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
Citas
Ante, L. 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses". Journal of Informetrics, 16(1): 101252, ISSN: 1875-5879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101252.
Bianchi, F., Grimaldo, F., Bravo, G. & Squazzoni, F. 2018. "The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures". Scientometrics, 116(3): 1401-1420, ISSN: 1588-2861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2825-4.
Cushman, M. 2023. "How I respond to peer reviewer comments". Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 7(2): 1-3, ISSN: 2475-0379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2023.100120.
Chen, B., Deng, D., Zhong, Z. & Zhang, C. 2020. “Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles”. Scientometrics, 122(3): 1769-1790, ISSN: 1588-2861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03361-4.
Chun, C.L., Li, C.C., Chin, Y.H., Ching, C.Su. & Ya, L.H. 2022. “Exploring the experience of reflective writing among Taiwanese undergraduate nursing students: A qualitative study”. Journal of Professional Nursing, 40: 105-110, ISSN: 1532-8481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.03.007.
Edwards, M.A. & Siddhartha, R. 2017. “Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition”. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1): 51-61, ISSN: 1092-8758. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
Ellwanger, J.E. & Bogo, C.J.A. 2020. “We need to talk about peer-review – experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation”. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 125: 201-205, ISSN: 1878-5921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.001.
Grimaldo, F., Marušić, A. & Squazzoni, F. 2018. “Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969–2015)”. PLoS One, 13(2): 1-14, ISSN: 1932-6203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193148.
King, E.B., Avery, D.R., Helb, M. R. & Cortina, J. M. 2018. “Systematic subjectivity: How subtle biases infect the scholarship review process”. Journal of Management, 44(3): 843-853, ISSN: 1557-1211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317743553.
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P. & Trinquart, L. 2016. “The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise”. PLoS One, 11(11): e0166387, ISSN: 1932-6203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387.
Libby, W.M., Sundland, R., Adams, A.M., Faria, I., Feldman, H.A., Gudmundsdottir, H., Marmor, H., Miles, V., Ochoa, V., Ruff, S.M., Tonelli, C., Altieri, M.S., Cannada, L., Dewan, K., Etkin, Y., Marmor, R., Plichta, J.K., Reyna, C., Tatebe., L., Drudi, L.M., Hicks, C.W. 2022. “The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer”. Seminars in Vascular Surgery, 35(4): 470-478, ISSN: 1558-4518. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002.
Lu, C., Bu, Y., Dong, X., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R., Logan, P. & Zhang, C. 2019. “Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact”. Journal of Informetrics, 13(3): 817-829, ISSN: 1875-5879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.004.
Macdonald, S. 2015. “Emperor’s new clothes. The reinvention of peer review as myth”. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3): 264-279, ISSN: 1552-6542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614554773.
Righi, S. & Takács, K. 2017. “The miracle of peer review and development in science: An agent-based model”. Scientometrics, 113(1): 587-607, ISSN: 1588-2861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2244-y.
Simón, E.L., Osei, A.M., Wachirad, B.W. & KwanGetting, J.K. 2020. “Getting accepted – Successful writing for scientific publication: a Research Primer for low- and middle-income countries”. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10(2): 154-157, ISSN: 2211-4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2020.06.006.
Sobkowicz, P. 2015. “Innovation suppression and clique evolution in peer-review-based, competitive research funding systems: An agent-based model”. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2): 13, ISSN: 1460-7425. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/2/13.html.
Teele, D.L. & Thelen, K. 2017. “Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science”. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2): 433-447, ISSN: 1537-5935. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002985.
Teplitskiy, M., Acuna, D., Elamrani, R.A., Körding, K. & Evans, J. 2018. “The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review”. Research Policy, 47(9): 1825-1841, ISSN: 1873-7625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.014.