Peer Review: Usages, Shortages and Prospectiva

Authors

  • Faustino Moreno Ceja Universidad de Guadalajara
  • José de Jesús Cortés Vera Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez
  • María del Rocío Zumaya Leal Universidad de Guadalajara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.15220

Keywords:

journal review, Peer review, scientific journals, scientific research evaluation, scholarly publishing

Abstract

The peer review process is a mechanism instituted by the academic and scientific communities around the world to guarantee the quality of the articles published in journals. In this paper, the general foundations of this practice are analyzed along with some of its aspects identified as strengths and weakness having as a starting
point the results of a documental research. Some proposals to improve the process are also analyzed; these are mainly focused in reducing the bias and the time that the process currently takes.

|Abstract
= 179 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 493 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Faustino Moreno Ceja, Universidad de Guadalajara

Doctor Carlos III University of Madrid Research Professor, Head of the Libraries Unit, University Center of Biological and Agricultural Sciences, University of Guadalajara, Mexico

José de Jesús Cortés Vera, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez

Doctor of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Professor - Researcher, Department of Social Sciences, University, Autonomous of Ciudad Juárez Mexico

María del Rocío Zumaya Leal, Universidad de Guadalajara

Doctor, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Assistant Head, University Center for Biological and Agricultural Sciences, University of Guadalajara Mexico

References

BUELA-CASAL, Gualberto. 2003. Evaluación de la calidad de los artículos y de las revistas científicas: propuesta del

factor de impacto ponderado y de un índice de calidad. Psicothema, 15(1): 23-35, 2003.

CAMI, Jordí. 2008. Fortalezas y limitaciones del peer review. Medicina Clínica, 131(5): 20-4, 2008.

CAMPANARIO, Juan Manuel. 2002. El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas pocas

soluciones. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25 (3): 267-85, 2002.

CRANE,Diane.1972.Invisible college: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, 1972. 213 p.

CROW, Raym. 2002. The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition. 2002. SPARC institutional

repository checklist & resource guide. Washington, D.C: SPARC, 2002. 51 p.

CUEVAS,Raúl.F., yMESTANZA, María. 2002.La evaluación científica y el sistema de revisión. Boletín CSI, 46, 2002.

FLETCHER, Robert y FLETCHER, Suzanne. 1997. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(42): 35-50, 1997.

GRAINGER, David W. 2009. El participar como par evaluador de calidad es una responsabilidad profesional

internacional; aquellos que publican con confianza deben también evaluar con competencia. Revista de Ingeniería Biomédica, 3 (5): 66-74, 2009.

HARDING, Emma. 2002.Peer Review. Postnote[en línea] 2002, no. 182 [fecha de consulta: 6 Diciembre 2008]. Disponible en: http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn182.pdf

JIMENEZ RODRIGUEZ, Jorge. 2009. El efecto Mateo: un concepto psicológico. Papeles del Psicólogo, 9 (2):145–154, 2009.

KING, Jean. 1987. A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13 (5): 261-276,1987.

LADRONDE GUEVARA CERVERA, Michele [et al.]. 2008. Revisión por pares:¿Qué es y para qué sirve? SaludUninorte, 24 (2): 258 -272, 2008.

LAINE, Christine y MULROW, Cynthia. 2003. Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to annals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139 (12): 1038–1040, 2003.

LUUKKONEN, Terttu. 1990. Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance. Annals ofMedicine, 22(3):145–150, 1990.

Downloads

Published

2013-05-05

How to Cite

Moreno Ceja, F., Cortés Vera, J. de J., & Zumaya Leal, M. del R. (2013). Peer Review: Usages, Shortages and Prospectiva. Revista Interamericana De Bibliotecología, 35(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.15220

Issue

Vol. 35 No. 2 (2012)

Section

Reflexiones

License

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Most read articles by the same author(s)