Retrasos en el proceso editorial de las publicaciones académicas incluidas en SciELO México

Raúl Marcó del Pont Lalli; Raúl Martínez Navarro

doi:10.17533/udea.rib.v45n2e344044

Authors

Raúl Marcó del Pont Lalli Metropolitan Autonomous University
Raúl Martínez Navarro National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v45n2e344044

Keywords:

scientific a nd technical journals, peer review, review time, editorial time

Abstract

Publishing in science and technology journals is usually time-consuming, which may cause adverse effects on academic careers (get a scholarship, tenure, or promotion) and on the reputation of serial publications themselves. It is also a relevant variable considered by authors when deciding where to publish. Despite the effects of these delays, there are very few systematic studies in Mexico about the time it takes for journals to publish the manuscripts received. To fill this gap, this editorial aspect was analyzed, based on open data from SciELO Mexico, reviewing the time taken for 196 Mexican journals to publish manuscripts, as well as the clear differences between serial publications of a given field of knowledge. The resulting times were compared with similar studies on Anglo-Saxon journals, megajournals, and ‘predators’ journals to locate more clearly the editorial processes in a global environment and to envision the possibilities of a more efficient editorial management.

|Abstract

= 973 veces | HTML (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))

= 0 veces| | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))

= 511 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Raúl Marcó del Pont Lalli, Metropolitan Autonomous University

PhD candidate and Master in Anthropological Sciences, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Mexico. Technical editor at the Institute of Geography, UNAM, Mexico.

Raúl Martínez Navarro, National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)

Doctor in Administration and Public Policies. Director of Project Analysis and Monitoring, Technical Secretariat of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), Mexico.

References

Aguado-López, Eduardo; Becerril-García, Arianna (2021). El tiempo de revisión por pares: ¿obstáculo a la comunicación científica. Interciencia, 46(2), 56-64. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/339/33966129002/

Bagues, Manuel; Sylos-Labini, Mauro; Zinovyeva, Natalia (2019). A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. Research Policy 4(2), 462-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013

Björk, Bo-Christer (2018a). Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals. Online Information Review, 42. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2018-0151

Björk, Bo-Christer (2018b). Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017. PeerJ, 6, e4357

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4357

Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed

journals. Journal of Informetrics 7(4), 914-923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001

Butler, Declan (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature, 495, 433-35.

https://doi.org/10.1038/495433a

Conacyt (2019). Sistema de clasificación de revistas mexicanas de ciencia y tecnología. México: Conacyt.

Ellison, Glenn (2002). Evolving standards for academic publishing: A q-r theory. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 994-1034.

Ginsparg, Paul (2011). ArXiv at 20. Nature, 476, 145-47. https://www.nature.com/articles/476145a

Grimaldo, Francisco; Ana Marušić; Flaminio Squazzoni (2018). Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015). PLoS ONE 13(2), e0193148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193148

Hesmondhalgh, David; Baker, Sarah (2011). Creative Labour. Media work in tree cultural industries. Polity Press.

Himmelstein, Daniel (10 de febrero, 2016). The history of publishing delays. Satoshi Village the blog of Daniel Himmelstein. https://blog.dhimmel.com/history-of-delays

Huisman, Janine; Smits, Jeroen (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The

author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1), 633-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5

Lariviere, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy; Macaluso, Benoit; Milojevic, Stasa; Cronin, Blaise; Thelwall,

Mike (2013). arXiv e-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. Digital Libraries. https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3261

Larivière, Vincent; Haustein, Stefanie; Mongeon, Philippe (2015). The oligopoly of academic

publishers in the digital era. Plos One, e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Murray, Simone (2007). Publishing studies: Critically mapping research in search of a

discipline. Publishing Research Quarterly 22(4), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-007-0001-4

Nature (2020). Coronavirus: Everyone wins when patents are pooled (Editorial). Nature 581, 240-241. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01441-2

Nature (2020a). Journal Metrics. https://www.nature. com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics

Nguyen, Vivian; Haddaway, Neal; Gutowsky, Lee; Wilson, Alexander; Gallagher, Austin; Donaldson, Michael;… Steven, Cooke (2015). How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals. Plos One, 10(8), e0132557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132557

Pilloni-Martínez, Lorena (2018). Condiciones laborales de los editores de revistas científicas en México. Aspectos de la precariedad en el trabajo académico. 4.° Congreso Internacional y 2.° Iberoamericano de Revistas Científicas. http://www.congresoderevistas.unam.mx/ index.php/congresoderevistas/congresoderevistas/paper/view/128/

Powel, Kendal (2016). Does it take too long to publish research. Nature, 530(11), 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1038/530148a

Publons (2018). Global state of peer review. Web of Science Group. https://publons.com/com-munity/gspr

Shen, Venyu; Björk, Bo-Christer (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13(230). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2

Solomon, David; Björk, Bo-Christer (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21660

Spezi, Valerie; Wakeling, Simon; Pinfield, Stephen; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Willett, Peter (2017).

Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082

Tenopir, Carol; Dalton, Elizabeth; Fish, Allison; Christian, Lisa; Jones, Misty; Smith, MacKenzie

(2016). What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice. Publications 4(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4030022

Teixeira da Silva Jaime A; Dobránszki Judit (2017). Excessively long editorial decisions and

excessively long publication times by journals: causes, risks, consequences, and proposed solutions. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(1), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9489-9

Thompson, John (2005). Books in the digital age: The transformation of academic and higher education publishing in Britain and the United States. Gran Bretaña: Polity.