Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals

被引:0
作者
Candal-Pedreira, Cristina [1 ,2 ]
Rey-Brandariz, Julia [1 ,2 ]
Varela-Lema, Leonor [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Perez-Rios, Monica [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Santiago De Compostela, Area Med Prevent & Salud Publ, Santiago De Compostela, Spain
[2] Inst Invest Sanitaria Santiago De Compostela IDIS, Santiago De Compostela, Spain
[3] CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ, Madrid, Spain
来源
ANALES DE PEDIATRIA | 2023年 / 99卷 / 01期
关键词
Editorial process; Peer review; Research ethics; Quality; Professionalization; Scientific responsibilitythe; PUBLICATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.anpedi.2023.05.017
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today isthe peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review. (c) 2023 Asociacion Espanola de Pediatria. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:54 / 59
页数:6
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   PEER-REVIEW IS AN EFFECTIVE SCREENING PROCESS TO EVALUATE MEDICAL MANUSCRIPTS [J].
ABBY, M ;
MASSEY, MD ;
GALANDIUK, S ;
POLK, HC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (02) :105-107
[2]   The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications [J].
Bik, Elisabeth M. ;
Casadevall, Arturo ;
Fang, Ferric C. .
MBIO, 2016, 7 (03)
[3]   Should the European Union have an office of research integrity? [J].
Candal-Pedreira, C. ;
Ruano-Ravina, A. ;
Perez-Rios, M. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2021, 94 :1-3
[4]   Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study [J].
Candal-Pedreira, Cristina ;
Ross, Joseph S. ;
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto ;
Egilman, David S. ;
Fernandez, Esteve ;
Perez-Rios, Monica .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2022, 379
[5]   The Research Integrity Office in Spain. A pending issue [J].
Candal-Pedreira, Cristina ;
Alvarez-Dardet, Carlos ;
Ruano-Ravina, Alberto ;
Perez-Rios, Monica .
GACETA SANITARIA, 2022, 36 (06) :557-560
[6]  
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2017, PEER REV PROC
[7]  
COPE & STM, 2022, COMM PUBL ETH CC NC
[8]   The author-editor game [J].
Garcia, J. A. ;
Rodriguez-Sanchez, Rosa ;
Fdez-Valdivia, J. .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2015, 104 (01) :361-380
[9]   The Scientometric Bubble Considered Harmful [J].
Genova, Gonzalo ;
Astudillo, Hernan ;
Fraga, Anabel .
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2016, 22 (01) :227-235
[10]   A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals [J].
Glonti, Ketevan ;
Cauchi, Daniel ;
Cobo, Erik ;
Boutron, Isabelle ;
Moher, David ;
Hren, Darko .
BMC MEDICINE, 2019, 17 (1)