Article information
Abstract
The “peer-review” system is used to improve the quality of submitted scientific papers and provides invaluable help to the Editors in their decision-making process. The “peer-review” system remains the cornerstone of the scientific process and, therefore, its quality should be closely monitored. The profile of the “elite” reviewers has been described, but further studies are warranted to better identify their main characteristics. A major challenge, not only for Editors but also for medical scientific societies as a whole, is to continue to guarantee the excellence in the “peer-review” process and to ensure that it receives adequate academic recognition.
Keywords:
Biomedical Journals
Characteristics of “Elite” reviewers
Peer-review
Resumen
El proceso de “peer-review” es trascendental para la mejora de los artículos científicos y representa una ayuda inestimable para los editores en la selección de los trabajos para su publicación. Su calidad debe supervisarse muy estrechamente, ya que en ella se basa la credibilidad del proceso científico. El perfil general de los mejores revisores ya está definido pero todavía son necesarios nuevos estudios para conocer mejor sus características. El reto todavía pendiente, para los editores y para las sociedades científicas médicas en general, sigue siendo conseguir la excelencia dentro del proceso de “peer-review” y lograr que este importante trabajo sea valorado y reconocido como un mérito académico.
Palabras clave:
Revistas Biomédicas
Cualidades de los revisores
Revisión por pares
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
F. Alfonso, J. Bermejo, J. Segovia.
Nuevas recomendaciones del Comite Internacional de Editores Medicos. Cambiando el enfasis: de la uniformidad de los requisitos tecnicos a los aspectos bioeticos.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 57 (2004), pp. 592-593
[2.]
F. Alfonso, J. Bermejo, M. Heras, J. Segovia.
Revista Española de Cardiologia 2009: Reflexiones Editoriales.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 62 (2009), pp. 1482-1493
[3.]
F. Alfonso, J. Bermejo, J. Segovia.
Impactologia, impactitis, impactoterapia.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 58 (2005), pp. 1239-1245
[4.]
F. Alfonso.
Revistas biomedicas españolas: relevancia academica, impacto cientifico o factor de impacto. ¿Que es lo que importa?.
Rev Neurol., 48 (2009), pp. 113-116
[5.]
F. Alfonso.
El duro peregrinaje de las revistas biomédicas españolas hacia la excelencia: ¿Quien nos ayuda? Calidad, impacto y meritos de investigacion.
Endocrinol Nutr., 57 (2010), pp. 110-120
[6.]
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/.
[7.]
J. Matias-Guiu, R. Garcia Ramos.
El proceso de mejora y decision de un articulo.
Neurologia., 24 (2009), pp. 353-358
[8.]
J. Matias-Guiu, R. Garcia-Ramos.
The impact factor and editorial decisions.
Neurologia., 23 (2008), pp. 342-348
[9.]
J. Matias-Guiu, E. Moral, R. Garcia-Ramos, E. Martinez-Vila.
El perfil de los evaluadores de una publicacion medica en relacion a la respuesta.
Neurologia., 25 (2010), pp. 530-535
[10.]
F. Davidoff.
Improving peer review: who¿s responsible?.
BMJ., 328 (2004), pp. 657-658
[11.]
T. Jefferson, P. Alderson, E. Wager, F. Davidoff.
Effects of editorial peer review. A systematic review.
JAMA., 287 (2002), pp. 2784-2786
[12.]
D.J. Benos, K.L. Kirk, J.E. Hall.
How to review a paper.
Adv Physiol Educ., 27 (2003), pp. 47-52
[13.]
J. Lemann.
Serving as a reviewer.
Kidney International., 62 (2002), pp. 1081-1087
[15.]
A. Casadevall, F.C. Fang.
Is peer review censorship?.
Infect Immun., 77 (2009), pp. 1273-1274
[16.]
F.J. Ingelfinger.
Definition of “sole” contribution.
N Engl J Med., 281 (1969), pp. 676-677
[17.]
F. Alfonso, J. Bermejo, J. Segovia.
Duplicate or redundant publication: can we afford it?.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 58 (2005), pp. 601-604
[18.]
J. Bermejo, J. Segovia, M. Heras, F. Alfonso.
Gestion electrónica de manuscritos en Revista Española de Cradiologia. Nuevas herramientas para viejos objetivos.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 60 (2007), pp. 1206-1210
[19.]
W.F. Balistreri.
Landmark, landmine, or landfill? The role of peer review in assessing manuscripts.
J Pediatr., 151 (2007), pp. 107-108
[20.]
M.A. Kliewer, K.S. Freed, D.M. DeLong, P.J. Pickhardt, J.M. Provenzale.
Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
AJR., 184 (2005), pp. 1731-1735
[21.]
J.M. Drazen, M.B. Van Der Weyden, P. Sahni, J. Rosenberg, A. Marusic, C. Laine, et al.
Uniform format for disclosure of competing interest in ICMJE Journals.
N Engl J Med., 361 (2009), pp. 1896-1897
[23.]
R. Smith.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journal.
J R Soc Med., 99 (2006), pp. 178-182
[24.]
Publishing research consortium: Peer review in schoolarly journals. Perspective of the scholarly community -an international study-. London: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008;80.p.1–80.
[25.]
Z. Kmietowicz.
Double blind peer review are fairer and more objective, say academics.
BMJ., 336 (2008), pp. 241
[26.]
S.C. Johnston, D.H. Lowenstein, D.M. Ferriero, R.O. Messing, J.R. Oksenberg, S.L. Hauser.
Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
Ann Neurol., 61 (2007), pp. A10-A12
[27.]
S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, J. Carpenter, F. Godlee, R. Smith.
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial.
BMJ., 328 (2004), pp. 673-675
[28.]
W.G. Baxt, J.F. Waeckerle, J.A. Berlin, M.L. Callaham.
Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictious manuscript to evaluate peer review performance.
Ann Emerg Med., 32 (1999), pp. 310-317
[29.]
R.L. Krawitz, P. Franks, M.D. Feldman, M. Gerrity, C. Byrne, W.M. Tierney.
Editorial peer reviewer's recommendations at general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care?.
PLoS ONE., 5 (2010), pp. e10072
[30.]
L.L. Hargens.
Schoolarly consensus and journals rejection rates.
Am Sociol Rev., 53 (1988), pp. 139-151
[31.]
M.A. Kliewer, D.M. DeLong, K. Freed, C.B. Jenkins, E.K. Paulson, J.M. Provenzale.
Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology.: How reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
AJR., 183 (2004), pp. 1545-1550
[32.]
A.M. Link.
US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.
JAMA., 280 (1998), pp. 246-247
[33.]
L.W. Aarssen, C.J. Lortie, A.E. Budden, J. Koricheva, R. Leimu, T. Tregenza.
Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behabior?.
PLoS ONE., 4 (2009), pp. e6283
[34.]
F. Godlee, C.R. Gale, C. Martyn.
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial.
JAMA., 280 (1998), pp. 237-240
[35.]
S. Van Rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith, N. Black.
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
JAMA., 280 (1998), pp. 234-237
[36.]
A.C. Justice, M.K. Cho, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, D. Rennie.
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial.
JAMA., 280 (1998), pp. 240-242
[37.]
C.D. DeAngelis, J.P. Thorton.
Preserving confidiality in the peer review process.
JAMA., 299 (2008), pp. 1956
[38.]
R. Smith.
Opening up BMJ peer review. A beginning that should led to complete transparency.
BMJ., 318 (1999), pp. 4-5
[39.]
Opening up peer review. Nat Cell Biol. 2007; 9:1.
[40.]
E. Walsh, M. Rooney, L. Appleby, G. Wilkinson.
open peer-review: a randomised controlled trial.
Br J Phsychiatry., 176 (2000), pp. 47-51
[41.]
F.P. Rivara, P. Commings, S. Ringold, A.B. Bergman, A. Joffe, D.A. Christakis.
A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
J Pediatr., 151 (2007), pp. 202-205
[42.]
Earnshaw JJ, Fardon JR, Guillou PJ, Johnson CD, Murie JA, Murray GD. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. An Rol Coll Surg Engl. 200;82:133–5.
[43.]
S. Schroter, L. Tite, A. Hutchings, N. Black.
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviews suggested by authors or by.
JAMA., 295 (2006), pp. 314-317
[44.]
T.P. Stossel.
Reviewer status and review quality: Experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
N Engl J Med., 312 (1985), pp. 658-659
[45.]
A.T. Evans, R.A. McNutt, S.W. Fletcher, R.H. Fletcher.
The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
J Gen Intern Med., 8 (1993), pp. 422-428
[46.]
N. Black, S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, R. Smith, S. Evans.
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?.
JAMA., 280 (1998), pp. 231-233
[47.]
M.L. Callahan, J. Tercier.
The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.
PLsO Med., 4 (2007), pp. e40
[48.]
G. Gonzalez-Alcaide, A. Alonso-Arroyo, J.C. Valderrama-Zurian, R. Aleixandre-Benavent.
Women in Spanish cardiological research.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 62 (2009), pp. 941-954
[49.]
R. Jagsi, E.A. Guancial, C.C. Worobey, L.E. Henault, Y.C. Chang, R. Starr, et al.
The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature: a 35 year perspective.
N Engl J Med., 355 (2006), pp. 281-287
[50.]
F. Andreotti, F. Crea.
Women in cardiology: a European perspective.
Heart., 91 (2005), pp. 275-276
[51.]
M.C. Davo, C. Vives, C.A. lvarez-Dardet.
Why are women underused in the JECH peer review process?.
J Epidemiol Community Health., 57 (2003), pp. 936-937
[52.]
J.R. Gilbert, E.S. Williams, G.D. Lumdberg.
Is there gender bias in JAMA is peer review process?.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 139-142
[53.]
J. Luty, S.M. Arokiadass, J.M. Easow, J.R. Anapreddy.
Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals.
J Med Ethics., 35 (2009), pp. 200-202
Copyright © 2010. Sociedad Española de Neurología
