Arroyo-Hernández H, Ramírez-Soto M, Alarco JJ, Huarez B

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 1-15
PDF size: 499.38 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Peer review is an important process that makes it possible to take decisions before the publication of an article. However, little information is available in Latin American scientific journals about the professionals involved in this process. The purpose of the study was to determine the geographic and gender distribution of peer review in the Peruvian Journal of Experimental Medicine and Public Health. Data about peer reviewers were obtained from the acknowledgements sections of journal issues published from 2010 to 2017. The country of origin was identified from the institutional affiliation reported by peer reviewers, and gender was derived from their proper names. In the event of doubt about a reviewer's gender, a search was conducted for images and public academic profiles available on the Internet. A total 1 628 acknowledgement mentions were found, 60.4% (n = 983) of which referred to overseas reviewers, mainly from Spain, Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Argentina. 71.1% (n = 1 158) of the reviewers were male and 28.9 % (n = 470) were female. 35.0% (n = 344) of the female reviewers were foreign and 19.6% (n = 126) were from Peru, whereas 65.0% of the male reviewers were foreign and 80.6% were from Peru. Peer review in a Peruvian biomedical scientific journal was mainly conducted by professionals from other Spanish-speaking countries. A gender gap was observed which is wider for participation of Peruvian female reviewers.

REFERENCES

1. Tan MH. Peer Review: past, present, and future. In: Markovac J, Kleinman M,Englesbe M. En: Markovac J, Kleinman M, Englesbe M, editores. Medical andScientific Publishing. Author, editor, and reviewer perspectives. Michigan:Academic Press; 2018. p. 55-68.

2. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.JR Soc Med. 2006;99:178-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

3. Tennant JP. The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiol Lett.2018;365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204

4. Twaij H, Oussedik S, Hoffmeyer P. Peer review. Bone Joint J. 2014;96:436-41.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.33041

5. Murray D, Siler K, Lariviére V, Chan WM, Collings AM, Raymond J, et al.Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review. bioRxiv; 2018[acceso: 28/01/2019]. Disponible en:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/08/29/400515.full.pdf

6. Masukume G, Grech V. The Lancet peer reviewers: global pattern anddistribution. Lancet. 2018;391:2603-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31136-X

7. Clarivate Analytics. Global state of peer review report. London: Publons; 2018[acceso: 28/01/2019]. Disponible en: https://www.sciping.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/PublonsGlobal-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf

8. Arroyo-Hernández H, Huarez B. Tendencia y características de los manuscritosrecibidos y rechazados en la Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y SaludPública entre 2011 y 2017. Rev Per Med Exp Salud Publ. 2019;36:281-7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2019.362.4190

9. González-Álvarez J, Cervera-Crespo T. Psychiatry research and genderdiversity: authors, editors, and peer reviewers. Lancet Psychiat. 2019;6:200-1.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30039-2

10. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Gender bias in scholarly peerreview. Elife. 2017;21(6):e21718. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.001

11. Romaní F, Cabezas C. Indicadores bibliométricos de las publicacionescientíficas de la Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública, 2010-2017. Rev Per Med Exp Salud Publ. 2018;35:620-9.DOI: https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2018.354.3817

12. Consejo editorial. Crónica revisión por pares durante 1997. Rev MédChile. 1998;126(7):881-4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98871998000700020

13. Steinberg JJ, Skae C, Sampson B. Gender gap, disparity and inequality in peerreview. Lancet. 2018;391(10140):2602-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31141-3

14. Dickersin K, Fredman L, Flegal KM, Scott JD, Crawley B. Is there a sex bias inchoosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example. JAMA. 1998 [acceso:28/01/2019];280(3):260-4. Disponible en:https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187760

15. Matías-Guiu J, Moral E, García-Ramos R, Martínez-Vila E. El perfil de losevaluadores de una publicación médica en relación con la respuesta. Neurología.2010;25(9):530-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2010.03.012

16. Domínguez-Berjón MF, Godoy P, Ruano-Ravina A, Negrín MÁ, et al.Acceptance or decline of requests to review manuscripts: A genderbasedapproach from a public health journal. Account Res. 2018;25(2):94-108.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1435280

17. Álvarez-Díaz L. Problemas que persisten y frenan el pleno desarrollo de lasmujeres en las ciencias: estudios de género. En: Álvarez-Díaz L. Ser mujercientífica o morir en el intento. La Habana: Editorial Academia; 2010. p. 16-32.

18. García-Aguilar D, Heredia-Mimbela I, Pereyra-Elías R. Autoría femenina en laRevista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública: análisis del periodo

19. 1997-2017. Rev Per Med Exp Salud Publ. 2019;36(4):601-9. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2019.364.448819. Lerback J, Janson B. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature.

20. 2017;25;541:455-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/541455a20. Schwalbe N, Fearon J. Time's up for journal gender bias. Lancet. 2018;391(10140):2601-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31140-1

21. Clark J, Zuccula E, Horton RH. Women in science, medicine, and globalhealth: call for papers. Lancet. 2017;390(10111):2423-4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32903-3