Chaple GAM, Miranda TJD, Gispert AEÁ

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 1-10
PDF size: 429.67 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Peer reviewing scientific journals consists in a critical examination of papers seeking scientific validation of their quality for national and international dissemination, thus contributing to the development of the field of science in question. Therefore, the work of peer reviewers and editors in scientific journals requires systematic comprehensive training, responsibility, honesty and a high level of altruism, among other values, for they are in charge of passing objective and educational judgment on the papers evaluated, a task they often perform after fulfilling their occupational obligations. Perfecting peer reviewing is crucial to improve the performance of the journal and raise its quality. This is the reason why it was decided to develop the present guide to train reviewers of the Cuban Journal of Dentistry in the management of the Open Journal System during the process of scientific paper review.

REFERENCES

1. de Uña González OJ, Rincón Carballar A, Regli Soler M. El reto de innovación abierta como nuevo instrumento estratégico para el sector público. [Internet] Revista Internacional de Tecnología, Ciencia y Sociedad. 2018 [Citado julio de 2018]; 7(1):[Aprox. 5 p] Disponible en: http://journals.epistemopolis.org/index.php/tecnoysoc/article/view/1660

2. Willinsky J, Stranack K, Smecher A, MacGregor J, Acevedo A. Open Journal Systems: Una guía completa para la edición de publicaciones en línea. [Internet]. California: Public Knowledge Project; Sep. 2010 [citado 23 de julio de 2018]. Disponible en: https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/docs/userguide/2.3.3/es/

3. Sánchez Pato A, Editor. Manual de ayuda para los revisores en el proceso de revisión de artículos en CCD [Internet]. España: Universidad Católica de Murcia; 2013 [citado 15 de Julio de 2018]. Disponible en: http://ccd.ucam.edu/documentos/manual_info_revisores.pdf

4. Schriger DL, Kadera SP, von Elm E. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports. Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):401-406.e6.

5. Iantorno SE, Andras LM, Skaggs DL. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research. Spine Deform. 2016 Jul;4(4):268- 271.

6. Blanco JA, Cayuela L, Alonso A, Puerta-Piñero C, Rodríguez-Echeverría S, Jiménez-Eguizabal L. Revisión por pares: La importante labor de los revisores se premia en ECOSISTEMAS. Revista Ecosistemas. 2015;24(1):93-5.

7. González Soria J, de la Santa M. La responsabilidad de los árbitros. Revista de Derecho UNED. 2015;(17):869-58.

8. Fernández Rozas JC. Contenido ético del deber de revelación del árbitro y consecuencias de su trasgresión. Arbitraje. 2013;6(3):799-839.

9. Clarke M, Oxman AD, editores. Manual del Revisor Cochrane 4.1.6 [citado 8 enero 2003]. En: The Cochrane Library, Número 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software.