Morales-Castillo JD, Fortoul TI, Sánchez MM

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 49-56
PDF size: 476.65 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Peer-review is one of the fundamental pillars for the advancement of science. This process has been scarcely studied in Latin American scientific journals.
Objective: We performed a qualitative analysis about the perception of the process of peer review in a Latin American research journal of medical education.
Method: Qualitative interpretative study that recovered the experience narrated by a focus group of reviewers, regarding the process of peer review in the journal “Research in Medical Education”, published by the National Autonomous University of Mexico Faculty of Medicine.
Results: A group of seven reviewers identified four relevant peer review topics: 1) training as a reviewer, 2) motivations, 3) usefulness of peer review, and 4) proposals to improve arbitration. Although usually there is little or no formal training for reviewers of scientific papers, those who participate in this process rely mainly on their professional experience and use strategies to perform evaluations that seek the production of reliable scientific knowledge. Despite the lack of payment for this activity, reviewers find their main motivation to devote hours of work to peer-review is their own personal learning. Finally, participants noted that the peer review process is poorly recognized by the academic community and seldom considered in academic evaluations.
Conclusions: Peer review is a fundamental activity in the process of scientific publication; however, it does not obtain enough recognition from the scientific and academic community. Peer reviewers are motivated primarily by the task’s inherent learning, however, it is desirable to continuously increase the quality of reviews through evaluation, feedback and recognition of reviewers and authors. It is necessary to make the actions undertaken by the publishing teams visible and thus consider editorial work in its totality.

REFERENCES

1. Schonhaut Berman L, Millán Klusse T, Podestá López L. Revisión por pares: evidencias y desafíos. Rev Chil Pediatr. 2017;88(5):577-81.

2. Sánchez Mora AM. Introducción a la comunicación escrita de la ciencia. México: Universidad Veracruzana, Dirección General Editorial; 2010.

3. Estrada L. La comunicación de la ciencia. RDU. 2014;15(3):7-11.

4. Sepúlveda-Vildósola, Ana Carolina. Tres siglos después... ¿Es vigente el arbitraje por pares en las publicaciones científicas? Inv Ed Med. 2015;4(16):236-41.

5. G. Rodríguez E. La revisión editorial por pares: rechazo del manuscrito, deficiencias del proceso de revisión, sistemas para su gestión y uso como indicador científico. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud. 2013;24(3).

6. Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer Review in Health Sciences. Londres: BMJ;1999.

7. Kitzinger J. Qualitative Research: introducing focus group. BMJ. 1995;311:299-302.

8. Stalmeijer R.E., McNaugthton N, Van Mook W N K A. Using focus groups in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 91. Medical Teacher 2014;36:923-39.

9. Hamui-Sutton A, Varela-Ruiz M. La técnica de grupos focales. Inv Ed Med. 2013;2(1):55-60.

10. Ladrón de Guevara CM, Hincapié J, Jackman J, Herrera O, Caballero CV. Revisión por pares: ¿Qué es y para qué sirve? Revista Científica Salud Uninorte. 2008;24(2):258-272.

11. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006;295(3):314-7.

12. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22475.

13. Resnik DB, Gutierrez-Ford C, Peddada S. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008;14(3):305-10.

14. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2805-8. | https://