Open peer review: otro paso hacia la ciencia abierta por parte de las revistas científicas

Palabras clave: Revisión abierta, Open peer review, Ciencia abierta, Revistas científicas, Estudio de caso, MDPI, SciELO, BioMed Central, PeerJ.

Resumen

Se analiza la aplicación del modelo abierto a la revisión de originales (open peer review) con el fin de mostrar las oportunidades que presenta su utilización por parte de las revistas. Se describen las características y tipos de revisión abierta existentes, las ventajas e inconvenientes de la aplicación de este modelo a las revistas, la valoración que hacen los agentes implicados en el proceso (autores, revisores y editores) y, finalmente, se valoran algunas experiencias de buenas prácticas que sirven para complementar el marco teórico. 

Citas

Bernal, Isabel; Román-Molina, Juan (2018). Informe de la encuesta sobre la evaluación por pares y el módulo ‘open peer review’ del repositorio Digital-CSIC. http://hdl.handle.net/10261/167425

BMJ (2020). “Open peer review”. BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/publishing-model

Burley, Rachel (2017). “Lessons learned from open peer review: A publisher’s perspective”. SpringBoard blog, 23 December. https://www.springernature.com/gp/advancing-discovery/blog/blogposts/lessons-learned-from-open-peer-review--a-publisher-s-perspective/16123780

DeCoursey, Thomas (2006). “Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review”. Nature blogs: Peer-to-Peer. Peer review blog, 14 June. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2006/06/perspective_the_pros_and_cons.html

Garcia, Joana C. R.; Targino, Maria-das-Graças (2017) “Open peer review sob a ótica de editores das revistas brasileiras da ciência da informação”. Em: XVIII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação, Enancib. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11959/brapci/104007

Groves, Trish (2010). “Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes”. BMJ, n. 341, c6424. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6424

Groves, Trish; Loder, Elizabeth (2014). “Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ”. BMJ, n. 349, g5394. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5394

Hopewell, Sally; Collins, Gary S.; Boutron, Isabelle; Yu, Ly-Mee; Cook, Jonathan; Shanyinde, Milensu; Wharton, Rose; Shamseer, Larissa; Altman, Douglas G. (2014). “Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: Retrospective before and after study”. BMJ, n. 349, g4145. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4145

Khan, Karim (2010). “Is open peer review the fairest system? No”, BMJ, n. 341, c6425. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6425

Mendonça, A. (2020). “Pesquisa avaliação por pares aberta”. [Correo electrónico].

PeerJ (2014). “Who’s afraid of open peer review?” PeerJblog, 23 May. https://peerj.com/blog/post/100580518238/whos-afraid-of-open-peer-review

PeerJ (2020). PeerJ = Open. Transparency, trust, and quality. https://peerj.com/benefits/review-history-and-peer-review/

Publishing Research Consortium (2016). Peer review survey 2015. Mark Ware Consulting. http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/57-prc-peer-review-survey-2015

Rittman, Martyn (2018). “Opening up peer review”. MDPI blog, 12 October. https://blog.mdpi.com/2018/10/12/opening-up-peer-review/

Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017). “What is open peer review? A systematic review”. F1000Research, n. 6, n. 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Deppe, Arvid; Schmidt, Birgit (2017) “Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers”. PLoS one, v. 12, n. 12, e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311

Schmidt, Birgit; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Van-Edig, Xenia; Moylan, Elizabeth C. (2018). “Ten considerations for open peer review”. F1000Research, v. 7, n. 969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1

SciELO (2018). Linhas prioritárias de ação 2019-2023. SciELO 20 Anos. https://www.scielo20.org/redescielo/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/09/Líneas-prioritaris-de-acción-2019-2023_pt.pdf

Segado-Boj, Francisco; Martín-Quevedo, Juan; Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan-José (2017). “Percepción de las revistas científicas españolas hacia el acceso abierto, open peer review y altmetrics”. Ibersid, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 27-32. https://www.ibersid.eu/ojs/index.php/ibersid/article/view/4407

Segado-Boj, Francisco; Martín-Quevedo, Juan; Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan José (2018). “Attitudes toward open access, open peer review, and altmetrics among contributors to Spanish scholarly journals”. Journal of scholarly publishing, v. 50, n. 1, p. 48-70. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/707432

Seppänen, Janne-Tuomas (2016). “Peerage of science: the inspiration, aims and future developments”. BMC: Blog Network. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2016/06/16/peerage-science-inspiration-aims-future-developments/

Spinak, Ernesto (2018). “Sobre las veintidós definiciones de la revisión abierta por pares… y más”. SciELO en perspectiva, 28 febrero. http://blog.scielo.org/es/2018/02/28/sobre-las-veintidos-definiciones-de-la-revision-abierta-por-pares-y-mas/

Targino, Maria-das-Graças; Garcia, Joana C. R.; Da-Silva, Kleisson L. N. (2019). “Evaluadores del área de la ciência de la información frente al open peer review”. Revista interamericana de bibliotecología, v. 43, n. 1. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3

Taylor & Francis (2015). Peer review in 2015: a global view. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-global-view

Transpose (2020). TRANsparency in scholarly publishing for open scholarship evolution. https://transpose-publishing.github.io/#/

Wang, Peiling; You, Sukjin; Manasa, Rath; Wolfram, Dietmar (2017). “Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of PeerJ authors and reviewers”. Journal of data and information science, v. 1, n. 4, pp. 60-80. https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625

Publicado
2020-04-10
Sección
E. Comunicación científica, edición y fuentes de información