Keywords
Science evaluation
scientific and academic research
Revisión por pares
Evaluación de la ciencia
investigación científica y académica
How to Cite
Abstract
Peer review plays a crucial role in scientific and academic research. However, the different ways that have been implemented have been criticized by the international scientific community. This essay aims to identify the main questionings raised about peer review as a science assessment tool and propose alternative solutions to these discussions. The field of study from which the research was approached was science and technology evaluation studies, a qualitative methodology of exploratory and descriptive scope was applied that included the search, compilation and analysis of various sources of scientific information in English, Spanish and Portuguese languages that addressed the proposed categories. A brief overview of peer review as a science assessment tool is presented, along with a summary of the main types of peer review, as well as their advantages and disadvantages. The text addresses the questionings and biases present in the peer review system that can perpetuate existing scientific paradigms, discourage novel ideas, and reinforce systemic inequalities within academia. Although measures to address these biases have been put in place, peer review remains a human-driven process and is not entirely free of bias or limitations. A series of alternatives are proposed to improve the peer review process with the purpose of strengthening the quality and reliability of peer review, through transparency, diversity and collaboration in scientific research.
References
Abdin, A. Y., Nasim, M. J., Ney, Y., & Jacob, C. (2021). The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R). Publications, 9(1), 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications9010013
Ali, P. A., & Watson, R. (2016). Peer review and the publication process. Nursing open, 3(4), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.51
Amaral, O. B. (2022). To fix peer review, break it into stages. Nature, 611(7937), 637. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03791-5
Andrade Pereira, F., & Mugnaini, R. (2023). Mapping the use of Google Scholar in evaluative bibliometric or scientometric studies: A bibliometric review. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00231
Araiza Díaz, V., Ramírez Godoy, M. E., & Díaz Escoto, A. S. (2019). El Open Access a debate: entre el pago por publicar y la apertura radical sostenible. Investigación bibliotecológica, 33(80), 195-216. https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2019.80.58039
Arroyo-Hernández, H., Ramírez-Soto, M., Alarco, J. J., & Huarez, B. (2021). Distribución geográfica y brecha de género en la revisión por pares de una revista científica biomédica en Latinoamérica. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 32(4). https://acimed.sld.cu/index.php/acimed/article/view/1758
Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., Mans, R., Mayhew, D., McGowan, S., Polter, A., Qadri, Y. J., Sarfare, S., Schultz, K., Splittgerber, R., Stephenson, J., Tower, C., Walton, G. y Zotov, A. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 145-152. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006
Besançon, L., Rönnberg, N., Löwgren, J., Tennant, J. P., & Cooper, M. (2020). Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(8), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z
Bhaumik, S. (2021). The challenges of peer-review process. International Journal of Applied Research, 7(1), 44-46. https://doi.org/10.22271/allresearch.2021.v7.i1a.8149
Camacho Rodríguez, F. (2022). Un reto para las publicaciones científicas: incluir a otros actores en el proceso de la revisión por pares. Mayéutica Revista Científica de Humanidades y Artes, 11(1), 3-4. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7410321
Canto, F. L., Pinto, A. L., Gavron, E. M., & Talau, M. (2022). Latin American and Caribbean journals indexed in Google Scholar Metrics. Scientometrics, 127, 763-783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04237-x
Castellanos, G. R. R., & González, A. I. S. (2019). Ética de la revisión por pares en publicaciones científicas. Revista Médica Electrónica, 41(6). https://bit.ly/43zqNai
Cubero, A. R. (2020). Sesgos cognitivos en la ciencia. Revista Española de Física, 34(2), 18-22. https://bit.ly/44IGKvM
Dadkhah, M., Kahani, M. & Borchardt, G. (2018). A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1603-1610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9960-9
el-Guebaly, N., Foster, J., Bahji, A., & Hellman, M. (2023). The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 40(1), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221092862
Faraldo Cabana, P. (2019). Consecuencias imprevistas de la dominación anglófona en las ciencias sociales y jurídicas. Revista Española de Sociología, 28(1), 45-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2018.57
Fox, C. W., Meyer, J., & Aimé, E. (2023). Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 37(5), 1144-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14259
García Costa, D. (2022). Métodos para la caracterización del sistema de revisión por pares de artículos científicos [Tesis de Doctorado, Universitat de València]. Repositorio Institucional Universitat de València. https://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/84703
Gérvas, J., & Pérez Fernández, M. (2001). La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas. Atención Primaria, 6, 432-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0212-6567(01)78827-0
Gisbert, J. P., & Chaparro, M. (2023). Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos. Gastroenterología y Hepatología, 46(3), 215-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2022.03.005
Gonzalez, P., Wilson, G. S., & Purvis, A. J. (2022). Peer review in academic publishing: Challenges in achieving the gold standard. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19(5). https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol19/iss5/01
Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Mendoza, A., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2021). Comparative Analysis of the Bibliographic Data Sources Dimensions and Scopus: An Approach at the Country and Institutional Levels. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5, 593494. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.593494
Hall, R. P. (2021). JID Innovations and Peer Review. JID Innovations, 1(3), 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjidi.2021.100056
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2021). Is peer review a good idea?. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635-663. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029
Henriques, S. O., Waltman, L., Pinfield, S., & Rzayeva, N. (2021). Scholarly Publishing and Peer-review in Times of Crisis: An Overview. QScience Proceedings, 2022(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.5339/qproc.2022.ehil2021.7
Invernizzi, N., & Davyt, A. (2019). Críticas recientes a la evaluación de la investigación: ¿vino nuevo en odres viejos?. Redes, 25(49), 233-252. https://bit.ly/3JU9xFJ
King, E. B., Avery, D. R., Hebl, M. R., & Cortina, J. M. (2018). Systematic subjectivity: How subtle biases infect the scholarship review process. Journal of Management, 44(3), 843-853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317743553
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., Eun Woo, S., & Gulick, L. M. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.121
Kolarz, P., Vingre, A., Vinnik, A., Neto, A., Vergara, C., Obando Rodriguez, C., Nielsen, K., & Sutinen, L. (2023). Review of Peer Review: Final report. Technopolis-group. https://bit.ly/3OkLIcJ
Kuo, C. L. (2022). Peer Review for Academic Research. Archives of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 6(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.24983/scitemed.aohns.2022.00155
Martínez, J. M. (2019). La transformación de la publicación científica. Anales de la Real Academia Nacional de Medicina, 136, 49-53. https://doi.org/10.32440/ar.2019.136.01.rev09
Martínez-Saucedo, M., Téllez-Camacho, S., Aquino-Jarquín, G., Sánchez-Urbina, R., & Granados-Riverón, J. T. (2020). La revisión por pares pospublicación: otro control de calidad del registro científico en biomedicina. Gaceta Médica de México, 156, 533-536. https://doi.org/10.24875/gmm.20000078
Mavrogenis, A. F., & Scarlat, M. M. (2023). Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics. International Orthopaedics (SICOT), 47, 605-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05715-y
Morales-Castillo, J. D., Fortoul, T. I., & Sánchez Mendiola, M. (2020). La revisión por pares: análisis cualitativo de la experiencia de un grupo de revisores latinoamericanos. Investigación en educación médica, 9(35), 49-56. https://doi.org/10.22201/facmed.20075057e.2020.35.20235
Neupane, B., Batthyány, K., Vommaro, P., Beigel, F., Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A., Macedo-García, A., Rovelli, L., & Babini, D. (eds). (2022). Consulta regional sobre la revisión por pares y la evaluación de la investigación en un contexto de ciencia abierta: el caso de América Latina y el Caribe. UNESCO-CLACSO/FOLEC-REDALYC.
O’Sullivan, L., Ma, L., & Doran, P. (2021). An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.26
Peterson Lu, E., Fischer, B. G., Plesac, M. A., & Olson, A. P. J. (2022). Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review. Hospital Pediatrics, 12(11), e409-e413. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2022-006764
Ramasamy, A. (2021). Is Peer Review a Hindrance to Good Science or a Gatekeeper Against Bad Science? Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 79(4), 745-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.11.033
Retraction Watch. (2023). Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process. https://retractionwatch.com/2023/
Riding, J. B. (2023) An evaluation of the process of peer review. Palynology, 47, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/01916122.2022.2151052
Rodríguez-Venegas, E. C., & Fontaine-Ortiz, J. E. (2021). Principales polémicas de la revisión por pares. Revista Cubana de Investigaciones Biomédicas, 40(2), e1102. https://bit.ly/43DHSj7
Sandoval Romero, V. (2020). Origen y desarrollo de la evaluación científica. Alcances y límites de su aplicación en las ciencias sociales. Revista de la educación superior, 49(194), 27-45. http://ri.ibero.mx/handle/ibero/3313
Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving Science. The New Atlantis, 49, 5-40. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science
Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
Sun, M., Barry Danfa, J., & Teplitskiy, M. (2022). Does double‐blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(6), 811-819. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24582
Tang, B. L., & Yeo-Teh, N. S. L. (2023). Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(24). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2019). Challenges to open peer review. Online Information Review, 43(2), 197-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2018-0139
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research integrity and peer review, 5(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
Tight, M. (2022). Is Peer Review Fit for Purpose?. In E. Forsberg, L. Geschwind, S. Levander & W. Wermke (Eds.), Peer review in an Era of Evaluation (pp. 223-242). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75263-7_10
Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12708-12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
Travis, J. L., & Steven, T. B. (2021). The evolving ethics of analysis, publication, and transparency in applied economics. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, 43(4), 1330-1351. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13131
Visser, M., van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
Zhao, K. (2021). Sample representation in the social sciences. Synthese, 198(10), 9097-9115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02621-3
Comments
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Roelvis Ortiz Núñez