Scientific writing and referee professional training
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Several researchers refer the determining function of the scientific writing in the reflexive construction of knowledge (Chun et al. 2022). The scientific writing, as being a complex process because its style and impact of the results (Lu et al. 2019, Chen et al. 2020 and Ante 2022), require clarity and precision in the information, abilities that with frequency are loss when it is not answer to the research question during the writing process (Simón et al. 2020). In consequence, in the scientific field, the feasible, the ethical, the interest, the discoveries and the relevance as criteria to be measure, influence on the decisions of accepting or rejected a paper which is subjected to a checking process for their publication. From this perspective, the referee represents one of the attention centers due to the decision they emit in the publishing process, whose responsibility is to keep the quality and integrity of the scientific literature (Grimaldo et al. 2018 and Libby et al. 2022).
Article Details
Those authors that have publications with this journal accept the following terms:
1. They will retain their copyright and guarantee the journal the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) that allows third parties to share the work whenever its author is indicated and its first publication this journal. Under this license the author will be free of:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
2. The authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements to distribute the published version of the work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematics file or publish it in a monographic volume) whenever the initial publication is indicated in this journal.
3. The authors are allowed and recommended disseminating their work through the Internet (e.g. in institutional telematics archives or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase the citations of the published work. (See the Effect of open access).
References
Ante, L. 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses". Journal of Informetrics, 16(1): 101252, ISSN: 1875-5879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101252.
Bianchi, F., Grimaldo, F., Bravo, G. & Squazzoni, F. 2018. "The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures". Scientometrics, 116(3): 1401-1420, ISSN: 1588-2861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2825-4.
Cushman, M. 2023. "How I respond to peer reviewer comments". Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 7(2): 1-3, ISSN: 2475-0379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2023.100120.
Chen, B., Deng, D., Zhong, Z. & Zhang, C. 2020. “Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles”. Scientometrics, 122(3): 1769-1790, ISSN: 1588-2861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03361-4.
Chun, C.L., Li, C.C., Chin, Y.H., Ching, C.Su. & Ya, L.H. 2022. “Exploring the experience of reflective writing among Taiwanese undergraduate nursing students: A qualitative study”. Journal of Professional Nursing, 40: 105-110, ISSN: 1532-8481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.03.007.
Edwards, M.A. & Siddhartha, R. 2017. “Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition”. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1): 51-61, ISSN: 1092-8758. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
Ellwanger, J.E. & Bogo, C.J.A. 2020. “We need to talk about peer-review – experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation”. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 125: 201-205, ISSN: 1878-5921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.001.
Grimaldo, F., Marušić, A. & Squazzoni, F. 2018. “Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969–2015)”. PLoS One, 13(2): 1-14, ISSN: 1932-6203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193148.
King, E.B., Avery, D.R., Helb, M. R. & Cortina, J. M. 2018. “Systematic subjectivity: How subtle biases infect the scholarship review process”. Journal of Management, 44(3): 843-853, ISSN: 1557-1211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317743553.
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P. & Trinquart, L. 2016. “The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise”. PLoS One, 11(11): e0166387, ISSN: 1932-6203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387.
Libby, W.M., Sundland, R., Adams, A.M., Faria, I., Feldman, H.A., Gudmundsdottir, H., Marmor, H., Miles, V., Ochoa, V., Ruff, S.M., Tonelli, C., Altieri, M.S., Cannada, L., Dewan, K., Etkin, Y., Marmor, R., Plichta, J.K., Reyna, C., Tatebe., L., Drudi, L.M., Hicks, C.W. 2022. “The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer”. Seminars in Vascular Surgery, 35(4): 470-478, ISSN: 1558-4518. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002.
Lu, C., Bu, Y., Dong, X., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R., Logan, P. & Zhang, C. 2019. “Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact”. Journal of Informetrics, 13(3): 817-829, ISSN: 1875-5879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.004.
Macdonald, S. 2015. “Emperor’s new clothes. The reinvention of peer review as myth”. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3): 264-279, ISSN: 1552-6542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614554773.
Righi, S. & Takács, K. 2017. “The miracle of peer review and development in science: An agent-based model”. Scientometrics, 113(1): 587-607, ISSN: 1588-2861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2244-y.
Simón, E.L., Osei, A.M., Wachirad, B.W. & KwanGetting, J.K. 2020. “Getting accepted – Successful writing for scientific publication: a Research Primer for low- and middle-income countries”. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10(2): 154-157, ISSN: 2211-4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2020.06.006.
Sobkowicz, P. 2015. “Innovation suppression and clique evolution in peer-review-based, competitive research funding systems: An agent-based model”. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2): 13, ISSN: 1460-7425. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/2/13.html.
Teele, D.L. & Thelen, K. 2017. “Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science”. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2): 433-447, ISSN: 1537-5935. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002985.
Teplitskiy, M., Acuna, D., Elamrani, R.A., Körding, K. & Evans, J. 2018. “The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review”. Research Policy, 47(9): 1825-1841, ISSN: 1873-7625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.014.