Electronic Medical Journal reviewers´ work during 2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/mw202273Keywords:
Peer review, Health Care Peer Review, Review , Research EthicsAbstract
Introduction: peer review is the process by which a manuscript is assessed independently, subjectively and critically. Reviewers play an important role in ensuring the integrity of the academic record; they must behave responsibly and ethically, avoiding misconduct in scientific publication. The objective is to characterize the work of the reviewers of the Electronic Medical Journal during the year 2021.
Methods: a descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out, obtaining the entire universe that constitutes 1125 reviews. The data was extracted from the statistical reports generated by the Open Journal System and stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The variables used were: institutional affiliation of the reviewers from the province of Matanzas, province of non-Matanzas reviewers, country of origin of foreign reviewers, number of reviews per article and frequency of possible decisions.
Results: reviewers with institutional affiliation "University of Medical Sciences of Matanzas" predominated (73,2%), only 2,4% were from other provinces and 1,6% were foreigners. 39,2% of the papers received 2 reviews, the most common decision was “Not publishable” (23,3%) and 44,2% of all reviews were not completed.
Conclusions: in the studied sample there are problems regarding: availability of reviewers, delay and precision. The work of the referees should be recognized according to specific strategies, as an incentive to improve the response to a request and the quality of reviews.
References
1. Almeida Campos S. La revisión de artículos científicos. Revista Médica Electrónica 2022;44:1–3.
2. Sanz Valero J. La revisión por pares en revistas científicas. Med Segur Trab 2017;63:206–7.
3. Consejo COPE. Guías COPE: Guías éticas para revisores pares 2017.
4. Recomendaciones para la preparación, presentación y publicación de trabajos académicos en revistas biomédicas. 2021.
5. Equipo Editorial Revista Médica Electrónica. Instrucciones a los autores 2021.
6. Open Journal System user guide 2018.
7. Dorta Contreras A. Apología al revisor científico. Revista Cubana de Investigación En Ciencias Biomédicas 2021;40:e1309.
8. Silva Ayçaguer L. El arbitraje de las revistas médicas, la gestión editorial en red y la calidad de la publicación científica. Revista Cubana de Información En Ciencias de La Salud 2011;22:91–3.
9. Glonti A, Cauchi D, Cobo E, Butron I, Moher D, Hren D. A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMJ Open 2017;7:e017468.
10. Silva Hernández D, Martínez Trujillo N, Del Campo Peña A, Crosdale Hunt R, Lobaina Bale N, Noa Riverón I. Percepciones de expertos sobre características y habilidades que deben considerarse en la revisión de manuscritos. Rev Cub Sal Pub 2019;45:e1665.
11. Álvarez González M. El trabajo del árbitro de manuscritos. Rev Cient Arquit Urb 2022;42:3–6.
12. Dorta Contreras A. Índice del revisor para estimular la revisión externa por pares. INFODIR 2021;34.
13. Sánchez Tarragó N. Revisores del año 2019. Revista Cubana de Informacion En Ciencias de La Salud 2019;30.
14. Dorta Contreras A. Revisores 2019. Revista Cubana de Investigaciones Biomédicas 2020;39.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Santiago Almeida Campos, Mario Javier Garcés Ginarte (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
