Editorial: Peer review and the reviewer’s role – principles and alignments to an effective review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v3i2.70Keywords:
Editorial, peer review, reviewer, review, evaluation.Abstract
Continuing with the analysis of the phases and roles of the scientific editorial process’ actors, this editorial intends to explore the fundamental characteristics of "peer review" and, consequently, of the reviewer in the production of knowledge in scientific journals. Thus, it is intended to analyze the position and role of the reviewer in the scientific editorial process, in order to establish certain important premises for his work and to indicate some guidelines to encourage the improvement of the evaluations. Aiming that purpose, a specific bibliographic reference will be used, grounded on empirical research whenever possible, as well as perceptions of experience as author, reviewer and editor. In this sense, the paper will be structured in three parts: (I) definition and characteristics of peer review; (II) premises of the reviewer’s performance; and, (III) guidelines for consistent review.
Downloads
References
ALI, P.; WATSON, R. Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open, vol. 3, n. 4, p. 193-202, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.51
ARAÚJO, Claudio G. S. Revisão por pares: um processo científico em constante aprimoramento. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, São Paulo, v. 98, n. 2, p. e32-e35, fev. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0066-782X2012000200017
BAILEY, Charles; HAIR, Joe; HERMANSON, Dana; CRITTENDEN, Victoria. Marketing Academics' Perceptions of the Peer Review Process. Marketing Education Review, vol. 22, n. 3, p. 263-278, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008220306
BEDEIAN, Arthur. The manuscript review process: the proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 12, n. 4, p. 331-338, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492603258974
BIGGS, Mary. The impact of peer review on intellectual freedom. Library Trends, vol. 39, n. 1-2, p. 145-167, 1990.
CAMPANARIO, Juan Miguel. Have Referees Rejected Some of the Most-Cited Articles of All Times? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 47, n. 4, p. 302-310, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:4<302::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-0
CAMPANARIO, Juan Miguel. Peer review for journals as it stands today – part 1. Science Communication, vol. 19, n. 3, p. 181-211, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547098019003002
CAPPARELLI, Bruna. Editorial: Sobre a exigência de um método de escrita de artigos científicos e de estudo do Direito Processual Penal. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, Porto Alegre, vol. 3, n. 1, p. 19-27, jan./abr. 2017. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v3i1.37
COMMONER, Barry. Peering at Peer Review. Hospital Practice, vol. 13, n. 11, p. 25-29, 1978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1978.11707427
CORONEL, Ruben; OPTHOF, Tobias. The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovascular Research, vol. 43, n. 2, p. 261-264, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00177-7
DESLANDES, Suely F.; SILVA, Antônio A. M. Revisão por pares: crise de demanda ou mudança de valores?. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 29, n. 3, p. 421-423, mar. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2013000300001
FERREIRA, Manuel A. Como rever um artigo: o papel do revisor e um roteiro para novos revisores (comentário editorial). Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia, São Paulo, v. 13, n. 2, p. 1-9, abr./jun. 2014. https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v13i2.2110
FERREIRA, Manuel A.; CANELA, Renata; PINTO, Cláudia F. O processo editorial nos periódicos e sugestões para a publicação. Revista de Gestão e Secretariado, São Paulo, v. 5, n. 2, p. 01-22, mai./ago. 2014. https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v5i2.307
FERREIRA, Manuel A.; PINTO, Cláudia F.; BELFORT, Ana C. O que é uma boa revisão de artigo em Administração? Revista Eletrônica de Estratégia & Negócios, v. 9, n. 2, p. 87-105, mai./ago. 2016. https://doi.org/10.19177/reen.v9e2201686-104
FISKE, Donald; FOGG, Louis. But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, vol. 45, n. 5, p. 591-598, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.45.5.591
GOODMAN, Steven; BERLIN Jesse; FLETCHER Suzanne; FLETCHER Robert. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 121, p. 11-21, 1994. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003
HAACK, Susan. La evaluación por pares y la publicación: lecciones para abogados. DOXA – Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, vol. 38, p. 15-40, 2015. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2015.38.01
HAMES, Irene. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Malden: Blackwell, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470750803
HEDDLE, Nancy; NESS, Paul. Reviewing manuscripts: tips and responsibilities. Transfusion, vol. 49, p. 2265-2268, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02390.x
HOLLAND, Karen. Being a Journal Reviewer: Good Practice in Reviewing. In: HOLLAND, Karen; WATSON, Roger (eds.). Writing for Publication in Nursing and Healthcare. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
HOPPIN JR., Frederic. How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 166, n. 8, p. 1019-1023, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200204-324oe
JENAL, S.; VITURI, D.; EZAÍAS, G.; SILVA, L.; CALIRI, M. O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura. Acta paulista de enfermagem, São Paulo, v. 25, n. 5, p. 802-808, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002012000500024
LABAND, David; PIETTE, Michael. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA, vol. 272, n. 2, p. 147-149, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020073020
LARSON, Bradley; CHUNG, Kevin. A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts. HAND, vol. 7, p. 37-44, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-012-9392-6
LEBLECICI, Huseyin. The act of reviewing and being a reviewer. In: FROST; TAYLOR (Eds.). Rhythms of academic life. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996. p. 269-274. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231570.n27
LEE, Samuel S. How to be a great reviewer: an editor’s view. Liver International, vol. 28, n. 2, p. 158-159, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2007.01656.x
LEOPOLD, Seth. Editorial: Peer Review and the Editorial Process – A Look Behind the Curtain. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 473, n. 1, p. 1–3, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4031-x
LEUNG, Daniel; LAW, Rob; KUCUKUSTA, Deniz; GUILLET, Basak D. How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world's excellent reviewers. Tourism Management Perspectives, vol. 10, p. 46–56, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.003
LOCK, Stephen. A difficult balance. Editorial peer review in medicine. London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1985.
LUSHER, Audrey. Peer Review Process, Editorial Decisions, and Manuscript Resubmission: a reference for novice researchers. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, vol. 115, n. 9, p. 566-569, 2015. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2015.114
MARTÍNEZ, Gladys. La revisión por pares y la selección de artículos para publicación. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, vol. 21, n. 1, p. 27-35, jan.-jun. 2012.
PLATA-CAVIDES, Tatiana; CÓRDOBA-SALGADO, Oscar A.; TRZESNIAK, Piotr. Dictámenes en Revistas Científicas: lo que Necesitan los Editores y Autores, lo que Hacen los Evaluadores. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, vol. 21, n. 1, p. 37-55, jan.-jun. 2012.
PROVENZALE, James; STANLEY, Robert. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 185, p. 848-854, 2005. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0782
RAJPERT-DE MEYTS, E.; LOSITO, S.; CARRELL, D. Rewarding peer-review work: the Publons initiative. Andrology, vol. 4, p. 985–986, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12301
ROBERTS, Laura; COVERDALE, John; EDENHARDER, Kristin; LOUIE, Alan. How to Review a Manuscript: A "Down-to-Earth" Approach. Academic Psychiatry, vol. 28, n. 2, p. 81-87, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.28.2.81
ROSENFELD, Richard. How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 142, p. 472-486, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.010
SHATTELL, M.M.; CHINN, P.; THOMAS, S.; COWLING, W. Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol. 42, n. 1, p. 58-65, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x
SHIGAKI, Helena; PATRUS, Roberto. Revisão por pares e produtivismo acadêmico sob a ótica de avaliadores de artigos de periódicos em Administração. Revista Brasileira de Pós-graduação, Brasília, v.13, n. 31, p. 399-428, mai./ago. 2016. https://doi.org/10.21713/2358-2332.2016.v13.960
SILVA, Cláudio N.; MOREIRO-GONZALEZ, José A; MUELLER, Suzana P. M. A revisão por pares a partir da percepção dos editores: um estudo comparativo em revistas brasileiras, espanholas e mexicanas. Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, Campinas, SP, v. 14, n. 1, p. 126-143, fev. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v14i1.8640579
SILVEIRA, Vladmir O.; SANCHES, Samyra H. F. N. Periódicos na área do Direito: o desafio da superação da cultura dos livros. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da UERJ, Rio de Janeiro, n. 30, p. 157-172, dez. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.12957/rfd.2016.17961
SMITH, David R. Will Publons Popularize the Scientific Peer-Review Process? BioScience, vol. 66, n. 4, p. 265-266, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw010
SNELL, Linda; SPENCER, John. Reviewers’ perceptions of peer review process for a medical journal. Medical Education, vol. 39, p. 90-97, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x
SOLOMON, David. The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. Journal of Electronic Publishing, vol. 1, n. 1, p. 1-5, jan. 2007. https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.107
SPYNS, Peter; VIDAL, María-Esther. Scientific Peer Reviewing: Pratical hints and best practices. Heidelberg: Springer, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25084-7
TRZESNIAK, Piotr. A estrutura editorial de um periódico científico. In: SABADINI; SAMPAIO; KOLLER (Orgs.). Publicar em psicologia: um enfoque para a revista científica. São Paulo: ABECiPsi, 2009. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2810.6965
VASCONCELLOS, Vinicius G. Editorial: a função do periódico científico e do editor para a produção do conhecimento no Direito e nas ciências criminais. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, Porto Alegre, vol. 3, n. 1, p. 9-17, jan./abr. 2017. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v3i1.34
WARE, Mark. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London: Publishing Research Consortium, 2009. Disponível em: <http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/35-prc-summary-4-ware-final-1/file>. Acesso em: 28 mar. 2017.
WARE, Mark. Peer review survey 2015. London: Publishing Research Consortium, 2016. Disponível em: <http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-documents/prc-research-projects/57-prc-peer-review-survey-2015/file>. Acesso em: 28 mar. 2017.
WERLANG, Elisabete. Revisão por pares: um estudo da gestão de avaliadores nas revistas científicas brasileiras. 2013. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência da Informação) – Centro de Ciências da Educação, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. https://doi.org/10.5007/31452
WICHERTS Jelte M. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLOS ONE, vol. 11, n. 1, p. 1-19, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913
WINCK, J.C.; WEDZICHA, J.A.; FONSECA, J.A.; AZEVEDO, L.F. To publish or perish: how to review a manuscript. Revista Portuguesa de Pneumología, vol. 17, n. 2, p. 96-103, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2173-5115(11)70022-7
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
How to Cite
