How do editorial processes work in Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología? An article of dynamic questions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2023213Abstract
Open peer review
Open peer review (OPR) is a scientific-article-quality-evaluating process carried out by experts on the area of the article, the identity of the reviewers being public. This means that both the author and the reader can see who have reviewed the paper as well as their comments and suggestions.(1,2)
OPR provides more transparency in the peer review process as it allows authors and readers to see who have participated in the process and how they have influenced the paper. It can also help to avoid partiality and bias while reviewing.(1,2)
Post-publication peer review
Post-publication peer review (PPPR) is a scientific-article-quality-evaluating process carried out by experts on the area of the article after it has been published. Its goal is to guarantee that the scientific paper is both strict and high-quality and ethically and transparently carried out.(3,4)
PPPR is carried out in a similar way to the peer review conducted prior to publication, in which experts evaluate and give their opinion about the quality and contribution to scientific knowledge of the respective manuscript.
However, unlike the review prior to publication, the goal of PPPR is not to decide whether a paper should be published or not but to provide feedback and improvements to the already published paper.(3,4)
Due to the above, PPPR has increasingly gained more relevance in the last years because of the need to guarantee quality and integrity of scientific knowledge.
Previous editorial review makes it possible to evaluate some basic elements of the formal aspects of the article, the reality is that peer review is the one that makes it possible to guarantee the quality of publications (though it is not infallible). Since a rather large number of articles are published and then corrigenda or retractations are made for any reason, post-publication peer review leaves open the possibility of correcting and “reopening” the review process at any time as well as having as many review rounds as needed either close to the moment of sending or after its acceptation. This element is not possible in other kinds of review where, once the article is accepted, no further evaluations are made
References
1. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res 2017;6:588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.
2. Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X, Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Res 2018;7:969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1.
3. Hunter J. Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 2012;6:63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063.
4. Kriegeskorte N. Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 2012;6:79. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00079.
5. Elsevier. Role of a reviewer. Elsevier BV 2; 2022. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/role.
6. Allen L, O’Connell A, Kiermer V. How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learn Publ 2019;32:71-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Adrián Alejandro Rojas Concepción, Patricia Alonso Galbán, Mabel Cecilia Bonardi, Javier Gonzalez-Argote, Felipe Machuca-Contreras, Carlos Oscar Lepez, Carlos Canova Barrios, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano, Adrián Alejandro Vitón-Castillo, William Castillo-González (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.
