The key: the reviewers

The review and the reviewer in context. A research journal is a system of validation and diffusion of scientific information, the last link in the research process. In the 2.0 era., where with Internet authors can make their own diffusion and therefore the diffusion is shared, the accreditation of the results is the main existential argument of scientific journals. Indeed, the dimension that greater consumption of resources human has inside the magazine is that relative to the evaluation processes. Also it is necessary to highlight that they are external resources, because the greater part of reviewers do not keep any relationship with the magazine. Therefore, after the authors, the reviewers are the guarantors of the quality of the articles and in addition of the magazine.

The reviewer, in short, works for the publisher and for the authors. In general words we can say that the tasks of the reviewer are:

  • To prevent the publication of erroneous works.
  • To improve the quality and readability of the publications in pursuit of scientific excellence, acting as an author in the shade.
  • To contribute to the editor evidences regarding the quality of the work and its importance in the community, in order that it may decide with criterion the future of the manuscript.

It is important to highlight that the reviewer has no direct power over the publication or refusal of the manuscript; he or she is limited to make a report to the editor of the journal. A good magazine is characterized by the presence and use of good reviewers, as at least of the same scientific level of the works that evaluates. A reviewer should be highlighted by:

  • Being an active researcher working with a recognized scientific production.
  • Being updated, this has knowledge of the classical works of the area, as well as of the most recent.
  • Knowing of the methodologies used in the area and the formal aspects of Scientific Communication.
  • Proactivity, people with time and ability to commit.
  • Reviewers who declare, if any, conflicts of interest.

Virginia Gewin, in an article from 2011, explained that the ideal researcher is the one with a recent doctorate. The ability and need to engage with the magazine highlighted on other profiles and, in addition, has just overcome a process in which has demonstrated deep practical theoretical knowledge in a discipline, so it is supposed a great update.

Gewin, V. (2011). Rookie review. Nature, 478(7368), 275-277.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Sin categoría. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s