Escuela de editores: ¿Qué ganan los evaluadores si realizan una revisión por pares?

Machin-Mastromatteo, Juan-D. Escuela de editores: ¿Qué ganan los evaluadores si realizan una revisión por pares? Revista Estudios de la Información, 2024, vol. 2, n. 1, pp. 136-145. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of 3.pdf]
Preview
 Text
3.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (847kB) | Preview

English abstract

Starting from the question: What do evaluators gain if they conduct a peer review? This article begins by explaining the relevance of this process for scientific publishing, describing its importance and associated challenges, which allow establishing that this editorial process is in crisis for various reasons, mainly because of the level of specialization it requires, the conditions that a reviewer should ideally meet, and the lack of experts available and willing to carry out this work, which is usually voluntary. From this context, the answer to this question is presented under three sections related to the possible remuneration and compensation modalities that may exist for researchers who carry out such activity, which can represent some attractive rewards and encourage conducting reviews, but are not exempt from debates and controversies that must be carefully considered journal editors: 1) moral recognition and personal enrichment; 2) remuneration in kind; and 3) the strange case of paying for peer reviews.

Spanish abstract

A partir de la pregunta: qué ganan los evaluadores si realizan una revisión por pares, este artículo inicia dando cuenta de la relevancia de este proceso en la publicación científica, describiendo su importancia y los retos asociados, estableciendo que este proceso editorial se encuentra en crisis por diversas razones, principalmente relacionadas con el nivel de especialización que implica, las condiciones que idealmente debe cumplir un revisor y la falta de expertos disponibles y dispuestos a realizar esta labor, usualmente voluntaria. A partir de este contexto, se procede a presentar la respuesta a tal pregunta bajo tres apartados relacionados con las posibles retribuciones y compensaciones que pueden existir para los investigadores que realicen tal actividad, las cuales pueden representar algunas recompensas atractivas y fomentar la realización de la revisión por pares, pero que no están exentas de debates y controversias, que deben ser considerados cuidadosamente por los editores de revistas científicas: 1) reconocimientos morales y de enriquecimiento personal; 2) retribuciones en especie; y 3) el extraño caso del pago por la revisión por pares.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: revistas científicas, artículos científicos, revisión por pares, evaluación, retribución, ecosistema de publicación científica, modelos de publicación, ética, integridad
Subjects: E. Publishing and legal issues.
H. Information sources, supports, channels.
Depositing user: Dr. Juan-D. Machin-Mastromatteo
Date deposited: 23 Jul 2025 09:02
Last modified: 23 Jul 2025 09:02
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/46946

References

Agredo-Machin, D., Romo-González, J. R., Machin-Mastromatteo, J. D., y González-Quiñones, F. (2022). Personality traits as drivers of the scientific production: Information, scientific and academic literacies implications. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1533, 290-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99885-1_25

Cabanac, G. [@gcabanac]. (17 de marzo de 2024). #ChatGPT “regenerate response” fingerprint in reviewers' reports: I found some in @MDPIOpenAccess journals, e.g., https://pubpeer.com/publications/E6F750F5DE06F5C90B0455E1AB4563 and https://pubpeer.com/publications/BA15B2C19EFBD3694FB87FBA095AAC. It seems that fancy adjectives are good predictors, too... Is peer review doomed? https://x.com/mishateplitskiy/status/1769433162122232127 [Tweet]. X. https://bit.ly/3xqIMFY

Ease. (2018). Taylor & Francis to pay reviewers in fast track publishing service. https://bit.ly/3XGT6nQ

Elsevier. (2024). Reviewer Hub. https://reviewerhub.elsevier.com

Liang, W., Izzo, Z., Zhang, Y., Lepp, H., Cao, H., Zhao, X., Chen, L., Ye, H., Liu, S., Huang, Z., McFarland, D. A., y Zou, J. Y. (2024). Monitoring AI-modified content at scale: A case study on the impact of ChatGPT on AI conference peer reviews. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.07183

Machin-Mastromatteo, J. D. (2023). Implicaciones y políticas editoriales de la inteligencia artificial. Revista Estudios de la Información, 1(2), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.54167/rei.v1i2.1448

Meadows, A. (2019). Let’s add peer review information to ORCID records. https://bit.ly/3RLoPk2

Open Researcher and Contributor ID. (s.f.). Peer reviews. https://bit.ly/3zsk7Bc

Publishing with Integrity. [@fake_journals]. (11 de enero de 2022). Hi @NatureNeuro, not your interest in #OpenScience. Could you participate in our one click survey that asks whether reviewers should be paid given the new Accelerated Publication route that has been introduced by @tandfonline. Would also appreciate a RT. https://buff.ly/3f5SdOa [Tweet]. X. https://bit.ly/4ctOplw

Publons. (2018). 2018 Global state of peer review. https://bit.ly/3zisI9D

Singh Chawla, D. (2024). Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use. Nature, 628(8008), 483–484. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01051-2

Stoop, J. (2020). Introducing Reviewer Hub. https://bit.ly/4eCBHmn

Taylor & Francis. (2022). Accelerated Publication clarification. https://bit.ly/3RMfKY5

Taylor & Francis. (2024). Accelerated Publication. https://bit.ly/3L7rEYJ

Vines, T., y Mudditt, A. (2021). What’s wrong with paying for peer review? The Scholarly Kitchen. https://bit.ly/3xxV0fY


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS