Escuela de editores: Revisiones y decisiones iniciales de los editores de revistas científicas sobre los manuscritos recibidos

Machin-Mastromatteo, Juan-D. Escuela de editores: Revisiones y decisiones iniciales de los editores de revistas científicas sobre los manuscritos recibidos. Revista Estudios de la Información, 2024, vol. 2, n. 2, pp. 146-159. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of 4.pdf]
Preview
 Text
4.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB) | Preview

English abstract

In this article I discuss the initial reviews and decisions that editors of scientific journals must make about the manuscripts they receive. This first review mainly seeks to determine whether the manuscript is within the objectives, scope, and topics of the journal, in addition to meeting acceptable levels of quality and adhering to its standards and policies. Regarding this, I present 15 fundamental aspects that would be included in this initial review and that editors could adopt according to the needs of their journals and integrate them into their editorial policies. As a result of the initial review, if a manuscript does not comply with these fundamental aspects, it is immediately rejected, while its compliance leads to it being accepted to be submitted to the peer review process. After this, the editor will make a decision based on the evaluations and recommendations made by the reviewers, who may suggest its rejection, acceptance, or request the authors to submit a revised revision. Additionally, I present the variants that may occur in this initial review process and list some implications and recommendations for authors, which could help reduce the negative opinions they may receive.

Spanish abstract

En este artículo discuto las revisiones y decisiones iniciales que deben tomar los editores de revistas científicas sobre los manuscritos que reciben. Esta primera revisión busca principalmente determinar si el manuscrito está dentro de los objetivos, alcance y temas de la revista, además de que cumpla con niveles aceptables de calidad y se apegue a sus normas y políticas. Con respecto a esto, presento 15 aspectos fundamentales que integrarían esta revisión inicial y que los editores podrían adoptar según las necesidades de sus revistas e integrarlos a sus políticas editoriales. Como resultados de la revisión inicial, si un manuscrito no cumple con estos aspectos fundamentales, este se rechaza inmediatamente, mientras que su cumplimiento lleva a que este se acepte para ser sometido al proceso de revisión por pares. Posterior a este, el editor tomará una decisión basada en las evaluaciones y recomendaciones que hagan los revisores, que pueden sugerir su rechazo, aceptación o solicitar a los autores que presenten una nueva versión corregida. Adicionalmente, presento las variantes que pueden ocurrir en este proceso de revisión inicial y enlisto algunas implicaciones y recomendaciones para los autores, que podrían ayudar a reducir los dictámenes negativos que puedan recibir.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: editores, revistas científicas, revisión inicial, revisión por pares, decisiones editoriales, calidad científica, integridad editorial, normas editoriales, publicación científica, evaluación de manuscritos
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/10760/46947

References

AIJR Publisher. (2024). Editorial screening process. https://tinyurl.com/2keb9b6m

American Geophysical Union. (2024). Review criteria. https://tinyurl.com/ym43dw8y

Baldwin, M. (2020). Peer review. En C. J. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the history of science (pp. 1-15). Carnegie Mellon University. https://doi.org/10.34758/srde-jw27.

Berkeley Library. (2024). How to publish a scientific paper: Editorial process. https://tinyurl.com/44y5kr27

BioMed Central. (2024a). Assessing a new manuscript. https://tinyurl.com/mzjmv8v3

BioMed Central. (2024b). Peer review process: Introduction to peer review. https://tinyurl.com/2p39vyc3

British Medical Journal. (2024). Editor roles & responsibilities. https://tinyurl.com/mr22p9tm

Cormode, G. (2017). How to select peer reviewers: Advice from an expert journal editor. Editage Insights. https://tinyurl.com/4498736z

Council of Science Editors. (2024). 2.1 Editor roles and responsibilities. https://tinyurl.com/427dnf9y

Crawford, D. C. (2023). Addressing rigor in scientific studies. National Institutes of Health. https://tinyurl.com/yeystc9t

Drozdz, J. A., y Ladomery, M. R. (2024). The peer review process: past, present, and future. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 12054. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054

Editage. (2024). Decoding journal requirements: How to ensure your manuscript meets standards. https://tinyurl.com/yc3wukyr

Ellis, L. (2025). Peer review. En D. Baker y L. Ellis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of libraries, librarianship, and information science (Vol. 2, pp. 64-71). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95689-5.00228-5

Elsevier. (2015). 5 ways you can ensure your manuscript avoids the desk reject pile. https://tinyurl.com/mr2d7p8z

Elsevier. (2024a). Paper rejection: Common reasons. https://tinyurl.com/4sd25kha

Elsevier. (2024b). Plagiarism detection. https://tinyurl.com/mpf7pv4c

Elsevier. (2024c). The role of an editor. https://www.elsevier.com/editor/role

Faber, J. (2017). Writing scientific manuscripts: most common mistakes. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 22(5), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.22.5.113-117.sar

Freedman, P. (2016). 10 steps to evaluating manuscripts as a peer reviewer. Springer Nature. https://tinyurl.com/2jpe8dev

George, E. (2020). Top peer review challenges for authors and how you can solve them. Editage Insights. https://tinyurl.com/2zcesv4c

Gibson Research Consultancy. (2024). The evolution of peer review in academic research: The scientific journal’s bouncer. https://tinyurl.com/mryhe7yy

Helmenstine, A. (2023). Understanding peer review in science. Science Notes. https://tinyurl.com/yd3rber9

JF Publisher. (2024). The role of editors in the publication of scientific articles. https://tinyurl.com/yc64kya3

Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research. (2024). Initial screening by journal editors. https://tinyurl.com/yrevu6rm

Lauer, M. (2016). Scientific rigor in NIH grant applications. National Institutes of Health. https://tinyurl.com/yc23uyav

Lusher, A. D. (2015). Peer review process, editorial decisions, and manuscript resubmission: A reference for novice researchers. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 115(9), 566-569. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2015.114

Machin-Mastromatteo, J. D. (2024a). La influencia disruptiva de la inteligencia artificial en la academia y la investigación. Biblioteca Universitaria, 27(2).

Machin-Mastromatteo, J. D. (2024b). ¿Qué ganan los evaluadores si realizan una revisión por pares? Revista Estudios de la Información, 2(1), 136-145. https://doi.org/10.54167/rei.v2i1.1585

Majumder, K. (2014). Editorial decision-making: What are the possible outcomes for a manuscript? Editage Insights. https://tinyurl.com/8m3rk8jc

Manuscriptedit. (2024). Understanding the role of editors in scientific publishing. https://tinyurl.com/b2ksx2wx

Moxham, N., y Fyfe, A. (2018). The Royal Society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665-1965. The Historical Journal, 61(4), 863-889. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334

Nahlen, D., y Hancock, E. (2020). Desk decisions. Elsevier Researcher Academy. https://tinyurl.com/36xc5zc6

Pedada, S. (2023). The history of peer review: Enhance the quality of publishing. Mind the Graph by Editage. https://tinyurl.com/2chphr9j

PLOS ONE. (2024). Editorial and peer review process. https://tinyurl.com/2sp4a9sr

Public Library of Science. (2021). Editor’s tips for passing journal checks. https://tinyurl.com/2p8yzd6y

Public Library of Science. (2024a). How to read a manuscript as a peer reviewer. https://tinyurl.com/2vb9u8rb

Public Library of Science. (2024b). Understanding the publishing process. https://tinyurl.com/y8u629ba

Redwood Ink. (2024). How to choose the right journal for your manuscript. https://tinyurl.com/25k6hrfh

Rupp, D. E. (2011). Ethical issues faced by editors and reviewers. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 481-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00227.x

Sage. (2024). Selecting and inviting reviewers. https://tinyurl.com/7afytxhc

Santos, S., Olijhhoek, T., y Wojturska, R. (2024). Roles and responsibilities. The Open Access Journals Toolkit. https://tinyurl.com/3uvke3ye

Shoosmith, C. (2023). The future of peer review in the 17th Century. The Royal Society. https://tinyurl.com/2844h4h3

Springer Nature. (2024). How to submit a journal article manuscript: What do journal editors want? https://tinyurl.com/bdzr75ps

Springer. (2023a). Evaluating manuscripts. https://tinyurl.com/2s4j8ycp

Springer. (2023b). How to choose a target journal. https://tinyurl.com/5n7h4prp

Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Al-Khatib, A., Katavić, V., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2017). Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1347-1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9921-3

Wiley. (2024a). Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript. https://tinyurl.com/3e59zyj3

Wiley. (2024b). The peer review process. https://tinyurl.com/582jch95

Wills, M. (2024). The history of peer review is more interesting than you think. JSTOR Daily. https://tinyurl.com/2p8xk6dz

Wordvice. (2022). Matching your manuscript to a journal’s aim and scope. https://tinyurl.com/32pcrxe8


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