A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process

A List of Research Problems Encountered in the Peer Review Process

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Alberto Un Jan Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima, Perú
Vilma A. Contreras Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima, Perú
Abstract
This study presents problems related to the peer review of research articles; some problems have been observed by the authors, and other problems have been studied in previous researches. The objective is to identify and classify the problems, and therefore suggest future researches that can be initiated in the field of peer review by authors that continue our research. The process of reviewing research articles has been investigated and modeled in previous published researches. Based on the experience of the authors as peer reviewers, recommendations have been searched on how to do a review process. Next, based on interviews to colleagues who work at the university and had to do article review, the authors have found problems related to the peer review process. From previous researches, problems are identified and described; some of the problems found in previous researches match the problems found in the interviews. As a result, a list of problems related to the peer review process and to the peer reviewer profile is presented. In conclusion, problems related to the peer review process and to the peer reviewer profile exist that have not been studied yet. The relationship among the various problems encountered has not been modeled yet. This research presents a list of problems that will conduct to future studies about peer review.
Keywords

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Author Biographies / See

Alberto Un Jan, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima, Perú

Doctor in Engineering.

Vilma A. Contreras, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima, Perú

B.S. in Systems Engineering.
References / See

Baggs, J.G.; Broome, M.E.; Dougherty, M.C.; Freda, M.C. & Kearney, M.H. (2008). Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64(2), 131-138.

Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H. (2009). Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 262-272.

Broome, M.; Dougherty, M.C.; Freda, M.C.; Kearney, M.H. & Baggs, J.G. (2010). Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey. Nursing Ethics 17(6) 741-748.

Cummings, P. & Rivara, F.P. (2002). Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Submitted Articles. Arch Pediatric Adolesc Med., 156(2), 105.

Fischer, C.C. (2011). A Value-Added Role for Reviewers in Enhancing the Quality of Published Research. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 226-237.

Godlee, F. (2002). Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. Journal of the American Medical Association. 287(21), 2762-2765.

Happell, B. (2011). Responding to reviewers’ comments as part of writing for publication. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 23-27.

Kearney, M.H.; Baggs, J.G.; Broome, M.E.; Dougherty, M.C. & Freda, M.C. (2008). Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40(4), 395-400.

Kleinert, S. (2008). Peer reviewers deserve recognition. Lancet 371 (9615), 798-798.

Kolasa, T. & Krol, D. (2011). A Survey of Algorithms for Paper-reviewer Assignment Problem. IETE Technical Review 28(2).

Kranish, M. (2005). Flaws are found in validating medical studies. The Boston Globe. 15 August 2005.

Lovejoy, T.I.; Revenson, T.A. & France, C.R. (2011). Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13.

Un Jan, A. & Contreras, V. (2011). Technology acceptance model for the use of information technology I universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 845-851.

Wager, E.; Parkin, E.C. & Tamber, P.S. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BioMed Central BMC Medicine, 4(13).

Wang, F.; Shi, N. & Chen, B. (2010). A Comprehensive Survey of the Reviewer Assignment Problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 9(4), 645-668.

Wing, D.A.; Benner, R.S.; Petersen, R.; Newcomb, R. & Scott, J.R. (2010). Differences in Editorial Board Reviewer Behavior Based on Gender. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(10).

Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Y. & Jiang, Y. (2003). An international peer review system for a Chinese scientific journal. Learned Publishing, 16(2), 91-94.

OJS System - Metabiblioteca |