Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-09
Being a researcher is not only a matter of publishing: learning to review scientific articles / No solo de publicar viven los investigadores: aprender a revisar artículos científicos
This study, which is part of the call for junior reviewers from Infancia & Aprendizaje (I&A), aims to contribute to the scarce literature on peer review processes by developing and analysing a training proposal designed to help junior researchers begin to take part in the peer review process. Five junior reviewers participated in the study. Their reports were analysed and compared with those of 10 experts, their individual trajectories were described, and their evaluation of the training proposal was explored. Results showed some particularities in the junior reviewers’ reports regarding their content and structure, such as the inconsistency between the decision taken and the type of comments. In addition, the junior reviewers’ adoption of a personal opinion position was not observed in the expert reviewers. Their individual trajectories showed the relevance of the training proposal, both to increase knowledge about the genre and to revise the reports. This study has implications for scientific journals as well as for the training of junior researchers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmmenwerthE.WolffA. C.KnaupP.UlmerH.SkonetzkiS.Van BemmelJ. H.KulikowskiC. (2003). Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10, 512–514. doi:10.1197/jamia.m1062
2.
BautistaA.CastellóM. (2015). Call for papers: Fostering the professional development of junior authors and reviewers in scientific journals. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 38, 681–688. doi:10.1080/02103702.2015.1072351
3.
BautistaA.CastellóM. (2017). Fostering the professional development of junior authors and reviewers in scientific journals. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40. doi:10.1080/02103702.2017.1357250
4.
BautistaA.MonereoC.ScheuerN. (2014). The peer review process as an opportunity for learning /La evaluación por pares como oportunidad para el aprendizaje. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 37, 665–686. doi:10.1080/02103702.2014.977105
5.
BelcherD. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
6.
CallahamM. L.TercierJ. (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e40. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
7.
CastellóM.CorcellesM.IñestaA.BañalesG.VegaN. (2011). La voz del autor en la escritura académica: Una propuesta para su análisis. Signos, 44, 105–117. doi:10.4067/s0718-09342011000200001
8.
CastellóM.IñestaA. (2012). Texts as Artifacts-in-Activity: Developing Authorial Identity and Academic Voice in Writing Academic Research Papers. In CastellóM.DonahueC. (Eds.), University writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 179–200). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
9.
DavidoffF. (2004). Improving peer review: Who’s responsible? Peer review needs recognition at every stage of scientific life. British Medical Journal, 328, 657–659. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.657
10.
EnglanderK.Lopez-BonillaG. (2011). Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ response to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13, 395–416. doi:10.1177/1461445611403261
11.
FortanetI. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 27–37. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004
12.
GasparyanA. Y.KitasG. D. (2012). Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croatian Medical Journal, 53, 386–389. doi:10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386
13.
GosdenH. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87–101. doi:10.1016/s1475-1585(02)00037-1
14.
GuilfordW. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25, 167–175.
15.
HouryD.GreenS.CallahamM. (2012). Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Medical Education, 12, 83. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-83
16.
HylandK.GuindaC. S. (Eds.). (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
LovejoyT. I.RevensonT. A.FranceC. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x
18.
MatsudaP. K.TardyC. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235–249. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001
19.
MonereoC.PozoJ. I.CastellóM. (2001). La enseñanza de estrategias de aprendizaje en el contexto escolar. In CollC.PalaciosJ.MarchesiA. (Comps.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación Vol. 2 (pp. 235–254). Madrid: Alianza.
20.
MungraP.WebberP. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 43–53. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002
21.
PaltridgeB. (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it?. International Journal for Researcher Development, 4, 6–18. doi:10.1108/ijrd-07-2013-0011
22.
PaltridgeB. (2015). Referee’s comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion?Studies in Higher Education, 40, 106–122. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.818641
23.
PedrazziniA.BautistaB.ScheuerN.MonereoC. (2014). Review by (non)peers as an opportunity for learning: A case study on the editorial process of papers by junior researchers /La revisión por (im)pares como instancia de aprendizaje: Un estudio de casos del proceso editorial de artículos de investigadoras noveles. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 37, 851–901. doi:10.1080/02103702.2014.977531
24.
SamrajB. (2016). Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 76–88. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003
25.
SánchezE.GarcíaJ. N.Del RíoP. (2002). Writing as rewriting: A content analysis of peer reviews of non-accepted papers submitted to Infancia y Aprendizaje. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25, 5–35. doi:10.1174/021037002753508502
26.
ScheuerN.BautistaA.MartínE.PozoJ. I. (2009). “Tras una lectura atenta de su manuscrito…” Un análisis de los procesos de revisión en Infancia y Aprendizaje. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32, 243–264. doi:10.1174/021037009788964213
27.
SchroterS.BlackN.EvansS.CarpenterJ.GodleeF.SmithR. (2004). Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BJM, 328(7441), 673. doi:10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.ae
28.
WangQ.WaltmanL. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Infometrics, 10, 347–364. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003
