Revisión por pares en la publicación científica: recomendaciones desde ODOVTOS / Peer Reviews in Scientific Journals: Recommendations from ODOVTOS

Resumen El proceso editorial de una revista, específicamente la revisión por pares, valida la publicación científica con el respaldo de la experiencia y el conocimiento de los revisores. Sin embargo, a pesar de que existen programas que capacitan en la parte investigativa a los miembros de la comunidad científica, son escasas las herramientas de capacitación para participar en el arbitraje de un manuscrito. El propósito de este artículo es presentar una guía con una serie de recomendaciones sobre cómo un artículo científico debe ser revisado por pares. Se realiza una sumatoria de recomendaciones y criterios que servirán para que los revisores de Odovtos-International Journal of Dental Sciences puedan utilizar como referencia y respaldo para su labor.

Abstract The editorial process of a journal, specifically peer review, validates the scientific publication supported by the experience and knowledge of the reviewers. However, despite the fact that there are programs that instruct members of the scientific community in research, there are few training tools to participate in the arbitration of a manuscript. The purpose of this article was to present a guide with a series of recommendations on how a scientific article should be peer-reviewed. A synopsis of recommendations and criteria is presented and will be used by the reviewers of Odovtos-International Journal of Dental Sciences as a reference to support their work.

O processo colaborativo do fazer a Ciência & Saúde Coletiva / The collaborative process in the making of Ciência & Saúde Coletiva

Resumo Este artigo apresenta as diversas etapas do processo editorial da Revista Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. Ao longo desses 25 anos diferentes modos de processar o trabalho foram sendo superados e outros foram sendo introduzidos. Cada etapa dessa construção será aprofundada com o objetivo de discutir "o fazer" cotidiano de uma publicação acadêmica de tamanha envergadura e complexidade. A Revista Ciência & Saúde Coletiva aprofunda em cada edição um tema da área, tratando-o em sua transversalidade e complexidade. Essa tematização vai de 10 a 35 artigos, pois 35 artigos são publicados mensalmente (temáticos e temas livres), em sua maioria em português e inglês e espanhol, cumprindo as exigências de prazos das mais conceituadas bases de dados nacionais e internacionais de livre acesso. Nesse a fazer, um dos grandes problemas é o financiamento, pois é muito escasso - embora fundamental - o apoio das instituições de fomento.

Abstract This paper presents the different stages of the editorial process of Journal Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. Different processing work methods have been overcome over these 25 years, and others have been introduced. Each stage of this construction will be analyzed in-depth to discuss the "making" of an academic publication of such a large scale and complexity. The Journal Ciência & Saúde Coletiva delves into each issue a theme in the field, addressing its cross-sectionality and complexity. This thematization ranges from 10 to 35 papers. Thirty-five papers are published monthly (thematic and free subjects), mostly in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, fulfilling the most prestigious national and international open-access databases' deadline requirements. In this making, one of the significant issues is funding because the crucial development institutions' support is very scarce.

Una revisión crítica del proceso de "peer review" / A critical review of the "peer review" process

Las revistas biomédicas tienen como objetivo fundamental publicar artículos de la máxima calidad científica y conseguir una amplia difusión de sus contenidos. Las revistas científicas compiten para publicar los mejores trabajos de investigación que se generan en su disciplina. Para ello deben realizar una valoración rigurosa de todos los trabajos que reciben para identificar y seleccionar sólo los mejores. El proceso de "peer-review", o revisión por pares, se ha considerado clásicamente como una parte fundamental del proceso científico. Consiste en la valoración crítica de los artículos científicos por expertos externos e independientes. Este proceso es fundamental para la mejora de los artículos y para guiar a los editores en su decisión final. Aunque el proceso está bien consolidado entre la comunidad científica y editorial internacional, siempre ha sido cuestionado. A lo largo del tiempo se han implementado múltiples estrategias para mejorar su calidad y para optimizar sus resultados pero el sistema sigue teniendo limitaciones. Paradójicamente, existe poca evidencia científica de que el proceso de "peer review", universalmente aceptado para validar la ciencia, sea realmente efectivo. Por eso su calidad debe supervisarse muy estrechamente para intentar conseguir la excelencia, ya que de ella depende la credibilidad del proceso científico. En esta revisión analizaremos críticamente el proceso de "peer review" y explicaremos por qué, a pesar de sus limitaciones, sigue considerándose como el "estándar de oro" en la valoración de manuscritos científicos por parte de las revistas biomédicas.

The main objective of biomedical journals is to publish high-quality scientific studies and to ensure a widespread dissemination of their contents. Journals compete for the best science generated in their respective disciplines and, therefore, they critically scrutinize the scientific quality of all submitted papers in order to identify and select only those that merit publication. The "peer review" system represents the cornerstone of the scientific process. It provides a critical appraisal, by external independent experts, of the studies under consideration. The system is intended to improve the quality of the submitted papers but also to help the Editors in their decision-making process. The process has been widely embraced by the scientific and editorial international community but it is not free from caveats. In fact, although several strategies have been implemented to improve its quality and the results obtained, limitations still persist. Accordingly, its quality should be closely monitored to ensure excellence. Surprisingly, although the "peer review" process is universally accepted to validate the science, limited scientific information exists on its real value. In this review we will critically analyze the "peer review" process and we will advance some ideas that may help to understand why, in spite of its limitations, it remains the "gold standard" for the selection of scientific manuscripts by biomedical journals.

Differences between academic journals of China and those in other countries and future development of Chinese academic journals / 第二军医大学学报

This editorial reviews differences between academic journals of China and those in other countries based on the author’s experience of serving as editorial board members or referees for 9 medical journals in China and 3 medical journals in the United States and England in the past 20 years. Chinese academic journals differ from the journals in the States and England in writing style, editorial process, and selection of papers for publication. A clearer statement of previous work and purpose of present investigation, more detailed and accurate documentation of materials and methods, proper use of statistical methods, and presentation of figures and tables of higher quality appear to be critical for the quality of academic papers. A proper control or reduction in the number of papers to be published and strengthening scientific standard of the papers will make these journals adhere to basic principles of scientific publications-accurate documentations of meaningful findings that are worthwhile to be kept for future reference.