Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cabezas Del Fierro, Paula
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Sabaj Meruane, Omar, Varas Espinoza, Germán, González Herrera, Valeria
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Transinformação (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/transinfo/article/view/5961
Resumo: The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.
id PUC_CAMP-4_615c3978033d3f68c3d41b8bb496c2e7
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br:article/5961
network_acronym_str PUC_CAMP-4
network_name_str Transinformação (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too longThe value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.O valor do conhecimento científico é altamente dependente da qualidade do processo com o qual se produz, isto é, do processo de avaliação por pares. Esse processo é uma parte fundamental da ciência que legitima e melhora o trabalho da comunidade científica. Nesse contexto, o presente estudo explora a relação entre o tempo de revisão, a extensão e a qualidade da retroalimentação dos relatórios de arbitragem no processo de avaliação, por pares, de artigos científicos. Para esse propósito, foi registrado o tempo de revisão de 313 pareceres de três revistas chilenas internacionais. Para a extensão, foi calculada a quantidade de palavras por parecer, e para a qualidade do feedback foi estimada a quantidade de solicitações diretas (ou de nível 3) pelo total de comentários emitidos em cada parecer. Os resultados demonstraram que o tempo médio e a extensão variavam escassamente nos pareceres, independentemente de sua qualidade. Os pareceres de menor qualidade tenderam a demorar menos em chegar ao editor; portanto, nem o tempo nem a extensão estão relacionadas com a qualidade do feedback. Esses resultados sugerem que os árbitros geralmente descrevem, criticam ou elogiam o conteúdo do artigo em vez de proporcionar comentários úteis e diretos que ajudem os autores a melhorar seus trabalhos. Núcleo de Editoração - PUC-Campinas2018-05-25info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPeer-reviewed ArticleArtículo revisado por paresAvaliado pelos Paresapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/transinfo/article/view/5961Transinformação; Vol. 30 No. 2 (2018)Transinformação; Vol. 30 Núm. 2 (2018)Transinformação; v. 30 n. 2 (2018)2318-08890103-3786reponame:Transinformação (Online)instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas (PUC-CAMPINAS)instacron:PUC_CAMPporhttps://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/transinfo/article/view/5961/3690Copyright (c) 2022 Transinformaçãohttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCabezas Del Fierro, Paula Sabaj Meruane, Omar Varas Espinoza, Germán González Herrera, Valeria 2024-04-02T11:40:42Zoai:ojs.periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br:article/5961Revistahttp://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/seer/index.php/transinfo/indexPRIhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpsbi.nucleodeeditoracao@puc-campinas.edu.br2318-08890103-3786opendoar:2024-04-02T11:40:42Transinformação (Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas (PUC-CAMPINAS)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
title Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
spellingShingle Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
Cabezas Del Fierro, Paula
title_short Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
title_full Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
title_fullStr Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
title_full_unstemmed Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
title_sort Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long
author Cabezas Del Fierro, Paula
author_facet Cabezas Del Fierro, Paula
Sabaj Meruane, Omar
Varas Espinoza, Germán
González Herrera, Valeria
author_role author
author2 Sabaj Meruane, Omar
Varas Espinoza, Germán
González Herrera, Valeria
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Cabezas Del Fierro, Paula
Sabaj Meruane, Omar
Varas Espinoza, Germán
González Herrera, Valeria
description The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-05-25
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer-reviewed Article
Artículo revisado por pares
Avaliado pelos Pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/transinfo/article/view/5961
url https://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/transinfo/article/view/5961
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/transinfo/article/view/5961/3690
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 Transinformação
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 Transinformação
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Núcleo de Editoração - PUC-Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Núcleo de Editoração - PUC-Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Transinformação; Vol. 30 No. 2 (2018)
Transinformação; Vol. 30 Núm. 2 (2018)
Transinformação; v. 30 n. 2 (2018)
2318-0889
0103-3786
reponame:Transinformação (Online)
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas (PUC-CAMPINAS)
instacron:PUC_CAMP
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas (PUC-CAMPINAS)
instacron_str PUC_CAMP
institution PUC_CAMP
reponame_str Transinformação (Online)
collection Transinformação (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Transinformação (Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas (PUC-CAMPINAS)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv sbi.nucleodeeditoracao@puc-campinas.edu.br
_version_ 1799125984501301248

Registros relacionados