Peer Review of scholarly journals in the Humanities and Social Sciences: reported editorial policies and practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2011.2.796Keywords:
peer review, scholarly journals, Social Science, Arts, Humanities, Web of ScienceAbstract
The main objective of this article is an analysis of editorial practices and policies concerning peer review from 79 international scientific journals in Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences, based on statements found on these journals’ own Web sites. The information sources used to identify and select each journal were the databases of Web of Science, in particular Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index. The analysis checked 30 parameters structured in a Data Collection Sheet (DCS), which were taken from the revised assessment criteria proposed by Delgado and others (2007). In general, these journals have a low average of reported informational parameters. Of all the journals that make up the Humanities’ area, informational parameters about peer review editorial practices mentioned average 5.6 %. As for the 58 journals comprising the Social Sciences, their average for the cited parameters was 9.7 %. We conclude this study by providing a range of measures for their improvement and further alignment with the patterns of scholarly communication.
Downloads
References
Abel, R. E., y Newlin, L. W. (eds.) (2002). Scholarly Publishing: Books, journals publishers, and libraries in the Twentieth Century. New York: John Wiley &Sons.
ALSP (1999). What Authors Want: The ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Worthing, UK: ALPSP.
Alcain, M. D., y Román, A. (2005). Hacia una valoración integrada de las revistas españolas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas: las revistas de Psicología. Psicothema, 17, 179-189.
ALSP (2002). Authors and Electronic Publishing: The ALPSP research study on authors’ and readers’ views of electronic research communication. Worthing, UK: ALPSP.
ALPSP/EASE (2000). Current Practice in Peer Review: Results of a survey conducted Oct/ Nov 2000. [Consultado el 10 de marzo de 2011]. Disponible en: http:/www.alpsp.org/ForceDownload.asp?id=140.
Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and engineering ethics, vol. 3, 63-84.Beyer, J. M. (1978). Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. The Sociological Quarterly, 19, 68-88.
Bishop, C. T. (1984). How to Edit a Scientific Journal. Philadelphia: ISI Press. British Academy. (2007). Peer Review: the challenges for the Humanities and Social Sciences. London: A British Academy Report. [Consultado el 20 de septiembre de 2008]. Disponible en: http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/peer-review.cfm.
Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Science Communication. 19, 277-306. doi:10.1177/1075547098019004002
Campanario, J. M. (2002). El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25 (3), 166-184.
Coe, Robert K., y Weinstocks, Irwin. (1967). Editorial policies of major economic journals. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 7, 37-43.
Coloianni, L. A. (1994, July 13). Peer review in journals indexed in Index Medicus. JAMA, 272 (2), 156-158. doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.156
Delgado López-Cozar, E.; Jiménez-Contreras, E., y Ruiz Pérez, R. (2007). La edición de revistas científicas: directrices, criterios y modelos de evaluación. Madrid: Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología.
Delgado López-Cózar, E., y Ruiz-Pérez, R. (2009). La comunicación y edición científica fundamentos conceptuales. En: García Caro, Concepción. Homenaje a Isabel de Torres Ramírez: Estudios de documentación dedicados a su memoria. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada, 131-150.
Freda, M. C., y Kearney, M. (2005). An international survey of nurse editors’ roles and practices. J. Nurs Scholarsh, 37 (1), 87-94. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00006.x PMid:15813592
Frederickson, E. H. (ed.) (2001). A Century of Scientific Publishing. Amsterdam: IOS Publishing.
Godlee, F., y Jefferson, T. (1999). Peer Review in Medicine. London, UK: BMJ Books. Hames, Irene (2007). Peer Review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice. Malden; Blackwell, 293.
Harnad, S. (2000, April). The Invisible Hand of Peer Review. Exploit Interactive, issue 05. [Consultado el 2 de marzo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/.
Institute Scientific Information (2006). Journal Citation Report - Ranking is based on your journal and sort selections. [Consultado el 15 de enero de 2008]. Disponible en: http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/JCR.
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (1990) Guarding the guardians. Research on editorial peer review. JAMA, 263, 1317-1441.
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (1994). The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA, 272, 79-174.
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (1998). The Third International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review. JAMA, 280, 203-306.
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (2002). The Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA, 287, 2759-2871.
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (2003). Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research. JAMA, 289, 1438.
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication (2007). The Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. JAMA, 298, 2420-2421.
Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA, 263, 1321-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1321
Lock, S. (1985). A Difficult Balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in Science. London, UK: Butterworths.
Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating Research. San Diego: CA; Academic Press.
O’Connor, M. (1978). How to Copyedit Scientific Books & Journals. Baltimore; William &Wilkins.
Peters, D. P., y Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-195. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011183
Román Román, A.; Vázquez Valero, M., y Urdín Camino, C. (2002). Los criterios de calidad editorial Latindex en el marco de la evaluación de las revistas españolas de humanidades y ciencias sociales. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, vol. 25 (3), 286-307.
Román Román, A., y Alcain Partearroyo, M. D. (2005). Las revistas españolas de Prehistoria y Arqueología en el entorno de un sistema de valoración integrada. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 62 (2), 7-23
Speck, R. L. (1993). Publication Peer Review: An Annoted Bibliography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Thomson Reuters (2006). Journal Citation Index.
Urdín Camino, C.; Vázquez Valero, M., y Román Román, A. (2003). Los criterios de calidad editorial Latindex en el marco de la evaluación de las revistas españolas de ciencia y tecnología. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, vol. 26 (1), 56-73.
Ware, M., y Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community – an international study. Publishing Research Consortium. [Consultado en noviembre de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf.
Weller, A. C. (1995). Editorial Peer Review: research, current practices, and implications for librarians. Serial Review, vol. 21 (1), 53-65. doi:10.1016/0098-7913(95)90021-7
Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Silver Spring: MD; American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Wilkes, M. S., y Kravitz, R. L. (1995). Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. Journal of general internal medicine, vol. 10 (8), 443-450. doi:10.1007/BF02599916 PMid:7472701
Ziman, J. (1968). Public Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, H., y Merton, Robert. (1971). Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66-100. doi:10.1007/BF01553188
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2011 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
