Several researchers refer the determining function of the scientific writing in the reflexive construction of knowledge (Chun et al. 2022). The scientific writing, as being a complex process because its style and impact of the results (Lu et al. 2019, Chen et al. 2020 and Ante 2022), require clarity and precision in the information, abilities that with frequency are loss when it is not answer to the research question during the writing process (Simón et al. 2020). In consequence, in the scientific field, the feasible, the ethical, the interest, the discoveries and the relevance as criteria to be measure, influence on the decisions of accepting or rejected a paper which is subjected to a checking process for their publication. From this perspective, the referee represents one of the attention centers due to the decision they emit in the publishing process, whose responsibility is to keep the quality and integrity of the scientific literature (Grimaldo et al. 2018 and Libby et al. 2022).

When it is decided to publish a scientific paper and later it is not cite or is a criticism target by the scientific community, it should exits an indicator which allow the participatory observation of whose has the responsibility of the paper evaluation. Among the determining factor of mistakes on the decisions of not cited a scientific article or criticized, is the tendency of the editorial board to give the scientific papers with subject similarity to the same referee or indicate to the correspondence author recommendations of possible referees with the purpose of speed out the checking process. Both decisions can be obstacles for the guarantee of the journals quality.

Is reprehensible if the referees didn’t has opinions which are not been involved to the evaluation exigencies impose by the journals. In fact, is probably that a referee gives service to some scientific journals, and the rules for the acceptation and evaluation of papers differs among them. Therefore, the evaluation by external peers faces at present a critic sight respect to its practice, quality and results. In addition, the aspiration for become permanent (Teele and Thelen 2017), as well as the productivity evaluations in which the quantity with respect to the quality predominates (Edwards and Siddhartha 2017 and Bianchi et al. 2018), make these pretentious to challenges the sustainability of the publication system in contexts of hypercompetition (Kovanis et al. 2016 and Righi and Takács 2017).

Some analysts state that the peer review is inadequate face to the lack of guarantees to publish the researchers which are innovators, reliable and valid (Macdonald 2015 and Sobkowicz 2015). However, the peer review is a decision of the editorial board to subject to questions that, possibly, improved the papers quality. The arguments which have not been sufficiently solid or probative could be reasons to turn down the paper. Even, these opinions are little promising if they arrive to the referee after the time established. Face to this conflict, the worrying will not be the lateness, will be the interruption or the desertion of the paper checking and the later sending to another journal.

Among the reasons of the lateness in the peer review is considered the subjectivity and the direction of the paper (King et al. 2018 and Teplitskiy et al. 2018). The exhaustive and easy answers to the comments of the referees should be the professional acknowledgement attitude, although the refereeing decision will be not accepted (Cushman 2023).

Join to the altruism that should be in the relations between the referee experts and author, is essential the knowledge of the principles in the referee professional training (table 1). The fulfillment of the principles will make the evaluation process of the papers be satisfactory, the journal quality increase and the scientific knowledge will transfer to the society.

Table 1

Principles of knowledge in the professional training of the scientific referee

The principles of knowledge in the professional training of the scientific referee show a set of knowing abilities which are needed to increase the papers quality in the journals. The knowing of the study design, the general experience of the theme in the paper, the constructive evaluation of the checking and the ethical considerations (table 1) allow that the scientific literature be of relevance and, at the same time, the referee professional acknowledgment by the journal (Ellwanger and Bogo 2020 and Libby et al. 2022).

References

Ante, L. 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses". Journal of Informetrics, 16(1): 101252, ISSN: 1875-5879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101252.

Bianchi, F., Grimaldo, F., Bravo, G. & Squazzoni, F. 2018. "The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures". Scientometrics, 116(3): 1401-1420, ISSN: 1588-2861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2825-4.

Cushman, M. 2023. "How I respond to peer reviewer comments". Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 7(2): 1-3, ISSN: 2475-0379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2023.100120.

Chen, B., Deng, D., Zhong, Z. & Zhang, C. 2020. Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles. Scientometrics, 122(3): 1769-1790, ISSN: 1588-2861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03361-4.

Chun, C.L., Li, C.C., Chin, Y.H., Ching, C.Su. & Ya, L.H. 2022. Exploring the experience of reflective writing among Taiwanese undergraduate nursing students: A qualitative study. Journal of Professional Nursing, 40: 105-110, ISSN: 1532-8481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.03.007.

Edwards, M.A. & Siddhartha, R. 2017. Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1): 51-61, ISSN: 1092-8758. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223.

Ellwanger, J.E. & Bogo, C.J.A. 2020. We need to talk about peer-review – experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 125: 201-205, ISSN: 1878-5921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.001.

Grimaldo, F., Marušić, A. & Squazzoni, F. 2018. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969–2015). PLoS One, 13(2): 1-14, ISSN: 1932-6203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193148.

King, E.B., Avery, D.R., Helb, M. R. & Cortina, J. M. 2018. Systematic subjectivity: How subtle biases infect the scholarship review process. Journal of Management, 44(3): 843-853, ISSN: 1557-1211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317743553.

Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P. & Trinquart, L. 2016. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS One, 11(11): e0166387, ISSN: 1932-6203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387.

Libby, W.M., Sundland, R., Adams, A.M., Faria, I., Feldman, H.A., Gudmundsdottir, H., Marmor, H., Miles, V., Ochoa, V., Ruff, S.M., Tonelli, C., Altieri, M.S., Cannada, L., Dewan, K., Etkin, Y., Marmor, R., Plichta, J.K., Reyna, C., Tatebe., L., Drudi, L.M., Hicks, C.W. 2022. The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer. Seminars in Vascular Surgery, 35(4): 470-478, ISSN: 1558-4518. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002.

Lu, C., Bu, Y., Dong, X., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R., Logan, P. & Zhang, C. 2019. Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact. Journal of Informetrics, 13(3): 817-829, ISSN: 1875-5879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.004.

Macdonald, S. 2015. Emperor’s new clothes. The reinvention of peer review as myth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3): 264-279, ISSN: 1552-6542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614554773.

Righi, S. & Takács, K. 2017. The miracle of peer review and development in science: An agent-based model. Scientometrics, 113(1): 587-607, ISSN: 1588-2861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2244-y.

Simón, E.L., Osei, A.M., Wachirad, B.W. & KwanGetting, J.K. 2020. Getting accepted – Successful writing for scientific publication: a Research Primer for low- and middle-income countries. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10(2): 154-157, ISSN: 2211-4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2020.06.006.

Sobkowicz, P. 2015. Innovation suppression and clique evolution in peer-review-based, competitive research funding systems: An agent-based model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2): 13, ISSN: 1460-7425. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/2/13.html.

Teele, D.L. & Thelen, K. 2017. Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2): 433-447, ISSN: 1537-5935. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002985.

Teplitskiy, M., Acuna, D., Elamrani, R.A., Körding, K. & Evans, J. 2018. The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review. Research Policy, 47(9): 1825-1841, ISSN: 1873-7625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.014.

Author notes

*Email: george.argota@gmail.com

Conflict of interest declaration

Alternative link