El \u00faltimo n\u00famero de la revista Science pone el dedo en la llaga de la actual situaci\u00f3n de las publicaciones cient\u00edficas, primero con una carta muy reveladora:<\/p>\n
\nPainful Publishing<\/a><\/h2>\n
One problem with the current publication process arises from the overwhelming importance given to papers published in high-impact journals such as Science. Sadly, career advancement can depend more on where you publish than what you publish. Consequently, authors are so keen to publish in these select journals that they are willing to carry out extra, time-consuming experiments suggested by referees, even when the results could strengthen the conclusions only marginally. All too often, young scientists spend many months doing such \u00abreferees’experiments.\u00bb Their time and effort would frequently be better spent trying to move their project forward rather than sideways. There is also an inherent danger in doing experiments to obtain results that a referee demands to see. Although we emphasize these problems with regard to the highest-impact journals, the same problems occur with other journals. <\/p>\n
It is surprising that so many referees make unnecessary demands, as they are authors themselves and know how it feels when the situation is reversed. Such demands are discouraging for young scientists and, cumulatively, slow the progress of science. Of course, peer review is critical for making sure that the authors’ conclusions are sound, and some referees’ experiments would substantially advance the story. But frequently, these would justify an additional paper. Science advances in stages, and no story is complete.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
Puntos de vista que es respaldado en parte por el editor de Science <\/a>cuando revisa el estado de las revisiones de los art\u00edculos cient\u00edficos:<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
But peer review is under increasing stress, in ways that are perhaps
\nnot fully appreciated. The growth of scientific publishing is placing a
\nburden on the entire scientific enterprise. Papers today are more
\ninterdisciplinary, use more techniques, and have more authors. Many
\nhave large volumes of data and supplementary material. To compound the
\nproblem, papers are often being reviewed multiple times. Most of those
\nrejected by Science<\/em> go on to be considered at other journals,
\nwhere the rejection rates have also increased. Before finding a proper
\nvenue, a paper may have received four, six, or even eight reviews. So
\neven if the journal that finally publishes the article responds
\nrapidly, the process is often painful and prolonged.<\/p>\nThe responsibility for addressing this growing inefficiency is shared.
\nScientists can help by selecting the appropriate journal for their
\nwork, and seeking critical input from colleagues and all coauthors,
\nbefore submitting an article for publication. Senior scientists should
\nalso mentor their students and postdoctoral fellows in good reviewing
\npractices, enlarging the pool of qualified referees.*<\/sup><\/a>
\nThe possibility of repurposing reviews among journals, already
\npracticed by some groups of journals with a single publisher, should be
\nconsidered seriously. We note a recent experiment in which some
\nindependent neuroscience journals have agreed to share reviews.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
Revelador…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
El \u00faltimo n\u00famero de la revista Science pone el dedo en la llaga de la actual situaci\u00f3n de las publicaciones cient\u00edficas, primero con una carta muy reveladora: Painful Publishing One problem with the current publication process arises from the overwhelming importance given to papers published in high-impact journals such as Science. Sadly, career advancement can… Leer m\u00e1s »D\u00f3nde en vez de qu\u00e9…<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[214,569],"class_list":["post-984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ciencia","tag-ciencia-2","tag-publicaciones"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/984","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=984"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/984\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1263,"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/984\/revisions\/1263"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junjan.org\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}