Un completo informe Peer review in scientific publications, elaborado a petición del parlamento británico.
Parece que lo vi en el Tumblr de Juan Freire, en Peer review in scientific publications. Eighth Report of Session 2010-12. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee (pdf).

No sólo exploran lo que habitualmente se sabe/se dice/se entiende sobre la revisión por pares que ayuda al desarrollo de la ciencia, sino que también se comentan y discuten varias alternativas y divergencias planteadas en diversos momentos.

En ese gusto por subrayar cosas, algunas que vi interesantes:

- Necesidad de un mayor reconocmiento para los revisores:

We encourage greater recognition of the work carried out by reviewers, by both publishers and employers. All publishers need to have in place systems for recording and acknowledging the contribution of those involved in peer review.

Y más:

There is an expectation that researchers will contribute to sustaining the peer review system by participating as reviewers. This is predominantly without financial or formal recognition, except for members of editorial boards (or grant review panels). [Peer review] is rarely acknowledged as part of the formal workload of an academic researcher.

Sobre las evidencias del funcionamiento del sistema (pocas?):

Dr Smith added: not only do scientists know little about the evidence on peer review but most continue to believe in peer review, thinking it essential for the progress of science. Ironically, a faith based rather than an evidence based process lies at the heart of science.
54. COPE, however, noted that: lack of evidence of efficacy is not the same as saying there is evidence that it does not work. Peer review is difficult to study, partly because its functions have not always been clearly defined.

Difusión de la ciencia mediante el uso de servidores con borradores y trabajo en curso:

We conclude that pre-print servers can be an effective way of allowing researchers to share and get early feedback on preliminary research. The system is well established in the physics community, and works particularly well, co-existing with more traditional publication in journals.

Sobre la revisión abierta (open peer-review):

The principles of openness and transparency in open peer review are attractive, and it is clear that there is an increasing range of possibilities. There are mixed results in terms of acceptance amongst researchers and publishers, although some researchers are keen to see greater transparency in their fields.

Sobre los programas y los datos utilizados en investigación (y las dificultades):

Dr Malcolm Read explained in more detail why making software code available can be difficult:
... if you are talking about stuff running on so-called super-computers, you have to know quite a lot about the machine and the environment it is running on. It is very difficult to run some of those top-end computer applications, even if, of course, they are prepared to make their code available.
He added that the way to get around this problem was to ensure that authors
"make clear the nature of the program they are running and the algorithms"

Web 2.0, redes sociales...

Other more informal approaches, such as the use of online blogs and social networking tools like Twitter, are becoming more widespread. Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, told us that:
Web-based publishing brings new opportunities, because it brings the opportunity
for post-publication peer review and for bloggers to comment.

La labor de filtrado y la relevancia de las publicaciones:

While post-publication review and commentary can be used to further improve the technical assessment of published research, it can also be utilised to fulfil another one of the functions of peer review: to filter research publications and act as a guide for what readers might find interesting.

Y como nota final (naturalmente, otros lectores considerarían interesantes otras partes, así que recomiendo leer, claro), sobre las iniciativas de publicación abierta:

We are impressed by the success of PLoS ONE and welcome the wider growth of quality online repository journals. These will accelerate the pace of research communication and ensure that all work that is scientifically sound is published.

Etiquetas: revisión, pares, peer, review, referee, ciencia, relevancia, filtrado, informes, uk

Puedes enterarte de las notas nuevas en: @reflexioneseir (Twitter), Reflexiones e Irreflexiones (Página de Facebook), Reflexiones e Irreflexiones (Canal de Telegram), fernand0 (en LinkedIn), @fernand0 (en Medium), Mastodon.