REVISIÓN DE MANUSCRITOS CIENTÍFICOS. - Normas básicas de carácter formal y científico. - Redacción del informe correspondiente. Formación Transversal

REVISIÓN DE MANUSCRITOS CIENTÍFICOS.

- Normas básicas de carácter formal y científico.

- Redacción del informe correspondiente.

Formación Transversal de la EDUC

César Otero González, Profesor TU

EXPRESION GRAFICA EN LA INGENIERIA

24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012

CONTENIDO

1. PRESENTACIÓN: APROXIMACIÓN AL TEMA

2. ASPECTOS FORMALES DE LA REVISIÓN Y DE LA REDACCIÓN

3. ALGUNAS EXPERIENCIAS

4. (¿conclusiones?) ALGUNAS CONSIDERACIONES ESENCIALES




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012

1. PRESENTACIÓN: APROXIMACIÓN AL TEMA

1) DEL PONENTE: INGENIERÍA / GEOMETRÍA APLICADA / DISEÑO GEOMÉTRICO EN INGENIERÍA , DISEÑO ASISTIDO POR ORDENADOR, SISTEMAS DE INFORMACIÓN GEOGRÁFICA.

2) DE LA DOCUMENTACIÓN: MEDICINA Y SISTEMAS DE INFORMACIÓN EN ECONOMÍA.

3) DE LAS EXPERIENCIAS: PROPIAS, COMO AUTOR, REVISOR Y MIEMBRO DE COMITÉ EDITORIAL.




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


Before Writing the ReviewThe AbstractThe IntroductionThe Methods SectionThe Results SectionThe Discussion SectionFigures and GraphsTablesThe References SectionSummary Opinion

Provenzale J, Stanley R. A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript. AJR:185, October 2005. DOI:10.2214/AJR.05.0782




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


Before Writing the Review

• To which manuscript category does this manuscript best conform?

• Are there any potential biases in reviewing this manuscript?

• Does the manuscript address an important problem?

• Has the manuscript been previously published?

Review paper, technical note, research paper, short paper, …




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


The Abstract

• Does the Abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript?

• Are there discrepancies between the Abstract and the remainder of the manuscript?

• Can the Abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


The Introduction

• Is the Introduction concise?• Is the purpose of the study clearly defined?• Do the authors provide a rationale for performing the study based on a review of the (medical) literature? If so, is it of the appropriate length?• Do the authors define terms used in the remainder of the manuscript?• If this manuscript is Original Research, is there a well-defined hypothesis?




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


The Methods Section

• Could another investigator reproduce the study using the methods as outlined or are the methods unclear?

• Do the authors justify any choices available to them in their study design (e.g., choices of imaging techniques, analytic tools, or statistical methods)?

• If the authors have stated a hypothesis, have they designed methods that could reasonably allow their hypothesis to be tested?




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


The Results Section

• Are the results clearly explained?

• Does the order of presentation of the results parallel the order of presentation of the methods?

• Are the results reasonable and expected, or are they unexpected?

• Are there results that are introduced that are not preceded by an appropriate discussion in the Methods section?




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


The Discussion Section

• Is the discussion concise? If not, how should it be shortened?

• If a hypothesis was proposed, do the authors state whether it was verified or falsified? Alternatively, if no hypothesis was proposed, do the authors state whether their research question was answered?

• Are the authors’ conclusions justified by the results found in the study?

• If there are unexpected results, do the authors adequately account for them?

• Do the authors note limitations of the study? Are there additional limitations that should be noted?




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


Figures, Graphs and Tables

• Are the figures and graphs appropriate and are they appropriately labeled? Would a different figure better illustrate the findings?• Do the figures and graphs adequately show the important results?• Do arrows need to be added to depict important or subtle findings?• Do the figure legends provide a clear explanation that allows the figures and graphs to be understood.• If there are tables, do they appropriately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added?




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


The References Section

• Does the reference list follow the format for the journal?

• Does the reference list contain errors?

• Have the authors appropriately represented the salient points in the articles in the reference list? Alternatively, have the authors misquoted the references?

• Are there important references that are not mentioned that should be noted?

• Are there more references than are necessary?




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


Summary Opinion

The reviewer should provide a short paragraph that summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. The actual Recommendation (e.g., recommend to Accept, Accept Pending Revisions, Reconsider After Major Revisions, or Reject) should not be stated in this paragraph, which is sent to the authors, but should be indicated separately in the drop-down list. It may also be stated in the separate box called “Confidential Note to the Editor.” However, the overall tenor of this paragraph should support the reviewer’s recommendation.




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


BABOR T, STENIUS K, SAVVA S, O'REILLYING J. Addiction Science: A Guide For The Perplexed (Chapter 10) .International Society of Addiction Journal Editors. 2004. (Chapter 10: Balster R. Reviewing Manuscripts for Scientific Journals).

One of the main moral principles of virtually all major religions and cultures is the ethic of reciprocity, sometimes known as the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Show mutual respect. This Golden Rule is also a fundamental principle of the process of peer review, including the review of manuscripts submitted to professional journals. If you have been asked to review someone's paper it is very likely the case that you are an author yourself and will have been subjected to the same peer review process.




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012


Lee A. Journal of Operations Management Volume 13, Number 1 (July 1995), pp.87-92.

As an author and editor, I have seen our community manifest the best and the worst of human values in the anonymous reviews offered on manuscripts submitted for publication. Some reviewers rise to the occasion and give extensive help, even though the anonymous reviewing process promises them nothing in return for their efforts. Other reviewers hide behind the anonymity of the reviewing process, offering negative remarks that they would not have the courage to voice in public. (NUNCA LO TOLERÉIS:

¿qué hacer en tal caso?)




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012



Start out with Your Own Summary of the Manuscript

Ejemplo 1. This paper represents a major effort to test two competing theories about user satisfaction with electronic mail... The methodology of the paper consists of... The data were gathered from two field sites... The major finding was that... The contributions to theory and practice would appear to be...

Ejemplo 2. This manuscript pursues two somewhat conflicting goals. It attempts to…, while it also tries to…. The authors do a good job of the first one, but their treatment of the second one raises more questions than it answers.




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012



Let the Editor and Author Know What Your Expertise Does, and Does Not, Cover

Ejemplo 1. I read the paper from two perspectives: 1) someone who has employed the same methodology that the authors are using and 2) someone who is not familiar at all with the substantive area that the authors are investigating. My criticisms and suggestions are offered entirely from the first perspective.

Ejemplo 2. Another problem I had is that, probably like most of the people who read this journal, I am not deeply read in all three of the research fields that the authors draw upon. I cannot judge how well this paper builds on past research.




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012



Give “Action-able” Advice

… a reviewer who offers vague generalities, and no action-able advice, in his or her first review would have no real “handle” with which to approve or disapprove the revision; such a reviewer might very well find a revision returning to “haunt” him or her.




24 SEPTIEMBRE 2012

4. (¿conclusiones?) ALGUNAS CONSIDERACIONES ESENCIALES.

4.1. Golden Rule

4.2. Autor – Revisor – Editor (Acepta o rechaza; incluso si hay controversias en la revisión)

4.3. Valoración del Manuscrito f( Revista) Valoración del Manuscrito

f( sesgos, escuelas) Valoración del Manuscrito f(

subjetividad)

4.4. Manuscrito: ¿asunto de originalidad o de técnica?

4.5. Manuscrito: ¿generación del conocimiento o transmisión del mismo?

Documents

REVISIÓN DE MANUSCRITOS CIENTÍFICOS. - Normas básicas de carácter formal y científico. - Redacción del informe correspondiente. Formación Transversal