Evaluation processes of scientific papers
The author discusses the double-blind arbitration, for the evaluation of work submitted to journals, as one of the most widely accepted validation procedures in the field of scientific research. She explains how this kind of management procedural is in information, cultura y sociedad: revista del In...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras
2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/ICS/article/view/885 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=biblioinfo&d=885_oai |
| Aporte de: |
| id |
I28-R145-885_oai |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
I28-R145-885_oai2025-11-17 Romanos de Tiratel, Susana 2006-06-01 The author discusses the double-blind arbitration, for the evaluation of work submitted to journals, as one of the most widely accepted validation procedures in the field of scientific research. She explains how this kind of management procedural is in information, cultura y sociedad: revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliotecológicas (FFyL-UBA). From the perspective of certain questions raised about this procedure., the evaluation system has some slow changes in harmony with the changes in the modes of scientific communication: open files with voluntary assessments, reliance on editorial boards for the selection of items. The advantages are the democratization of knowledge and speed of publication. Without denying that traditional evaluation can't stop kidnappings, frauds or arbitrariness, it is stated that so far has been effective, especially when it guarantees the anonymity of those involved in the process. La autora establece el arbitraje doble ciego, para la evaluación de los trabajos presentados a las revistas especializadas, como uno de los procedimientos de validación más aceptados en el ámbito de la investigación científica. Explica como se aplica ese procedimiento en Información, cultura y sociedad: revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliotecológicas (FFyL-UBA). Desde la perspectiva de ciertos cuestionamientos planteados respecto de este procedimiento, presenta ciertos cambios que, en forma lenta, se van produciendo en los modos de la comunicación científica: archivos abiertos con evaluaciones voluntarias, confianza en comités editoriales para la selección de artículos. Las ventajas son la democratización del conocimiento y la rapidez de su publicación. Sin negar que el arbitraje tradicional no puede evitar plagios, supercherías o arbitrariedades, se afirma que, hasta el momento, se ha mostrado eficaz, sobretodo cuando se garantiza el anonimato de quienes intervienen. application/pdf https://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/ICS/article/view/885 10.34096/ics.i14.885 spa Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras https://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/ICS/article/view/885/863 Información, cultura y sociedad; No. 14 (2006); 5-10 Información, cultura y sociedad; Núm. 14 (2006); 5-10 1851-1740 1514-8327 Artículos científicos Arbitraje Investigación Científica Scientific reseach Scientific articles Scientific evaluation Evaluation processes of scientific papers Los procesos de evaluación de los artículos científicos info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=biblioinfo&d=885_oai |
| institution |
Universidad de Buenos Aires |
| institution_str |
I-28 |
| repository_str |
R-145 |
| collection |
Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) |
| language |
Español |
| orig_language_str_mv |
spa |
| topic |
Artículos científicos Arbitraje Investigación Científica Scientific reseach Scientific articles Scientific evaluation |
| spellingShingle |
Artículos científicos Arbitraje Investigación Científica Scientific reseach Scientific articles Scientific evaluation Romanos de Tiratel, Susana Evaluation processes of scientific papers |
| topic_facet |
Artículos científicos Arbitraje Investigación Científica Scientific reseach Scientific articles Scientific evaluation |
| description |
The author discusses the double-blind arbitration, for the evaluation of work submitted to journals, as one of the most widely accepted validation procedures in the field of scientific research. She explains how this kind of management procedural is in information, cultura y sociedad: revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliotecológicas (FFyL-UBA). From the perspective of certain questions raised about this procedure., the evaluation system has some slow changes in harmony with the changes in the modes of scientific communication: open files with voluntary assessments, reliance on editorial boards for the selection of items. The advantages are the democratization of knowledge and speed of publication. Without denying that traditional evaluation can't stop kidnappings, frauds or arbitrariness, it is stated that so far has been effective, especially when it guarantees the anonymity of those involved in the process. |
| format |
Artículo publishedVersion |
| author |
Romanos de Tiratel, Susana |
| author_facet |
Romanos de Tiratel, Susana |
| author_sort |
Romanos de Tiratel, Susana |
| title |
Evaluation processes of scientific papers |
| title_short |
Evaluation processes of scientific papers |
| title_full |
Evaluation processes of scientific papers |
| title_fullStr |
Evaluation processes of scientific papers |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluation processes of scientific papers |
| title_sort |
evaluation processes of scientific papers |
| publisher |
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras |
| publishDate |
2006 |
| url |
https://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/ICS/article/view/885 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=biblioinfo&d=885_oai |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT romanosdetiratelsusana evaluationprocessesofscientificpapers AT romanosdetiratelsusana losprocesosdeevaluaciondelosarticuloscientificos |
| _version_ |
1851374480811622400 |