Aller directement au menu principal Aller directement au contenu principal Aller au pied de page
Logo Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa

Editorial

Vol. 26 No 1 (2023): Marzo

La revisión como diálogo. Una pieza clave para el crecimiento colectivo en la comunicación científica

DOI
https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.23.2610
Soumis
octobre 5, 2023
Publiée
2023-07-09

Résumé

-

Références

  1. Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robinson, V., Cirillo M., Kramer, S. and Hiebert, J. (2019a). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 50(2), 114-120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114
  2. Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robinson, V., Cirillo M., Kramer, S. and Hiebert, J. (2019b). Theoretical Framing as Justifying. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 50(3), 218-224. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.3.0218
  3. Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S., Hiebert, J. (2019c). Choosing and Justifying Robust Methods for Educational Research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 50(4), 342-348. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.4.0342
  4. Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S., Hiebert, J. (2019d). So What? Justifying conclusions and interpretations of data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 50(5), 470-477. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.5.047
  5. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews? Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/roup8ld4 Consejo COPE. (2017). Guías éticas para revisores pares. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.10
  6. Crespo, S. (2016). Is It Educative? The Importance of Reviewers’ Feedback. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 4(2), 122-125. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.4.2.0122
  7. Crespo, S. y Cai, J. (2019). Writing as Communicating with Reviewers: Strategies for Anticipating and Addressing Insightful and Skeptical Reviews. En K. R. Leatham (Ed.), Designing, Conducting, and Publishing Quality Research in Mathematics Education, Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 183-198). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23505-5_13
  8. Darling, E. S. (2014). Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12333
  9. DiDomenico, R. J., Baker, W. L. y Haines, S. T. (2017). Improving peer review: What reviewers can do. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 74(24), 2080-2084. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp170190
  10. Hames, I. (2013). COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf
  11. International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication (2023). https://peerreviewcongress.org/
  12. LILACS, Informação Científica e Técnica em Saúde da América Latina e Caribe (2023) https://lilacs.bvsalud.org/
  13. Nobarany, S. y Booth, K. S. (2016). Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23711
  14. Peer Review Week (2023). https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/
  15. Public Library of Science (2023). PLOS Peer Review Center. https://plos.org/resources/for-reviewers/
  16. Red BVS [@RedBVS] (15 de julio de 2020). ¿Cómo mejorar el proceso de peer review? [Video].youTube. https://youtu.be/O3p8ZE7vnec?si=K-bJ97CBq9ciPXPL
  17. Red BVS [@RedBVS] (15 de septiembre de 2021). Directrices para la revisión por pares. [Video].youTube. https://youtu.be/JmfEDXZ3uBk?si=e9BNt-7aiHf2Wrix
  18. Red BVS [@RedBVS] (21 de agosto de 2019). Peer Review. [Video]. youTube. https://youtu.be/2ZlC76FmCZw?si=XN0J8P6EISkwINrq
  19. Red BVS [@RedBVS] (28 de junio de 2023). Desafíos de la transición del acceso abierto hacia la ciencia abierta en AL&C. [Video]. youTube. https://yout u.be/1X-orHl_mSg?si=zZiPV8H3HJJ9b8Dk
  20. Rennie, D. (2016). Let’s make peer review scientific. Nature, 535, 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/535031a
  21. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2023). https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/
  22. Seminario Permanente de Editores (2014) https://www.youtube.com/@SeminarioPermanentedeEditores
  23. Sense about Science. (2021). Peer Review. The nuts and bolts. https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts-2/
  24. Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., … Colomb, J.(2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000 Research, 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.1
  25. Wager, E. y Kleinert, S. (2011a). Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. En T. Mayer y N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 317-28). Imperial College Press y World Scientific Publishing.
  26. Wager, E. y Kleinert, S. (2011b). Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. En T. Mayer y N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 309-16). Imperial College Press y World Scientific Publishing.

Téléchargements

Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.