Peer-review in academia: Guidance for graduate students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17058/psiunisc.v6i2.16990Keywords:
Peer review, Manuscripts, Scholarly publishingAbstract
The peer review process of new manuscripts guarantees the quality of published studies on most scientific journals, ensuring the progress of science. However, graduate students receive little training, frequently informally, on how to review a manuscript. The present manuscript describes the publication and peer review process, and I suggest a three part review of new manuscripts: (a) an initial paragraph, (b) a brief synopsis, and (c) suggestions to the article. Therefore, I hope to improve the quality of the peer-review and the published works in the national literature.
Downloads
References
Araújo, C. G. S. (2012). Revisão por pares: um processo científico em constante aprimoramento. Arq Bras Cardiol, 98(2), e32-e35.
Chwalisz, K. (2003). Evidence-Based Practice: A framework for twenty-first-century scientist-practitioner training. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(5), 497-528.
Costa, A. P. (2016). Processo de construção e avaliação de artigos de índole Qualitativa: possíveis caminhos? [editorial]. Rev Esc Enferm USP, 50(6), 890-891.
Cooper, M. L. (2009). Problems, Pitfalls, and Promise in the Peer-Review Process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 84-90.
Davyt, A., & Velho, L. (2000). A avaliação da ciência e a revisão por pares: passado e presente. Como será o futuro?. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, 7(1), 93-116.
hooks, b. (2015). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate Politics. Boston, MA: South End Press. 2nd Ed.
Jenal, S.; Vituri, D. W.; Ezaías, G. M.; Silva, L. A.; & Caliri, M. H. L. (2012). Processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura. Acta Paul Enferm., 25(5), 802-808.
Job, I.; Mattos, A. M.; & Trindade, A. (2009). Processo de revisão pelos pares: por que são rejeitados os manuscritos submetidos a um periódico científico?. Movimento, 15(3), 35-55.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2017). The future of peer-review. Joirnal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 219-221.
Lovejoy, T. I.; Revenson, T A.; & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42, 1-13.
Minayo, M. C. S., Diniz, D., & Gomes, R. (2016). O artigo qualitative em foco. Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, 21(8), 1-2.
Nickerson, R. S. (2005). What Authors Want From Journal Reviewers and Editors. American Psychologist, 60(6), 661-662.
Omote, S. (2005). Revisão por pares na Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 11(3), 323-334.
Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: a practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington: American Psychology Association.
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2009). The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 40-50.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The submission of originals to this journal implies the transfer, by the authors, of the printed and digital publication rights. The copyrights for the published articles are those of the author, with periodical rights on the first publication. Authors may only use the same results in other publications clearly indicating this journal as the medium of the original publication. Because we are an open access journal, we allow free use of articles in educational and scientific applications provided the source is cited under the Creative Commons CC-BY license.
