“Dear reviewer 2...”: A brief guide to reviewing scientific manuscripts.

Authors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.678451
Keywords: Scientific Publication Ethics, Scientific Misconduct, Review, Peer Review

Supporting Agencies

  • Universidad Nacional del Oeste

Abstract

Peer review is one of the pillars of scientific communication. However, its quality depends largely on the integrity, preparation, and ethical attitude of those who undertake the task of evaluating manuscripts. This article sets out ethical and practical criteria for review, highlighting the importance of a rigorous, respectful, and educational process for both authors and the scientific community.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    101
  • pdf (Español (España))
    59
  • pdf
    59

Author Biography

Carlos Jesús Canova-Barrios, Universidad de Ciencias Empresariales y Sociales (UCES), Argentina

Licenciado en Enfermería, Licenciado en Gestión Educativa, Especialista en Docencia Universitaria, Magíster en Investigación Clínica Farmacológica, Magíster en Salud Pública, Doctor en Salud Pública y Doctor en Ciencias Médicas. Docente en la Escuela de Ciencias de la Salud de la Universidad Nacional del Oeste (UNO) y de la Universidad de Ciencias Empresariales y Sociales (UCES). Buenos Aires, Argentina. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3901-6117

References

Thulasingam M, Karthikeyan B. Ethical Pitfalls in Scientific Publishing. International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research. 2024, 11(2), 140-144. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijamr.ijamr_265_24

COPE. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Versión 2, September 2017. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Turner L. Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2003, 1, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAET.0000006844.09724.98

Chaturvedi A. Five C's of Ethics for Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. American Society for Microbiology, 2023. https://asm.org/articles/2023/june/five-cs-ethical-peer-review-scientific-publishing

Aczel B, Barwich AS, Diekman AB, Fishbach A, Goldstone RL, Gomez P, et al. The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2025, 122(5), e2401232121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401232121

Petersson Roldán M, Taboada Martínez CH, Almeida Campos S. Satisfacción de los autores con el proceso de revisión en Revista Médica Electrónica. Revista Información Científica. 2025, 104, e5041. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15632734

Earnshaw CH, Edwin C, Bhat J, Krishnan M, Mamais C, Somashekar S, et al. An analysis of the fate of 917 manuscripts rejected from Clinical Otolaryngology. Clinical Otolaryngology. 2017, 42(3), 709-714. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12820

Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ. 2019, 7, e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247

Canova Barrios CJ. Aspectos éticos en la publicación de manuscritos científicos: una revisión de la literatura. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología. 2022, 2, 81. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt202281

Canova-Barrios C. Errores y sesgos en la revisión de artículos científicos. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2023, 2, 443. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2023443

PLOS. Peer Review Checklist; s.f.. https://acortar.link/0ES0OZ

Candal-Pedreira C, Rey-Brandariz J, Varela-Lema L, Pérez-Ríos M, Ruano-Ravina A. Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals. Anales de Pediatría. 2023, 99(1), 54-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2023.05.017

Taylor & Francis. What are the different types of peer review?, s.f. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/types-peer-review/

Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS One. 2010, 5(12), e14331. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014331

Canova-Barrios CJ, Albarracín PM, Fernández OG, Machuca-Contreras F. Barreras y desafíos en la investigación en Enfermería en América Latina: una reflexión crítica. Revista Unidad Sanitaria XXI. 2015, 5(15), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.57246/npjc7c88

Published
19-09-2025
How to Cite
Canova-Barrios, C. J., & Berduc, A. (2025). “Dear reviewer 2.”: A brief guide to reviewing scientific manuscripts. Spanish Journal of Medical Education, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.678451
Issue
Vol. 6 No. 4 (2025): Spanish Journal of Medical Education
Section
Comentarios breves

Copyright (c) 2025 Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The works published in this magazine are subject to the following terms:

1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) preserves the economic rights (copyright) of the published works and favors and allows them to be reused under the use license indicated in point 2.

2. The works are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 license. 

3. Self-archiving conditions. Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate electronically the pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version evaluated and accepted for publication) of their works before publication , since it favors its circulation and earlier diffusion and with it a possible increase in its citation and reach among the academic community.