Sobre el rechazo de artículos científicos

Resumen

On the rejection of cientific artides

When an academic researcher wishes to communicate his (her) ideas or investigation results, he (she) must submit them to evaluation in a scientific journal. The manuscript goes through three filters. Two of them, at the beginning and at the end of the publication process, are the editor’s doing; in the middle, at least two referees posit a qualified opinion. This system, unbiased by design, may be corrupted by misconducts committed by these actors, independently of the article’s quality. We present a critique on the role of the key players within the editorial process, supported by three documented case studies that exemplify some flaws in the peer review publication system. While rejection to be published may be an unavoidable situation for any researcher who chooses to publish his (her) work, such rejection should be broadly justified in the understanding that what is at stake is the improvement of knowledge generation and the enrichment of a common topic. Due to the difficulties to eradicate wrongdoings during the publication process, we suggest that the impact of such practices may be moderated through double blind reviews (authors and reviewers anonymous to one another), to offer non-economic rewards to reviewers, and redistributing the editor’s responsibilities among different associate editors. 

Key words: Editorial process, knowledge generation, publication system, double blind review, manuscript rejection, scientific ethics, scientific journal, editorial bias, editor, referee, associate editor, editorial hoaxes, academic policies.