Content area
Objective. The editorial practices and policies of scientific journals that were uncomfortable for authors were identified with the objective of eliciting feedback to enhance collaboration between authors and editors. Methodology. The focus group technique was employed. Based on the content of the discussions, a descriptive analysis of the primary concepts was conducted, represented by word mapping and a tree-map. Subsequently, the codes obtained were categorized into four dimensions: (1) editorial standards and formats, (2) selection and acceptance process, (3) peer review and evaluation, and (4) role of editors. Results. The most frequently cited issues by the focus group participants were delays in the editorial process and a perceived lack of editorial transparency. Other challenges identified include the following: (1) a lack of clarity in standards, primarily due to the inconsistency in editorial requirements; (2) a lack of adequate feedback; (3) limitation in the number of authors; and (4) constraints in the number of publications. Conclusions. A critical and reflective approach was employed to examine the editorial practices that affect scientific production. The necessity for reforms in the publishing system to enhance the quality, equity, and efficiency of the publication process was emphasized, with the aim of ensuring that scientific progress can significantly benefit global knowledge. Through a concerted and collaborative effort between authors, editors, and reviewers, it will be possible to pursue a trajectory of continuous improvement, wherein the advancement of high-quality scientific research will continue to be facilitated.
ABSTRACT
Objective. The editorial practices and policies of scientific journals that were uncomfortable for authors were identified with the objective of eliciting feedback to enhance collaboration between authors and editors.
Methodology. The focus group technique was employed. Based on the content of the discussions, a descriptive analysis of the primary concepts was conducted, represented by word mapping and a tree-map. Subsequently, the codes obtained were categorized into four dimensions: (1) editorial standards and formats, (2) selection and acceptance process, (3) peer review and evaluation, and (4) role of editors.
Results. The most frequently cited issues by the focus group participants were delays in the editorial process and a perceived lack of editorial transparency. Other challenges identified include the following: (1) a lack of clarity in standards, primarily due to the inconsistency in editorial requirements; (2) a lack of adequate feedback; (3) limitation in the number of authors; and (4) constraints in the number of publications.
Conclusions. A critical and reflective approach was employed to examine the editorial practices that affect scientific production. The necessity for reforms in the publishing system to enhance the quality, equity, and efficiency of the publication process was emphasized, with the aim of ensuring that scientific progress can significantly benefit global knowledge. Through a concerted and collaborative effort between authors, editors, and reviewers, it will be possible to pursue a trajectory of continuous improvement, wherein the advancement of high-quality scientific research will continue to be facilitated.
Keywords: editorial practices; editorial policies; scientific journals; academic editorial process; academic editor; peer review.
1. INTRODUCTION
THE DISSEMINATION of scientific research findings is a vital component of the global advancement of knowledge. The role of academic publications in spreading scientific research findings is of great importance. The editors of these publications, in particular the editors-in-chief, play a pivotal role in ensuring the rigor and credibility of published studies (Ashford, 2013; Colquitt & George, 2011; Geletkanycz & Tepper, 2012; Grant & Pollock, 2011). Researchers typically choose to publish their findings in scientific journals when they seek the evaluation and critique of experts in their respective fields. Despite the controversies surrounding peer review, it is evident that it plays an indispensable role in ensuring the quality and credibility of scientific publications (Deroy Dominguez, 2022; Nino, 2024; Schonhaut Berman et al., 2017). This is achieved through the rigorous assessment of manuscripts by reviewers, who provide guidance to the editorial team on the suitability of publications for dissemination, thereby significantly enhancing the quality of these works. Despite its inherent complexity, the editorial process of scientific journals serves as an indispensable conduit for disseminating scientific knowledge (Ashford, 2013; Plata-Caviedes et al., 2012). The role of the editor is to direct and supervise each phase of the publication process, from the initial receipt of the manuscript to its final publication. This entails ensuring that the articles meet the requisite ethical standards and scientific integrity (Colquitt & George, 2011). The responsibilities typically associated with the role include selecting articles for publication, reviewing and editing manuscripts, coordinating the peer review process, selecting reviewers, and making final decisions on their publication (Garcia et al., 2015).
The role of editors, particularly editors-in-chief, is of the utmost importance, as they are responsible for ensuring the rigor and credibility of the research to be published (Candal-Pedreira et al., 2023). Nevertheless, the editorial process, designed to facilitate this exchange, frequently impedes authors. The relationship between authors and publishers can be adversely affected by some editorial practices and policies that interfere with the publication process (Javed et al., 2024). In this context, this research aims to identify the editorial practices and policies of scientific journals that create an uncomfortable environment for authors. The aim is to elicit feedback to facilitate improved collaboration between authors and editors. To achieve the proposed objective, a qualitative study was conducted using the information-gathering technique known as "focus groups," which enabled the collection of detailed data regarding the authors' experiences and perceptions. The primary concepts related to difficulties in the editorial process were identified through content analysis of these discussions. These concepts were represented visually using a word map and a treemap, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of the most problematic areas. The resulting descriptive analysis made it possible to categorize the codes obtained into four key dimensions:
* Editorial standards and formats
* Selection and acceptance process
* Peer review and evaluation
* Role of editors
The categorization allows for the organization of the identified problems and provides a foundation for the formulation of targeted recommendations. Among the most frequently cited issues are delays in the editorial process and a perceived need for more editorial transparency. These problems result in the delayed publication of valuable research and engender feelings of frustration and distrust among authors. Other issues identified include a need for more clarity regarding editorial standards, consistency in requirements, the absence of adequate feedback, and limitations on the number of authors and publications permitted by journals.
1.1. Theoretical foundations
The role of scientific journals in the formation and evolution of science is of paramount importance (Mendoza 8% Paravic, 2006). The primary method for disseminating knowledge is the communication of research results in scientific journals. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that this process is conducted optimally (Ashford, 2013; Candal-Pedreira et al., 2023; Colquitt & George, 2011; Geletkanycz & Tepper, 2012; Grant & Pollock, 2011; Moher & Altman, 2015). These publications have been instrumental in the formation of specialized social spaces dedicated to the advancement of scientific knowledge, as they facilitate the exchange of ideas and the validation of discoveries through the peer review process (Musselin, 2013; Ramírez-Cardona & Calderón-Hernández, 2024). Moreover, scientific journals have played a pivotal role in establishing standards of quality and rigor in research, promoting transparency and replicability in science (Firmino da Costa et al., 2022; Rodríguez, 2013).
Scientific journals serve as a conduit for researchers to broadcast their findings to the scientific community and the general public in a manner that is both practical and rigorous (Ganga-Contreras et al., 2015; Gisbert & Chaparro, 2023; Matias-Guiu, 2020; Muradchanian et al., 2023; Oxhorn, 2015). These communication devices are dedicated to the circulation of research that has a significant social impact, which is a crucial aspect of research uptake (Deroy Dominguez, 2022; Ganga-Contreras et al., 2020). In the academic community, scientific journals are regarded as a conduit for learning about foundational and ancillary aspects of scientific production (Repiso et al., 2019). In addition to their role in promoting science, researchers consider them the most efficient medium for keeping abreast of the latest advances in a particular area of knowledge. They also consider them to play a crucial role as a mechanism for evaluating scientific activity and guaranteeing the quality of research results (Garcia Hernández & García González, 2023).
A distinctive feature of scientific publications is the role of editorial committees and peer reviewers, who ensure minimum quality standards through refereeing or scientific review. Within this framework, editors and their respective editorial teams also play a leading role (Matias-Guiu, 2020). Their responsibilities include safeguarding the quality of contributions and defending opportunities for disseminating scientific research results. It is, therefore, imperative that the initial evaluation conducted by the editors is undertaken with the utmost rigor, as the process of peer reviewis costly and should not be employed on manuscripts that fail to meet the fundamental requirements, including an adequate presentation of the problem, a correct justification of the research question, a central objective must be clearly presented, the methodology comprehensively described, the results clearly delineated, and the findings and conclusions discussed in a manner that responds to the primary purpose (Deroy Domínguez, 2022; Ganga-Contreras et al., 2022). While expertise in the specific topic is not a prerequisite for the initial evaluator, they must possess a solid foundation in research methodology and an understanding of the essential characteristics of a scientific article. This process safeguards the authority and prestige of science, ensuring the quality and accuracy of published information (Delgado-López-Cozar & Ruiz-Pérez, 2009).
The role of the editor is of such significance that Moher et al. (2017) have identified a comprehensive set of essential competencies, including the capability to cultivate productive relationships with the editorial team and journal proprietors and the obligation to oversee copyright and licensing matters. Furthermore, these authors highlight the importance of ongoing learning for editors. Conversely, O'Brien et al. (2019) underscored the importance of a productive model of editorial assistance and ongoing training to enable editors to meet the increasing demands of scientific publishing. Tt is crucial to empower editors to provide valuable guidance and support to all stakeholders, with a particular focus on novice authors. Those new to the field of research have identified the need for reform by editors, publishers, and societies to enhance the accessibility and efficacy of the publication process. Prior research has demonstrated that authors attach significance to specific attributes of a journal, particularly those pertaining to the caliber of the editorial process, as they pertain to their decision to reapply. The timeliness of reviews and the quality and complexity of referee reports are considered pivotal criteria for assessing experience and performance. These studies have identified the peer review process as an area of significant interest from multiple perspectives. On the one hand, it is regarded as a feedback mechanism for scientists, while on the other, it is viewed as a tool for decision-making in editorial management agement (Amin et al., 2024; Huisman & Smits, 2017; Severin & Chataway, 2021).
In conclusion, scientific journals are of paramount importance for disseminating knowledge and scientific progress, as they serve as vital platforms for validating and spreading research. However, editorial practices and policies can significantly impact researchers' experience, particularly those needing to gain publishing experience. It is, therefore, essential that journals adopt clear editorial competencies and provide ongoing support in order to enhance this process. In light of these considerations, journals must adopt practices that maintain high-quality standards and facilitate a more accessible and effective method for all researchers. This will enable the creation of a more inclusive and productive academic environment aligned with the goals of disseminating and advancing scientific knowledge.
2. METHODOLOGY
To investigate this phenomenon, the focus group technique was employed to gain insight into the underlying factors influencing the perceptions and behaviors of highly productive authors within their respective domains of expertise. This approach fostered an environment in which researchers were inclined to engage in open and natural sharing of their experiences with a group of equals who recognized and valued their contributions (Buss Thofehrn et al., 2013; Carcelén Garcia et al., 2024; Hamui-Sutton & Varela-Ruiz, 2013; Krueger, 1991; Rodas Pacheco & Pacheco Salazar, 2020). Researchers from various disciplinary backgrounds were invited to participate in a focus group. The objective was for them to reflect on the practices and policies currently employed by scientific journals within their respective disciplinary areas and those that they believe are inappropriate. The activity was conducted in April 2024, and 12 Chilean researchers attended in person. Additionally, researchers from other countries contributed via videoconference, as illustrated in Table 1.
Once the fieldwork had been completed, the focus group was transcribed in order to select and deductively relate the various contributions within each pre-established analysis category. Furthermore, the transcribed data were employed to identify and introduce new categories that had not been initially considered. The transcribed data were then organized using the Atlas.ti software for subsequent content analysis (Paulus & Lester, 2016). From a procedural standpoint, the document was initially subjected to a preliminary review, after which an inductive coding process was devised. In other words, the codes were derived from the direct contributions of the participants in the focus group, as identified through the data analysis process. A descriptive analysis of the main concepts identified in the focus group was generated based on the content of the discussion. These concepts were represented using a word map and a treemap, a data visualization technique that shows them hierarchically in the form of annotated rectangles. Based on the identified concepts, the following two categories of analysis were established for the purpose of coding and subsequent code debugging:
* Rooting: Number of times a code occurs in a text citation.
* Density: Number of times a code is associated with another code within the document.
In order to ascertain the absolute and relative frequency of the codes within the document and identify the leading practices that affected the production of research results, a descriptive quantification process was carried out. Subsequently, the codes were categorized into four dimensions:
* Editorial standards and formats: refers to authors" observations related to the rules and procedures defined by scientific journals for reviewing and publishing articles.
* Selection and acceptance process: referring to the problems detected in the stages and procedures involved in evaluating and accepting academic papers by scientific journals.
* Peer review and evaluation: refers to the difficulties and challenges faced by authors during the review and assessment of their work by experts in the field. These problems can include inadequate feedback from evaluators, long review times, and evaluation delays.
* Role of editors: referred to the challenges associated with the role and decisions of editors in the publishing process. It included issues such as arbitrariness in editorial decision-making, editors' power over content, lack of editorial transparency, and delays in the process.
The aforementioned categories informed the qualitative analysis, thereby enabling the identification ofthe primary issues within these contexts.
3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
3.1. General review of concepts
As illustrated in Figure 1, the primary concepts addressed by the authors during the focus group were identified through content analysis. In this context, which is focused on editorial practices that affect the scientific production of research results, there is a high frequency of terms such as: "Time (30), "Evaluation (24), and "Problem (20)." This suggests that the authors emphasize the evaluation process and associated challenges, such as waiting times and other problems. Regarding time, one author notes that "There are journals, for example, that take excessive time for refereeing, and there are some very efficient ones that take two or three weeks. However, there are others that take six or eight months, and even more than a year." In relation to other problems, it is relevant to mention what the authors indicate regarding the rejection of articles. Some responses lack feedback, such as "We did not like the article, we simply did not like it; please send it to another journal," or "The article seems interesting, but it is not relevant to our journal."
The identification of concepts such as "System (13)," "Experience (11)," and "Format (11)" highlights the significance of structural and formal elements within the editorial context of the journals in question. Additionally, the prominence of other relevant concepts, including "Production (10), "Discussion (7)," and "Reviewer (7), suggests a concentration on the dynamics of manuscript review and evaluation within the journal environment.
3.2. Most frequent codes
Table 2 presents the most frequently occurring codes integrated into the selected quotes from the focus group. The classification of these codes was based on their incidence and percentage within the total number of incidents documented in the text. The most frequently occurring issues identified by the participants are "delays in the editorial process" and "lack of editorial transparency." These account for approximately 15% of the total number of incidents within the codes. Furthermore, there is a predisposition towards other impediments, including "Lack of adequate feedback" and "lack of clarity on editorial standards," which manifest with a frequency of just over 5% each. Other issues identified by the authors include "arbitrariness" in decision-making, "phase out of double-blind arbitration," and "difficulties finding an evaluator." Editors frequently highlight these challenges and can contribute to delays in the overall editorial process. Each of these aspects is present in 4.26% of cases. In total, the 14 codes cited represent 66% of the total number of codes classified in this process, which comprises 31 codes in total.
3.3. Editorial standards and formats
As illustrated in Figure 2, the analysis revealed that authors encounter challenges from the initial submission of their manuscripts. The editorial standards and formats of the journals impose limitations related to the phenomena that manifest themselves around them. As previously stated, the most frequently cited issue among authors in this category is the "lack of clarity in standards," which is primarily attributed to inconsistency in editorial requirements about publication standards. Furthermore, concerns regarding the "lack of editorial transparency" and the "formatting aspects" of the publishing process were identified as significant issues by the authors. In particular, one participant offered the following observation regarding the issue of transparency: "The evaluation process is frequently opaque, in contrast to other editorial practices." The admission process is characterized by a high degree of specificity regarding the criteria that must be met for an article to be accepted for publication. However, the duration of the evaluation uation process is only sometimes transparent, and in some cases, it is unnecessarily prolonged without explicit communication from the journals. This participant indicated that journals may not adhere to their established evaluation deadlines.
Further issues have been identified, including the "software use" and the interpretation of "indicators." In regard to the initial issue, one author put forth the following hypothesis: "The software is becoming increasingly complex, necessitating the consideration of a multitude of factors that could potentially impact the final product." As stated by the participant, this remark pertains to the observation that "researchers utilize disparate software programs to compose their work, and these formats are not always adhered to." Furthermore, the use of spreadsheets is a topic of debate. It has been observed that a significant number of authors utilize a multitude of spreadsheet software to develop their manuscripts. However, many of these spreadsheets are diverse, and in many cases, they result in complications for the authors instead of being beneficial. Conversely, recurring issues have been identified, including the necessity for "citation currency," "limit on number of authors," "antiplagiarism system error," and the existence of "procedural gaps." These problems contribute to malfunctions in the journals' editorial teams.
3.4. Selection and acceptance practices
In the category of "selection and acceptance practices," a number of significant issues have been identified. For example, the concept of "arbitrariness" in decision-making is particularly noteworthy, with a rootedness of 4 and a density of 9. The authors associate this concept with the decisions made by editors when determining whether to submit a text for external evaluation or with non-compliance with the guidelines declared by the journal on its portal. Moreover, the codes "lack of editorial transparency" and "lack of adequate feedback" have been identified as obstacles to the aforementioned process. In this context, delays in the editorial process have been identified as a significant problem. Moreover, with regard to the aforementioned arbitrary decision-making, there is a proclivity for certain authors to be favored, despite a lack of demonstrated ability to publish in a variety of journals. These authors frequently appear in the same journal on multiple occasions. Furthermore, evidence suggests the existence of a "gender gap" in the selection processes has been indicated, along with other concerns, including "discrimination," "excessive revisions," and "procedural gaps." These are directly associated with the obstacles or bases for their development (see Figure 3).
3.5. Peer review and evaluation processes
In the context of the review and arbitration process, a number of issues have been identified that impact the quality and efficiency of the process itself. One of the most significant issues is the "lack of adequate feedback" from reviewers. One author offers the following commentary: "Evaluators frequently request changes that appear arbitrary and suggest additional revisions without sufficiently focusing on the evaluation of the article. One of my articles was rejected by a journal that provided only cursory sory and general evaluations, failing to clearly indicate the fundamental issues that justified the rejection." Furthermore, the issue of "excessive review time" in the refereeing process was identified. One of the participants in the focus group stated, "Some arbitration processes are highly efficient, with a turnaround time of two or three weeks. However, in other cases, the wait time can extend to six months or more, with instances exceeding a year."
Moreover, there is a concern regarding the "delay in double-blind review" process. In this regard, one author offers the following opinion: "It is frequently claimed that the journal in question employs double-blind refereeing, yet in practice this is not the case." The discourse is devoid of both discussion and commentary and is instead characterized by a prevailing tone of criticism. This is a reality that authors must contend with, representing an additional and limiting challenge when attempting to publish. Other challenges authors encounter include "difficulties finding a reviewer," which in turn delays the publication process. Furthermore, instances of "discrimination," "inconsistent evaluations," "excessive corrections," and "revision errors" have been identified, representing persistent challenges in the refereeing and revision process. This is illustrated in Figure 4.
3.6. Role of editors
In regard to editors, a series of challenges have been identified that impede their capacity to ensure an effective and impartial editorial process. One of the most significant issues is the "lack of editorial transparency" and consistenсу in editorial decision-making, particularly in the evaluation of submitted texts. The "arbitrariness" of editorial decisions is further compounded in some journals that impose "limitations on the number of authors" and "the limits on the number of publications" an author can produce within a specified period. One author underscores the point by stating, "The imposition of arbitrary limits on the number of authors per article, such as a maximum of three or four, has the potential to significantly impact the integrity of research that is based on collaborative work teams."
Another practice that has been identified is the "editors" power over content" for which they are responsible. One author offers the following explanation: "I made so many corrections at the editor's request that, upon reading the article for the final time, I was unable to identify with it as my own work." This situation, the researcher continues, reflects a power imbalance in which editors exert considerable influence over scientists. Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the "lack of editorial transparency," particularly with regard to feedback and the duration of the waiting period for authors. This lack of clarity is also associated with delays in the editorial process, which, in turn, is the consequence of "difficulty in finding reviewers." These issues present a significant challenge for editors and also create substantial obstacles for authors in the publishing process. Moreover, the conduct of editors has been observed to manifest in several problematic ways, including "discrimination," "inconsistent evaluations," "excessive corrections," and a "lack of technical capacity of editors." In regard to this matter, one author offers the following observation: "Editors lack both the requisite technical skills and the requisite care needed to conduct a thorough review of the results. It appears that a considerable number of editors possess only a modicum of experience and a narrow range of qualifications as researchers. This deficit in technical training is further compounded by the increasing demand for publications from both authors and editors." One author states, "The sheer volume of scientific output in the world has exceeded our analytical capacity." These factors contribute to a context that presents a significant obstacle to scientific production (see Figure 5).
4. CONCLUSIONS
This research has identified and analyzed the editorial practices and policies established by journals that impede the flow of publications and affect their authors. The findings of this study have highlighted the necessity for reforming current editorial practices to foster a more equitable and efficient environment for authors in the scientific publication process. The findings reveal a recurring issue, namely the perception of arbitrariness in editorial decisions, which engenders a sense of uncertainty and mistrust among authors. The lack of adequate feedback hinders authors ability to refine their work and resubmit it with enhanced prospects of success. Furthermore, delays in the review process impede the dissemination of scientific knowledge, which in turn affects the scientific community as a whole. From the perspective of the focus group participants, these aspects have a detrimental impact on the quality and efficiency of the editorial process. The findings of this study are consistent with those of previous research, including studies by Huisman and Smits (2017), Severin and Chataway (2021), and Amin et al. (2024). These studies have identified response times in the review process and the quality of evaluations as the most significant factors influencing authors" perceptions of journal quality. It is crucial to acknowledge the constraints of this study, including the qualitative nature of the focus groups, which limits the generalizability of the findings. It is important to acknowledge that the sample does not fully represent the geographical and disciplinary diversity of scientific communities. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into the challenges authors currently face in the scientific publishing system. Furthermore, it provides a basis for generating feedback that can facilitate enhanced cooperation between authors and publishers.
To further enhance our comprehension and optimize the scientific publishing system, we propose a series of prospective research avenues. One avenue for future research would be to conduct quantitative studies to ascertain the prevalence of issues such as delays in the publishing process and a lack of transparency. Furthermore, a comparative analysis between disciplines and geographical regions would be beneficial in order to identify significant variations and common patterns in editorial practices. This would facilitate a more nuanced understanding of how disparate fields of knowledge and regional contexts address editorial challenges, thereby enabling the development of tailored solutions that are responsive to diverse needs. A further crucial avenue of inquiry would be to assess the efficacy of interventions aimed at enhancing the transparency and efficiency of the review process. Such interventions could include the implementation of more transparent and consistent policies, the training of reviewers, and the adoption of technologies that facilitate communication and monitoring of the review process. The assessment of the impact of these interventions would facilitate the identification of optimal practices and their promotion across a diverse range of scientific journals. Furthermore, it is deemed crucial to incorporate the input of editors, peer reviewers, and other stakeholders to gain a comprehensive understanding of editorial practices and their implications for global scientific production. The incorporation of these disparate perspectives would facilitate the discovery of elements that might otherwise remain unidentified, while simultaneously cultivating a more constructive discourse surrounding the enhancement of the publishing system.
This research offers a critical and reflective perspective on the publishing practices that shape scientific production. It underscores the necessity for reforms in the publishing system, with the aim of enhancing the quality, fairness, and efficiency of the publication process. This will ensure that scientific advances make a substantial contribution to global knowledge. It is only through a unified and collaborative approach between authors, editors, and reviewers that the path of continuous improvement can be maintained, ensuring continued support for high-quality scientific research.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Contribution statement
Conceptualization, supervision: Francisco Ganga-Contreras.
Data curation, writing - original draft: Nancy Alarcon.
Project management, supervision: Wendolin Suarez-Amaya.
Writing - review & editing: David Alvarez-Maldonado.
Statement of data consent
The data generated during this research have been included in the article.
Funding
This research has been funded by the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development under grant number 1231766.
REFERENCES
AMIN, B., OSAMA, T., & BAKOUSH O. (2024). Deficient editorial practices, perceived quality, and expedient scholarly publishing in a developing nation. F1000Research, 12, 1173. http:// doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134583.3
ASHFORD, S. J. (2013). Having scholarly impact: The art of hitting academic home runs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(4), 623-633. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amle.2013.0090
Buss THOFEHRN, M., LÓPEZ MONTESINOS, M. J., Rutz PORTO, A., COELHO AMESTOY, S., OLIVEIRA ARRIEIRA, 1. C., & MIKLA, M. (2013). Focus group: A data collection technique in qualitative research. Index de Enfermería, 22(1-2), 75-78. https://dx.doi.org/10.4321/ S1132-12962013000100016
CANDAL-PEDREIRA, C., REY-BRANDARIZ, J., VARELA-LEMA, L., PÉREZ-Ríos, M., & RUANO-RAVINA, A. (2023). The challenges of peer review: How to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process of scientificjournals. Anales de Pediatría, 99(1), 54-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2023.05.017
CARCELÉN GARCÍA, S., DURÁN-VILCHES, M., & GALMES CEREZO, M. (2024). Territorios de la vulnerabilidad digital: Situaciones, emociones y actitudes de los jóvenes en el entorno online. Revista Española De Sociología, 33(1), a208. https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/ res.2024.208
COLQUITT, J. A., & GEORGE, С. (2011). Publishing in AMJ-part 1: Topic choice. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432-435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61965960
DELGADO-LOPEZ-COZAR, E. 8 RUIZ-PÉREZ, В. (2009). La comunicación y edición científica fundamentos conceptuales. In UNSPECIFIED (Ed), Homenaje a Isabel de Torres Ramírez: Estudios de documentación dedicados a su memoria (pp. 131-150). University of Granada.
DEROY DOMINGUEZ, D. (2022). Scientific journals and their role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Revista Cubana de Educación Superior, 41(Suppl. 1). http:// scielo.sld.cu/pdf/rces/v41s1/0257-4314rces-41-s1-22.pdf
FIRMINO DA COSTA, A., DA CRUZ MARTINS, S., CARDOSO, S., NUNES, N., & CARVALHO, H. (2022). Ediciones cientificas y ciencias sociales: 100 números de la revista Sociología, Problemas y Prácticas. Sociología, Problemas y Prácticas, 100, 13-39. https://doi. org/10.7458/SPP202210028003
GANGA-CONTRERAS, F., ALARCÓN-HENRÍQUEZ, N., SUÁREZ-AMAYA, W., MELEÁN ROMERO, R., RUIZ, G., & CUEVA ESTRADA, J. (2022). Causas que originan rechazo de artículos científicos en revistas científicas latinoamericanas. Ingeniare. Revista Chilena de Ingeniería, 30(3), 602-618. https://dx.doi. org/10.4067/S0718-33052022000300602
GANGA-CONTRERAS, F., GARRIDO CABEZAS, N., Gopoy CABEZAS, Y., & CAUTIN BARRIA, С. (2020). Acciones tendientes a incrementar la producción científica en la Universidad de Tarapacá-Chile. Revista Ciencias Sociales, 26(3), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs. v26i3.33250
GANGA-CONTRERAS, F., PAREDES, L., & PEDRAJA, L. (2015). Importancia de las publicaciones académicas en el ámbito de la gestión organizacional: algunos problemas a tener en cuenta. Revista Idesia, 33(4), 111-119. http://dx.doi. org/10.4067/S0718-34292015000400014
GARCÍA, J. A., RODRIGUEZ-SÁNCHEZ, R., & FDEZ-VALDIVIA, J. (2015). The author-editor game. Scientometrics, 104, 361-380. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1566-x
GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, A. & GARCÍA GONZÁLEZ, M. (2023). Las revistas científicas: principal vía de socialización de los resultados de investigación. Referencia Pedagógica, 11(1), 138-153. http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/rp/ v11n1/2308-3042-rp-11-01-138.pdf
GELETKANYCZ, M., & TEPPER, В. J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ-part 6: Discussing the implications. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256-260. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amj.2012.4002
GISBERT, J. & CHAPARRO, M. (2023). Reglas y consejos para ser un buen revisor por pares de manuscritos científicos. Gastroenterología y Hepatología, 46(3), 215-235. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2022.03.005
GRANT, A. M., & POLLOCK, T. С. (2011). Publishing in AMJ-Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.4000
HAMUI-SUTTON, A., & VARELA-RUIZ, M. (2013). The focus group technique. Investigaciôn en Educación Médica, 2(5), 55-60. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2007-5057(13)72683-8
HUISMAN, J. & SMITs, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author's perspective. Scientometrics, 113, 633-650. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
JAVED, F., MICHELOGIANNAKIS, D., & Rossouw, P. E. (2024). Editorial bullying: An exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 9, Article 1345553. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2024.1345553
KRUEGER, R. (1991). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications.
MATIAS-GUIv, J. (2020). The role of scientific journal editors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The role of scientific journal editors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neurologia, 35(4), 223-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nrl.2020.05.005
MENDOZA, S., & Paravic, T. (2006). Origen, clasificaciôn y desafios de las Revistas Cientificas. Investigacién y Postgrado, 21(1), 49-75. https://www.redalyc.org/ pdf/658/65821103.pdf
MOHER, D., & ALTMAN, D. G. (2015). Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Medicine, 12(9), Article e1001864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001864
MOHER, D., GALIPEAU, J., ALAM, S., BARBOUR, V., BARTOLOMEOS, K., BASKIN, P., BELL-SYER, S., COBEY, K. D., CHAN, L., CLARK, J., DEEKS, J., FLANAGIN, A., GARNER, P., GLENNY, A.-M., GROVES, T., GURUSAMY, K., HABIBZADEH, F., JEWELL-THOMAS, S., KELSALL, D., & ZHAORI, G. (2017). Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: Consensus statement. BMC Medicine, 15, 1-10. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0
MURADCHANIAN, J., HOEKSTRA, R., KIERs, H., & VAN RAVENZWAAIJ, D. (2023). The role of results in deciding to publish: A direct comparison across authors, reviewers, and editors based on an online survey. PLoS ONE, 18(10), Article e0292279. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292279
MussELIN, C. (2013). How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate. Research Policy, 42(5), 1165-1173. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.002
NINO, JR, J. (2024). An analysis of university management in western Mexico. Gestión de la Educación, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.15517/ rge.v10i1.56337
OXHORN, P. (2015). Production, quality and dissemination of scientific journals of the 21st century. Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, 77(Supl. 1), 39-44. https://www.redalyc.org/ pdf/321/32141043004.pdf
O'BRIEN, A., GRAF, C., & MCKELLAR, K. (2019). How publishers and editors can help early career researchers: Recommendations from a roundtable discussion. Learned Publishing, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1249
PAULUS, T. M., & LESTER, J. M. (2016). ATLAS.ti for conversation and discourse analysis studies. International Journal of Social Research search Methodology, 19(4), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1021949
PLATA-CAVIEDES, T., CÓRDOBA-SALGADO, O. A., & TRZESNIAK, P. (2012). Dictámenes en Revistas Científicas: lo que Necesitan los Editores y Autores, lo que Hacen los Evaluadores. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 21(1), 37-55. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.0a?id=80424036004
RAMIREZ-CARDONA, A., & CALDERON-HERNANDEZ, G. (2024). Organizational coupling in higher education institutions: Challenges for university governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 54(2), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2301210
REPISO, R., TORRES-SALINAS, D., & AGUADED, I. (2019). Journal management. Universal transfer merit. Fair and necessary. Anuario ThinkEPI, 13, Article e13103. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2019.e13e03
RoDAS PACHECO, F. D., & PACHECO SALAZAR, V. G. (2020). Focus groups: Framework for their implementation. INNOVA Research Journal, 5(3), 182-195. https://doi.org/10.33890/innova.v5.n3.2020.1401
RODRIGUEZ, E. G. (2013). Editorial peer review: Roles and processes. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 24(2), 160-175. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3776/377648460006.pdf
RoJAs, G. M., LINARES HERRERA, M. P., & HERNÁNDEZ, C. F. (2022). Theoretical conceptions of editorial processes in scientific journals from a regulatory approach. In E. H. Veria (Ed.), Advanced notes in information science (Vol. 1, pp. 90-106). ColNes Publishing. https://doi.org/10.47909/anis.978-9916-9760-0-5.99
SCHONHAUT BERMAN, L., MILLÁN KLUSSE, T., & PODESTÁ LOPEZ, L. (2017). Peer review: Evidence and challenges. Revista Chilena de Pediatria, 88(5), 577-581. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0370-41062017000500001
SEVERIN, A., & CHATAWAY, J. (2021). Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions. Learned Publishing, 34, 144-155. http://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336
Copyright Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication 2024