Note from the Editorial Committee on the peer review process
Nota del Comité Editorial sobre el proceso de revisión por pares
Cite as: Comité Editorial. Nota del Comité Editorial sobre el proceso de revisión por pares. Salud Cienc. Tecnol. 2023;3:264. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2023264
Received: 10-02-2023 Published: 12-02-2023 Note: Non-peer-reviewed article
Dear authors and readers:
At the beginning of 2023, Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología, committed to the highest editorial standards and transparency and implemented open and post-publication peer review.(1,2) After almost two months, the journal has received many articles due to its entry into Scopus. The new editorial practice has led to an overload in our team.
At the same time, our authors have been showing dissatisfaction, given that they do not fully understand the editorial process and often even dismiss it. In this sense, we have carried out extra-editorial activities such as webinars and dissemination on social networks so that the operation can be understood. Due to the Open Journal System's limitations for applying the post-publication review model, we found it necessary to create an additional website to manage the editorial process. However, the fact that we use two editorial platforms has generated some mistrust among the authors.
Added to all of the above is that many consider paying the APC a guarantee of acceptance after peer review. On occasions, we have received offensive comments derived from this misunderstanding. With great pleasure, we have been available to clarify any doubts. However, this initial payment has been confused with a fast-track, even though we have explained that this is false. In addition, many rejected authors express ongoing concern that the published version of their rejected article will not be further considered by future journals to which it may be submitted.
Many of our reviewers also do not want their names and/or comments reflected in the article. A such disagreement has led to the loss of almost 60 % of them. As we all know, the reviewers' observations and/or comments are crucial elements in the scientific publication process.
The editorial team remains committed to the highest editorial standards; however, we believe academic publishing processes cannot be hostile to editors and reviewers or create confusion for our authors. For this reason, we have decided to return to a double-blind peer review model and readjust our editorial guidelines.
The editors’ names will be kept in the articles. However, we will omit our reviewers' names, institutions and countries from the manuscripts. We will publish their names in a journal section without reference to the work they reviewed. In this way, we will maintain the reviewers’ privacy while acknowledging their participation.
Since our commitment is to science, contributing authors, and readers, we consider that this decision will not affect the quality of the editorial process. We will be in tune with the needs of our scientific community.
1. Rojas Concepción AA, Vitón-Castillo AA, Gómez Cano CA, Canova Barrios C, Lepez CO, Machuca-Contreras F, Gonzalez-Argote J, Bonardi MC, Alonso Galbán P, Castillo-González W. ¿Cómo funcionan los procesos editoriales en Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología? Un artículo de preguntas dinámicas. Salud Cienc. Tecnol. 2023;3:213. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2023213
2. Rojas Concepción AA, Castillo González W, Lepez CO, Bonardi MC, Vitón-Castillo AA, Alonso Galbán P, Canova Barrios C, Machuca-Contreras F, Gonzalez-Argote J. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología, pionera de la revisión por pares abierta y pospublicación: una necesidad y un reto. Salud Cienc. Tecnol.2023;3:158. https://revista.saludcyt.ar/ojs/index.php/sct/article/view/158