Escribir es re-escribir. Un análisis de contenidos de los informes realizados a los artículos no publicados en Infancia y Aprendizaje

Resumen

En este artículo nos hemos propuesto analizar las razones que motivan la no aceptación de los artículos enviados a la revista y, al mismo tiempo, la labor que, al respecto, llevan a cabo los revisores. Para ello hemos creado un sistema de análisis capaz de desentrañar todos los contenidos de los informes de evaluación que aluden a cuatro tareas diferentes que hemos identificado en la labor de los revisores: evaluar, apoyar, sugerir y clarificar. Con ese sistema se han analizado 50 informes de evaluación que corresponden a los 25 primeros artículos que fueron no aceptados para publicación en el presente periodo de la revista. Respecto del análisis de las objeciones, presentamos las frecuencias de 95 objeciones diferentes organizadas en 24 categorías y en 6 apartados. Y respecto del análisis de la labor de los revisores, se presenta un análisis de los recursos retóricos empleados, los diferentes estilos que hemos identificado y un análisis de las tareas no evaluativas que también están presentes en los informes. Entendemos que este análisis puede propiciar una doble toma de conciencia que motive una reflexión en la comunidad académica sobre el proceso de evaluación en sí y sobre el modo de acometerlo.

Abstract

The paper analyses the reasons that motivate the non-acceptance of articles sent to the journal and, in this respect, also the work carried out by referees. To do so, we have designed a system of analysis capable of explaining the content of peer reviews. We have thus identified four different tasks in the work of referees: To assess, support, suggest, and clarify. 50 reports have been analysed using this system, corresponding to the first 25 papers rejected for publication in the journal's current period. First, we analysed the reasons for not accepting articles: the frequencies of 95 different objections, organised into 24 categories, and grouped under 6 headings are provided. Second, we analyse the rhetoric resources employed by referees, and describe the different styles identified. Finally, we analyse non evaluative tasks also present in peer reviews. We feel that this analysis could favour a double awareness in the academic community, promoting a reflection on: 1) the assessment process itself, and 2) the way it is undertaken.

Extended Summary

The present study analyses the reasons that motivate the non-acceptance of articles received at the journal, and the type of work undertaken by referees when reviewing them. The intention behind this double aim is to bring out into the open what usually remains in the dark in order to help both authors and referees in their work. indeed, to make clear a process that quite probably can never be absolutely fair, but that nevertheless should be regulated as much as possible.

On this basis, we have analysed 50 peer reviews, corresponding to the first 25 papers rejected for publication in the journal's current period. Our analysis involved a detailed study of each review using a system specifically designed for this task. With this system, examination of the grounds for objection yielded 95 reasons grouped under 24 categories, and 6 headings: overall reasons, problems with the introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and, finally, formal problems. Apart from the specific results—the frequencies of all the results are given in relation to totals in different Tables—we were also interested in showing the importance of some indicators and categories (e.g., consistency, relevance, conceptual clarity, etc.), and their significance in referees' decision taking process. In addition, we have tried to illustrate with some brief examples the most frequent or relevant objections.

With respect to the second aim of our study, we have analysed referees' work, examining the following in some detail: 1)The framework used in the review: if they employ the journal's framework, that of research logic, or another ad hoc framework for each article; 2) predominant styles: evaluative, argumentative, and dialogic: 3) rhetoric resources employed: recapitulation, preface, summary; and, 4)as a result, the type of task adopted: support the authors, clarify concepts, or make suggestions.

We feel that the present analysis may provoke a collective reflection based on this double awareness, in order to clarify the rules, more or less implicit, that regulate referees work. In this sense, we support the need for a greater balance between the different tasks involved, particularly with respect to two of them: evaluation and recognition.

Palabras clave:

• Artículos no aceptados
• tareas
• recursos retóricos y estilos de los revisores

Keywords:

• Non-accepted papers
• referees' tasks
• rhetoric resources
• referees' evaluation style