Being a researcher is not only a matter of publishing: learning to review scientific articles / No solo de publicar viven los investigadores: aprender a revisar artículos científicos

References / Referencias

• Ammenwerth, E., Wolff, A. C., Knaup, P., Ulmer, H., Skonetzki, S., Van Bemmel, J. H., … Kulikowski, C. (2003). Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10, 512–514. doi:10.1197/jamia.m1062
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bautista, A., & Castelló, M. (2015). Call for papers: Fostering the professional development of junior authors and reviewers in scientific journals. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 38, 681–688. doi:10.1080/02103702.2015.1072351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bautista, A., & Castelló, M. (2017). Fostering the professional development of junior authors and reviewers in scientific journals. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40. doi:10.1080/02103702.2017.1357250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bautista, A., Monereo, C., & Scheuer, N. (2014). The peer review process as an opportunity for learning /La evaluación por pares como oportunidad para el aprendizaje. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 37, 665–686. doi:10.1080/02103702.2014.977105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J. (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e40. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelló, M., Corcelles, M., Iñesta, A., Bañales, G., & Vega, N. (2011). La voz del autor en la escritura académica: Una propuesta para su análisis. Signos, 44, 105–117. doi:10.4067/s0718-09342011000200001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelló, M., & Iñesta, A. (2012). Texts as Artifacts-in-Activity: Developing Authorial Identity and Academic Voice in Writing Academic Research Papers. In M. Castelló, & C. Donahue (Eds.), University writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 179–200). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff, F. (2004). Improving peer review: Who’s responsible? Peer review needs recognition at every stage of scientific life. British Medical Journal, 328, 657–659. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englander, K., & Lopez-Bonilla, G. (2011). Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ response to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13, 395–416. doi:10.1177/1461445611403261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 27–37. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004
   Google Scholar
• Gasparyan, A. Y., & Kitas, G. D. (2012). Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croatian Medical Journal, 53, 386–389. doi:10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87–101. doi:10.1016/s1475-1585(02)00037-1
   Google Scholar
• Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25, 167–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houry, D., Green, S., & Callaham, M. (2012). Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Medical Education, 12, 83. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (Eds.). (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 235–249. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monereo, C., Pozo, J. I., & Castelló, M. (2001). La enseñanza de estrategias de aprendizaje en el contexto escolar. In C. Coll, J. Palacios, & A. Marchesi ( Comps.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación Vol. 2 (pp. 235–254). Madrid: Alianza.
   Google Scholar
• Mungra, P., & Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 43–53. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paltridge, B. (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it?. International Journal for Researcher Development, 4, 6–18. doi:10.1108/ijrd-07-2013-0011
   Google Scholar
• Paltridge, B. (2015). Referee’s comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40, 106–122. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.818641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedrazzini, A., Bautista, B., Scheuer, N., & Monereo, C. (2014). Review by (non)peers as an opportunity for learning: A case study on the editorial process of papers by junior researchers /La revisión por (im)pares como instancia de aprendizaje: Un estudio de casos del proceso editorial de artículos de investigadoras noveles. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 37, 851–901. doi:10.1080/02103702.2014.977531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samraj, B. (2016). Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 76–88. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez, E., García, J. N., & Del Río, P. (2002). Writing as rewriting: A content analysis of peer reviews of non-accepted papers submitted to Infancia y Aprendizaje. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25, 5–35. doi:10.1174/021037002753508502
   Google Scholar
• Scheuer, N., Bautista, A., Martín, E., & Pozo, J. I. (2009). “Tras una lectura atenta de su manuscrito…” Un análisis de los procesos de revisión en Infancia y Aprendizaje. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32, 243–264. doi:10.1174/021037009788964213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., & Smith, R. (2004). Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BJM, 328(7441), 673. doi:10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.ae
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Infometrics, 10, 347–364. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar