Metrika članka

  • citati u SCindeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:[1]
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[=>]
  • posete u prethodnih 30 dana:5
  • preuzimanja u prethodnih 30 dana:1
članak: 1 od 1  
Zaštita materijala
2017, vol. 58, br. 3, str. 259-270
jezik rada: srpski
vrsta rada: aktuelni problemi
doi:10.5937/ZasMat1703259D

Creative Commons License 4.0
Kako recenzirati naučni rad
aUniverzitet u Beogradu, Institut za hemiju, tehnologiju i metalurgiju - IHTM, Beograd
bUniverzitet u Beogradu, Institut za medicinska istraživanja, Beograd
cUniverzitet u Beogradu, Institut za primenu nuklearne energije - INEP, Beograd

e-adresa: dekanski@htm.bg.ac.rs

Sažetak

Postupak recenziranja je ključni element koji obezbeđuje pouzdano i tačno prezentovanje novog, korisnog i originalnog naučnog saznanja javnosti. I pored mnogih nedostataka koje ovakvo vrednovanje naučnog rada ima, ono je do danas nezamenjivi deo procesa publikovanja rezultata naučnih istraživanja. Tokom istorije razvijale su se različite vrste recenziranja, ali suština samog procesa je ostala nepromenjena: pre publikovanja rezultati se podvrgavaju nepristrasnoj, kompetentnoj i pouzdanoj oceni valjanosti, vrednosti i originalnosti. Nažalost, ni u svetu, a pogotovo kod nas, skoro da ne postoji sistematsko i institucionalizovano obrazovanje za obavljanje ovog odgovornog zadatka. Znanje i praksa se preuzimaju od starijih kolega, ili se stiču vremenom. Kako je svaki mladi naučnik potencijalni recenzent, ovaj tekst je namenjen pre svega mladima, kao priručnik, uputstvo kako recenzirati naučni rad i šta sve treba imati u vidu kada se piše recenzentski izveštaj. Nakon analize procesa recenziranja, u tekstu su istaknuti etički principi kojih se recenzent treba pridržavati, a zatim je pokušano dati odgovor na pitanje: Kako kritički, korektno i objektivno recenzirati naučni rad? Na kraju, sugerisano je kako recenzentski izveštaj treba da izgleda.

Ključne reči

proces recenziranja; etički principi; konstruktivna kritika; društveno vrednovanje

Reference

*** (2014) Getting peer review right: A guide for early career researchers. (https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/11201/134767, 8.5.2017.)
*** (2017) Publons Academy peer reviewer training course. (https://publons.com/announcement/pub-lons-academy-peer-reviewer-training-course, 8.5.2017.)
*** (2017) Peer review: How exactly do I do that?. (https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers - update/story/peer-review/peer-review-how-exactly-do-i-do-that, 8.5.2017.)
*** (2017) Types of peer review. (https://authorservices.wiley. com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/types-of-peer-review.html, 25.4.2017)
*** (2017) Experimenting with collaborative peer review. (https://w ww.elsevier.com/revi ewers-update/story//innovation-in-publishing/experimenting-with-collaborative-peerreview, 19.7. 2017.)
*** (1999) Pros and cons of open peer review. Nature neuroscience, 2(3): 197-8
*** Reviewer recognition. (https://www.reviewerreco-gnition.elsevier.com/, 19.7.2017.)
Allen, T. (2013) Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review?. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 113(12): 918-920
Biagioli, M. (2002) From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, 12(1): 11-45
BIPM (2006) SI Brochure. http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/, 3.5. 2017.)
Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., Evans, S. (1998) What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. JAMA, 280(3): 231-3
BMJ (2017) Training materials. (http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/training-materials, 8. 5. 2017.)
Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., Daniel, H. (2010) A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?. Scientometrics, 83(2): 493-506
Cochrane Eyes and Vision (2017) Free Online Course on Journal Peer Review. (http://eyes.cochrane.org/free-online-course-journal-peer-review, 8.5.2017.)
Davidoff, F. (2004) Improving peer review: who's responsible?. BMJ, 328(7441): 657-658
De, V.D.R., Marschall, E.A., Stein, R.A. (2009) Exploring the Peer Review Process: What is it, Does it Work, and Can it Be Improved?. Fisheries, 34(6): 270-279
Dekanski, A., Drvenica, I., Nedić, O. (2016) Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q., 22
Dekanski, A. (2014) How to present and publish research results. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 79(12): 1561-1570
Editor Resources Publons: The importance of recognition in peer review. (http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/publons-the-importance-of-recognition-in-peer-review/, 19.7.2017.)
Edwards, K. L., Schizas, C., Mannion, A. F., Aebi, M., Gunzburg, R. (2015) How to be a good reviewer. European Spine Journal, 24(1): 1-2
Enago Academy (2017) What is the value of a post: Publication peer review?. (https://www.enago.com/academy/value-of-post-publication-peer-review/, 19.4.2017.)
García, J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015) Bias and effort in peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10): 2020-2030
Grainger, D.W. (2007) Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials, 28(34): 5199-5203
Huisman, J., Smits, J. (2017) Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1): 633-650
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry Recommendations. (https://iupac.org/what-we-do/recommendations/, 3.5.2017.)
Kennedy, D. (2006) Editorial Retraction. Science, 311(5759): 335b-335b
Marsh, H.W., Jayasinghe, U.W., Bond, N.W. (2008) Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63(3): 160-168
Media Commons Press (2017) The history of peer review. u: Planned Obsolescence, Planned Obsolescence, Med iaCommons Press, (http://mcpress.media-commons.org/plannedobsolescence/one/the-history-of-pee-review/, 25.4.2017)
Nguyen, V.M., Haddaway, N.R., Gutowsky, L.F.G., Wilson, A.D.M., Gallagher, A.J., Donaldson, M.R., Hammerschlag, N., Cooke, S.J. (2015) How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals. PloS one, 10(8): e0132557
Nicholas, K.A., Gordon, W.S. (2011) A quick guide to writing a solid peer review. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(28): 233
Pain, E. (2016) How to review a paper. Science
Publons Our Mission. (https://publons.com/about/mission/, 3.5.2017.)
Pulverer, B. (2010) Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Nature, 468(7320): 29-31
Raff, J. How to read and understand a scientific paper: A guide for non-scientists. (https://violentmeta phors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific - paper-2/, 3.5. 2017.)
Ramsden, V.R., Pimlott, N., Woollard, R., Kvern, B., Handford, C., Dunikowski, L., Gagnon, S., Hoffart, K., Ladouceur, R., Lambert, Y. (2014) Becoming a peer reviewer. Engaging in sharing and gaining knowledge. Can. Fam. Physician, 1158-1160; 60
Reviewer credits Metrics for peer review. (http://reviewercredits.com/, 3.5.2017.)
Sands, T. (2015) Annual acknowledgement of reviewers. BMC Molecular Biology, 16(1):
ScienceOpen (https://www.scienceopen.com/, 19.7.2017.)
Spier, R. (2002) The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8): 357-358
Stewart, M., i dr. (2000) The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract, 49: 796-804
Székely, T., Krüger, O., Krause, E. (2014) Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends in ecology & evolution, 29(7): 371-3
Tandon, R. (2014) How to review a scientific paper. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 11: 124-127
Vintzileos, A.M., Ananth, C.V. (2010) The art of peer-reviewing an original research paper: important tips and guidelines. Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 29(4): 513-8
Ware, M., Mabe, M. (2012) The STM report. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. http://www.stmassoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf, 25. 4. 2017
Wiley Online Library (2017) Transferable peer review. (http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-819213.html, 25.4.2017)
Wiley Online Library (2017) Transferable peer review: For reviewers. (http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-819219.html, 19.7.2017.)
Zaharie, M.A., Osoian, C.L. (2016) Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach. European Management Journal, 34(1): 69-79