Il problema metodologico del referaggio: cosa vuol dire «valutare» un saggio

Titolo Rivista SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE
Autori/Curatori Ivo Colozzi
Anno di pubblicazione 2013 Fascicolo 2013/100
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 11 P. 111-121 Dimensione file 627 KB
DOI 10.3280/SR2013-100011
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The paper proposes first a «guide» to the practice of refereeing, presenting some prominent examples of «how» are evaluated the products submitted for publication in journals. The examples allow understanding what are the procedures used and the profiles on which assessment is required (originality, structure, data correctness, accuracy of references, etc.). Are then presented some of the most significant problems that the vast literature on peer review has highlighted, in particular: how effective it is, that is able to detect misconduct (falsification of data, plagiarism, etc.), how much is fair, that is able to avoid the creation of systematic discrimination against certain groups of researchers or nonconventional shapes and innovative research, how efficient, ie not responsible for slowing the spread of new research and overloading the best researchers.;

  1. J. Scott Armstrong (1997), «Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation», Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, pp. 63-84.
  2. L. Bornmann (2008), «An Analysis of the Peer Review Process from the Perspective of Sociology of Science Theories», Human Architecture: Journal of The Sociology of Self-Knowledge, VI, 2, pp. 23-38.
  3. British Academy (2007), Peer Review: The Challenges for the Humanities and the Social Sciences, www.britac.ac.uk/reports/peer-review/.
  4. J.M. Campanario (1998a), «Peer Review for Journals as it stand today-Part I», Science Communication, 19, 3, pp. 181-211.
  5. J.M. Campanario (1998b), «Peer Review for Journals as it stand today-Part II», Science Communication, 19, 4, pp. 277-306.
  6. R. Caso (a c. di) (2009), «Pubblicazioni scientifiche, diritti d’autore e open access: atti del convegno tenuto presso la Facoltà di Giurisprudenza di Trento il 20 giugno 2008», Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze giuridiche, 79, Trento, Università degli Studi di Trento.
  7. D.V. Cicchetti (1991), «The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-disciplinary Investigation», Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, pp. 119-86.
  8. J. Guetzkow, M. Lamont, G. Mallard (2004), «What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences?», American Sociological Review, 69, 2, pp. 190-212.
  9. I. Hames (2007), Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice, http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405131594.html.
  10. C.C. Miller (2006), «Peer Review in the Organizational and Management Sciences: Prevalence and Effects of Reviewer Hostility, Bias and Dissensus», Academy of Management Journal, 49, 3, pp. 425-31.
  11. L. Paccagnella (2010), Open access. Conoscenza aperta e società dell’informazione, Bologna, il Mulino.
  12. Publishing Research Consortium (2008), Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives (Summary Paper 4), www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf.
  13. Rin (2008), Activities, Costs and Funding Flows in the Scholarly Communications System in the UK, www.rin.ac.uk/activities-costs-flows.
  14. Rin (2010), Peer Review. A Guide for Researchers, www.rin.ac.uk.
  15. A. Scott (2007), «Peer Review and Tje Relevance of Science», Futures, 39, pp. 827-845.
  16. Times Higher Education (2009), Retractions up ten-fold, 20 August, www.times higher education.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407838.

Ivo Colozzi, Il problema metodologico del referaggio: cosa vuol dire «valutare» un saggio in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 100/2013, pp 111-121, DOI: 10.3280/SR2013-100011