La revisión por pares en las áreas de filosofía y filosofía moral en España. Creencias y debates sobre su consolidación, su idoneidad y su tipo ideal.

Peer review in the fields of philosophy and moral philosophy in Spain. Beliefs and debates about its consolidation, its suitability, and its ideal type.

ETHICS; RESEARCH personnel; SCIENTIFIC community; PHILOSOPHERS; ANNUAL meetings

Poco se conoce sobre la actitud de los filósofos sobre la revisión por pares y cómo se enfrentan a este sistema que aspira a controlar y mejorar la calidad de la publicación científica. En campos como la filosofía, donde se discuten más ideas que hechos, es interesante preguntarnos si estamos ante un procedimiento ampliamente aceptado e interiorizado por su comunidad investigadora. Para responder a ello el presente estudio emplea, con investigadores de las áreas de filosofía y filosofía moral de España, la triangulación metodológica combinando una encuesta, un debate dentro de la reunión anual de una sociedad científica y entrevistas en profundidad. Los resultados muestran que el 99% cree que se trata de un procedimiento extendido en su campo. A pesar de ello la parte cualitativa del estudio apunta también a ciertas dudas sobre la interiorización real entre los investigadores de una cultura evaluadora por pares consolidada. Por otro lado, el 89% considera positivamente la idoneidad de la revisión por pares para evaluar la calidad de las publicaciones, aunque también se observan potenciales desvirtuaciones del ideal cuando, por ejemplo, se juzga mediado por sesgos u otras motivaciones. Finalmente, el estudio apunta a una clara preferencia, del 87%, por el doble ciego mostrándose cierto desconocimiento hacia otros tipos de revisión. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about philosophers' attitudes towards peer reviewing and how they deal with this system aimed at regulating and improving the quality of scientific publications. In fields such as philosophy, where the tendency is to discuss ideas rather than facts, it is interesting to ask whether this procedure is widely accepted and internalized by the research community. In order to answer this question, the present study, conducted with researchers in the fields of philosophy and moral philosophy in Spain, uses a methodology based on three cornerstones consisting of a survey, a debate carried out at the annual meeting of a scientific society and indepth interviews. The results show that 99% of them believe that this is a widespread procedure within their field. However, the qualitative part of the study also reveals several doubts about the extent to which a consolidated peer review culture has actually been embraced by researchers. Nevertheless, 90% of them have a positive opinion regarding peer review as a suitable way of assessing the quality of publications, although potential deviations from the ideal are also observed when, for example, it is deemed to be influenced by bias or other motivations. Finally, the study reveals a clear preference, by 87% of the researchers, for the double-blind method and a certain lack of familiarity with other types of review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Sociología is the property of Federacion Espanola de Sociologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)