English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

espanolEl presente ensayo analiza las evaluaciones de pares en revistas cientificas como mecanismos de poder. A partir de este objetivo se establece que lo que si se publica representa lo que es viable, confiable y que se adapta a los canones o conocimientos (creencias, valores y tradiciones) cientificos. Sin embargo, cuando los mecanismos de participacion no son claros o se manipulan a favor de algunos participantes, vulneran estas tradiciones intelectuales. Este analisis solo se concentra en algunos mecanismos, por lo que deja de lado otros saberes y practicas de autores y evaluadores. Se considera que este ejercicio es valioso dado el alcance del tema o la autoridad cientifica que se otorga a los contenidos que se definen como publicables, pues no solo construyen los campos de conocimientos, tambien fundan practicas culturales de los actores de la ciencia y de las sociedades que se alimentan de estos saberes. EnglishIn this paper we analyze peer review evaluations for scholarly journal as power mechanisms. To reach this aim we propose that what is in fact published represents viability, reliability and adaptability in relation to scientific knowledge (and their believes, values and traditions). However, when participation mechanisms are not clear or are manipulated to favor some participants, such intellectual traditions are violated. Our analysis focuses is some mechanisms, so it leaves aside other knowledge and practices of authors and peer-reviewers. Even so, we believe this exercise is worthy given the scientific authority conferred to knowledge defined as publishable, not only because this is how knowledge fields are produced, but also because this creates cultural practices for science production participants as well as for the societies that are informed by this knowledge.

Poder y vulnerabilidad en las evaluaciones de pares en revistas académicas