AI evidence extraction

El arte y la carga de la revisión por pares

José Linares-Morales · 2026

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

7/10

Relevance

1/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

Citations

0.00

FWCI

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.69821/978-628-97750-0-6.ch2

Methodology & findings

Study design

Editorial perspective analysis; descriptive examination of peer review policies, practices, and tensions in Latin American academic publishing

Primary method

No statistical methods employed; this is a qualitative, descriptive editorial analysis.

Main result

The paper finds that peer review in Latin American scientific publishing plays a dual role: "actuando al mismo tiempo como un espacio para la construcción intelectual y como una carga operativa para autores, revisores y editores" (acting simultaneously as a space for intellectual construction and as an operational burden for authors, reviewers, and editors). Key contradictions identified include "el aumento constante en el número de publicaciones, las limitaciones tecnológicas, la escasa profesionalización del rol del revisor, y la presión institucional para cumplir con criterios internacionales de calidad" (the constant increase in the number of publications, technological limitations, poor professionalization of the reviewer role, and institutional pressure to meet international quality criteria).

Reports effect sizes.

Research paradigm

interpretivist/hermeneutic

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "a pesar de las cargas y tensiones, la revisión por pares sigue siendo un pilar esencial para la integridad y legitimidad de la ciencia, y que las soluciones futuras están relacionadas con estrategias flexibles, reconocimiento efectivo y formación continua" (despite the burdens and tensions, peer review remains an essential pillar for the integrity and legitimacy of science, and future solutions are related to flexible strategies, effective recognition, and continuous training).

Risk of bias

Selection bias: Editorial perspective only; no systematic sampling of peer review practices; Confirmation bias: Author may selectively highlight examples supporting the dual nature thesis; Geographic bias: Focus limited to Latin American context; generalizability to other regions unclear; Lack of empirical data: No quantitative evidence, surveys, or systematic observations reported

Limitations

The paper identifies that the region faces "limitaciones tecnológicas, la escasa profesionalización del rol del revisor, y la presión institucional para cumplir con criterios internacionales de calidad" (technological limitations, scarce professionalization of the reviewer role, and institutional pressure to meet international quality criteria)
Additionally, the study notes "la región, caracterizada por su diversidad institucional y recursos desiguales" (the region, characterized by its institutional diversity and unequal resources) faces challenges in adaptation.

Open questions raised

The authors identify the need to balance efficiency, recognition, and ethical protection in peer review systems
the challenge of integrating artificial intelligence and open peer review while maintaining ethical standards
and the necessity for flexible strategies and continuous training to strengthen editorial communities in the Latin American region.
the lack of incentives for peer review work
limited technological infrastructure in the region
scarce professionalization of the reviewer role

Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 73%

Explore related topics

AI Peer Review Peer Review Conceptual