|
The Argumentation Principle of peer review in scientific publications
The Argumentation Principle is one of the principles used in peer review and
evaluation of scientific publications. This principle focuses on assessing the
quality and validity of the arguments presented in a manuscript.
The Argumentation Principle implies that reviewers should:
1. Assess the logical soundness of the reasoning: Verify that the
conclusions are adequately derived from the data and analysis presented.
2. Check for internal consistency: Ensure that there are no internal
contradictions in the argument.
3. Assess the justification of claims: Check that each major claim is
supported by adequate evidence.
4. Consider the relevance and importance of the arguments: Assess whether
the arguments presented are relevant and make a significant contribution to the
field of study.
This principle is essential to ensure that scientific publications are not only
accurate and well-founded, but also that they contribute significant knowledge
to the field of study. Reviewers, by applying this principle, help to maintain
the integrity and quality of the scientific literature.
The Argumentation Principle is a general concept in peer review, but it is not
specifically and formally mentioned in the literature as a standardised
principle with that specific name. However, the concepts underlying this
principle are well documented in the literature on peer review and scientific
methodology. Below are some references and sources that address aspects related
to argumentation and peer review:
1. Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:
- Elsevier. "Guide for Reviewers." Elsevier,
https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-conduct-a-review.
- PLOS. "PLOS Peer Review Center." PLOS,
https://plos.org/resources/for-reviewers/.
2. Books on Scientific Writing and Peer Review:
- Wager, Elizabeth; and Fiona Godlee. 2016. "How to Write and Publish a Scientific
Paper." 8th edition. GreenWood. Santa Barbara, California.
- Hames, Irene (Ed). 2007. "Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific
Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice." Wiley-Blackwell. Malden, MA, USA.
3. Articles on Peer Review and Argumentation:
- Wager, Elizabeth; and Fiona Godlee. 2002. "Peer Review and Editorial Decision-making."
BMJ.
- Wager, Elizabeth; Godlee, Fiona; and Tom Jefferson. 2002. "How to Survive Peer
Review". BMJ Books.
https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2011/07/wager.pdf.
- Winck, J.C.; Fonseca, J.A.; Azevedo, L.F.; and J.A. Wedzicha. 2011. "To
publish or perish: How to review a manuscript". Rev Port Pneumol., 17(2):
96-103. Elsevier España SLU.
https://www.journalpulmonology.org/index.php?p=revista&tipo=pdf-simple&pii=S2173511511700227&r=420.
- Bornmann, Lutz; and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2009. "The Effectiveness of the Peer Review
Process: Inter-referee Agreement and Predictive Validity of Manuscript
Refereeing at Angewandte Chemie."
Angewandte Chemie (International Edition),
47(38): 7141-7367.
https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200800513.
4. General Principles of Argumentation:
- Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. "The Uses of Argument." Cambridge University Press.
- Toulmin, Stephen. 2003-pint; 2012-OnLine. "The Uses of Argument." 2nd
edition. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005.
- Walton, Douglas. 2006-print; 2012-Online. "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation." Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807039.
https://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/30200/frontmatter/9780521530200_frontmatter.pdf.
- Walton, Douglas; Reed, Christopher, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2012. Argumentation
Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034.
These resources cover principles and best practices in peer review, including
the importance of soundness and consistency in scientific argumentation. While
the term "Argumentation Principle" is not explicitly and uniformly used in all
sources, the concepts described are widely recognised and applied in peer review
practice.
Based on consultation with ChatGPT-4. Updated
by Reynaldo A. Grillo.
|
