Word processors, including the most common Microsoft Word®, allow users to delete this information by accessing the File or Properties menu. Generally the metadata incorporates information of authorships, dates of modification, comments, revisions, versions, annotations and, in short, personal information that would compromise the anonymity of the document. Therefore, it is advised that any data considered as an indication of identity of authorship should be deleted so as not to compromise the review process.ĭocument metadata are non-visible tags that allow you to get semantic information about the properties of a file. Some journals, such as the case of Comunicar, require authors in their regulations to submit the identification data of the authors in separate documents (presentation and cover- cover letter), while recommending to antonym with XXXXX project information, contracts, support and funding, as well as previous studies carried out by the authors that are the starting point of the new research.Īlthough the rules are usually non-limiting and exhaustive with respect to this mandate, the best way to anonymize a document will always be the common sense of the authors. Information related with previous studies and that are the starting point of the new research (provided that they are the same authors).Data about projects, contracts, support and funding of research that allow direct or indirect authorship.Authors’ information (names, emails, institutional affiliations, researcher number -ORCID-, etc.).In this section, and to initially guarantee an anonymous document, authors should remove from the document or documents that will be submitted for review any indication of authorship, among which are:
In this way, the rules must require at least two types of anonymisation: the textual data and the metadata of the document. This system, besides being a guarantee of a greater objectivity of the revision process, also affects the transparency of the scientific activity ergo of the publication.īeing the transparency, impartiality and objectivity the north to which every scientific publication should aspire, authors are required to anonymize their contributions. We have already talked in this blog about the process of reviewing the manuscripts, in which scientific peer reviewers should evaluate the content of the submitted manuscripts, taking into account the quality of the research and whole fulfillment with the publication regulations.Īs a general rule in high-level social science journals, reviewers are usually “double-blind”, that is, that neither the author should recognize those who review their contributions, nor should the reviewers know who is the author. Author: Luis-Miguel Romero – Translation: Erika-Lucia Gonzalez-Carrion
0 kommentar(er)
