The value of scientific knowledge is highly dependent on the quality of the process used to produce it, namely, the quality of the peer-review process. This process is a pivotal part of science as it works both to legitimize and improve the work of the scientific community. In this context, the present study investigated the relationship between review time, length, and feedback quality of review reports in the peer-review process of research articles. For this purpose, the review time of 313 referee reports from three Chilean international journals were recorded. Feedback quality was determined estimating the rate of direct requests by the total number of comments in each report. Number of words was used to describe the average length in the sample. Results showed that average time and length have little variation across review reports, irrespective of their quality. Low quality reports tended to take longer to reach the editor, so neither time nor length were related to feedback quality. This suggests that referees mostly describe, criticize, or praise the content of the article instead of making useful and direct comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

The growing importance of entrepreneurship and innovation for economic growth has propitiated a discursive genre that nowadays is almost omnipresent, i.e., the pitch. As with other emerging genres used in professional settings (e.g., selling presentations, business plans, etc.), several instructional discourses regarding the pitch have come out in the form of manuals and courses offering training on "how to make a pitch more powerful". Empirical research, however, is less common. The aim of this paper is to qualitatively review and sort out the existing empirical research on the pitch. For this, three classifying categories are proposed according to its reception (mainly by investors), the focus on discursive features, and its evolution. Finally, some critiques to the empirical research on the pitch and a description of some future trends on the field are provided. This work may be useful for professionals interested in innovation and entrepreneurship, areas in which this emerging discourse broadly circulates.

No abstract

Resumen: El informe de arbitraje en los procesos de revisión por pares de artículos de investigación es un género clave para explicar cómo se construye colectivamente el conocimiento científico. En estos informes los evaluadores emiten, junto con una serie de comentarios, una recomendación de publicación. El análisis de la calidad del proceso de evaluación por pares se ha realizado a partir de indicadores, como las tasas de rechazo o el grado de acuerdo entre los evaluadores. Sin embargo, aún queda pendiente una evaluación cualitativa del proceso. El objetivo de este trabajo fue describir la proporción, según su polaridad (positiva, negativa y neutra), de los comentarios de 56 informes de evaluación de la Revista Onomázein y determinar si esa proporción era consistente con la recomendación de los evaluadores (Aceptado, Aceptado con enmiendas mayores o menores, y Rechazado). Del análisis de 1.472 comentarios se determinó que, independientemente de la decisión, la mayor proporción corresponde a comentarios negativos. Asimismo, podemos afirmar que los procesos analizados presentan un alto grado de consistencia. Mientras más favorable es la recomendación de los árbitros mayor es la proporción de comentarios positivos emitidos y, correspondientemente, menor es la proporción de comentarios negativos.Palabras clave: proceso de evaluación por pares, consistencia, informe de evaluación, polaridad evaluativa Polarity of comments and internal consistency in peer review reports on scientific research articles Abstract: Peer review reports on scientific articles means a key genre to explain how scientific knowledge is collectively constructed. In these reports, reviewers write a recommendation for publication along with a series of comments. The quality analysis of the peer review process has been commonly conducted based on indicators, such as rejection rates and the agreement level among evaluators. However, a more qualitative investigation on the process still remains outstanding. This work aims at describing the polarity (positive, negative and neutral) of comments corresponding to 56 peer review reports belonging to the journal Onomázein and determining whether this proportion is consistent with the reviewers recommendation, i.e. Accepted, Accepted with major revisions, Accepted with minor revisions and Rejected). After the analysis of 1.472 comments, it was possible to determine that the highest proportion of comments is negative, independent of the decision. The analyzed processes also showed a high level of consistency. The more favorable the recommendation, the higher the proportion of positive comments, and, consequently, the less the proportion of negative comments.Key words: peer review process, consistency, peer review report, evaluative polarity Polaridade dos comentários e consistência interna nos informes de arbitragem de artigos de pesquisaResumo: O informe de arbitragem nos processos de revisão por pares de artigos de pesquisa é um gênero chave para explicar como se constrói coletivamente o conhecimento cie...

El uso de la cuantificación es un recurso gramatical y discursivo especialmente importante en el género de las cuentas públicas. En ellas, la cuantificación se utiliza para poner en valor los logros obtenidos por una institución. En el caso de una cuenta pública de una Oficina de Transferencia Tecnológica, estos logros corresponden a firmas de contratos, patentes, proyectos adjudicados o fondos de financiamiento, entre otros indicadores conmensurables de productividad. La cuantificación en estos textos puede presentarse de manera difuminada o desdibujada, por ejemplo, nuestra oficina revisó más de 200 emprendimientos. En el siguiente estudio, describimos, usando métodos mixtos (estudio de casos con fases 1