Merge pull request #6 from jhbecares/patch-1

Update Introduction.tex

latex/Capitulos/Introduction.tex

@@ -10,59 +10,59 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
 \end{FraseCelebre}
 
 Scientific research nowadays is based on publications in journals with a high
-impact factor\cite{doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90}, the most well-known is the
+impact factor \cite{doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90}, the most well-known is the
 Journal Citation Reports (\emph{JCR}). This factor was originally determined by
-the Science Citation Index, born in 1955\cite{garfield2007evolution} but
-nowadays it is managed by a private company dedicated to benefit from the work
-of researchers\cite{toledo2011book}. This poses two important problems when it
+the Science Citation Index, born in 1955 \cite{garfield2007evolution} but
+nowadays managed by a private company dedicated to benefit from the work
+of researchers \cite{toledo2011book}. This poses two important problems when it
 comes to entering the world of academic research:
 
-The first is that scientific journals that want to maintain their impact factor,
+The first one is that scientific journals that want to maintain their impact factor
 have to make sure that the articles that come out in their issues have a large
 number of citations, so they are always going to look for novel and high-impact
 articles. Therefore, the editors of these journals will have a network of
 reviewers on which they can trust to review the article. But sometimes these
-reviews are not entirely objective, there are many cases of unfavorable reviews
+reviews are not entirely objective, since there are many cases of unfavorable reviews
 due to gender causes, especially in scientific fields
 \cite{wenneras2001nepotism}.
 
 Besides, it is necessary to consider that the time of revision for an article is
-excessively long, causing the process of academic investigation being quite slow
+excessively long, causing the process of academic investigation to be quite slow
 \cite{huisman2017duration}.
 
-The second problem is that the benefits of the scientific distribution are
+The second problem is that the benefits of scientific distribution are
 centralized in publication systems, nor the authors, the reviewers or the
 readers get money from it. Today, with electronic paper distribution,
 universities purchase site licenses for online access to journal contents. This
 system implies an additional cost for the universities who want to advance in
-their research fields and does not have enough money for it. However, site
+their research fields and do not have enough money for it. However, site
 licenses are not always disadvantageous. Some journals issued by private
 companies and universities adjust their prices to maximize subscriptions
 \cite{bergstrom2004costs}. But generally, people who earn money from this
 paper-based system only act as an intermediary between the authors, the
 reviewers and the readers.
 
-The internet offers the possibility to meet people all around the word, and when
+The internet offers the possibility to meet people all around the world, and when
 it comes to trust total strangers, you should have a system in which you can
-rely to deposit you trust in them. Reputation systems are the solution to this
-problems, since they offer you a first good impression of an unknown person
+rely on to deposit your trust in them. Reputation systems are the solution to these
+problems, since they offer a good first impression about an unknown person
 \cite{resnick2000reputation}.
 
 Editors who want to assign the review of a paper to a series of reviewers have
-to rely on them beforehand. Thus limiting the spectrum of fields that can be
+to rely on them beforehand. Thus, limiting the spectrum of fields that can be
 revised to the fields in which those reviewers are experts. If you want to
 broaden the scope of reviewers with more fields of expertise, you need to
 contact new reviewers. But there is no easy way to predict reviewer quality from
-reviewers training andviktor@jacynycz.es experience factors
-\cite{callaham_relationship_2007}, so a rating system of reviewers should be
+their training and experience factors
+\cite{callaham_relationship_2007}, so a rating system of reviewers would be
 useful for journals to select the best reviewers. The solution is a reviewer
 reputation network, in which reviewers get rated based on their reviews and
-build up their reputation based on good practices, and helpful reviews. In this
-network, publishers who have to find new reviewers for their papers, do not have
+build up their reputation based on good practices and helpful reviews. In this
+network, publishers who have to find new reviewers for their papers do not have
 to know them beforehand, since trust is placed in the reputation network instead
-of the person itself.
+of in the person itself.
 
-Science publication and peer review are based in a paper-based paradigm, with
+Science publication and peer review are based on a paper-based paradigm, with only a
 few changes in the last centuries~\cite{spier2002history}. Critics to current
 science publication and peer review systems include concerns about its
 fairness~\cite{wenneras2001nepotism}, quality~\cite{goldbeck1999evidence},
@@ -73,32 +73,32 @@ \chapter{Introduction}
 The development of the Internet enabled the proposal of alternatives for science
 dissemination~\cite{eysenbach2006citation} and
 evaluation~\cite{walker_emerging_2015}. The reduction of distribution costs
-enabled wider access to scientific knowledge, and questioned the role of
+enabled a wider access to scientific knowledge, and questioned the role of
 traditional publishers~\cite{ReinventingRigor}. It is acknowledged that the Open
 Access and Open Science movements have successfully reduced the economic cost of
-readers to access knowledge~\cite{evans2009open}. However it has not
-successfully challenged traditional publishers business
-models~\cite{lariviere2015oligopoly} that are now combining charging readers and
+accessing knowledge to readers~\cite{evans2009open}. However, it has not
+successfully challenged traditional publishers' business
+models~\cite{lariviere2015oligopoly}, who are now combining charging readers and
 charging authors~\cite{van2013true}.
 
 Peer review has suffered multiple criticism, and yet only marginal alternatives
 have gathered success~\cite{ware2008peer}. The literature provides multiple
 proposals around open peer review~\cite{ford2013defining}, and proposals of
 reputation networks for reviewers~\cite{frishauf2009reputation}. In fact, a
-start-up, Publons\footnote{https://publons.com/}, provides a platform to
+start-up, Publons\footnote{https://publons.com/}, provides a p latform to
 acknowledge reviews and open them up.
 
 \section{Objective}
 
-We aim to challenge middlemen in science publication such as traditional
-publishers. Particularly, we propose a decentralized publication system for open
+We aim to challenge middlemen such as traditional publishers in science 
+publication. Particularly, we propose a decentralized publication system for open
 science, allowing 1) paper submissions, 2) assignment of reviewers, 3) peer
-review, and, as a novelty, 4) the rating of peer reviews. With this distributed
+review and, as a novelty, 4) the rating of peer reviews. With this distributed
 system, we aim to improve the quality and efficiency of reviews and knowledge
 distribution, helping editors, authors, and reviewers:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Editors and journals will be able to find the best peer reviewers in their
-  fields of interest, and those that respond quickly. Thus reducing
+  fields of interest, and also those that respond quickly. Thus, reducing
   time-to-publish and publishing costs.
 \item Authors will be able to submit papers to time-responsive, free, open
   access journals, and forget about slow, unfair and unaccountable anonymous
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ \section{Objective}
     technologies I have used to face the challenges and why I decided to use
     them.
   \item \textbf{Platform description:} This is the main chapter of this work. It
-    contains the platform description, its implementation, how it works, why is
+    contains the platform description, its implementation, how it works, why it is
     better than the actual publication systems, the challenges I have faced
     during the realization and the internal structure of the final system.
   \item \textbf{Results and discussion:} This chapter is about the results