Evaluadores del área de la ciencia de la información frente al open peer review

Maria das Graças Targino; Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia; Kleisson Lainnon  Nascimento da Silva

doi:10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3

Authors

Maria das Graças Targino Federal University of Paraíba
Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia Federal University of Paraíba
Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento da Silva Federal University of Paraíba

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3

Keywords:

science evaluation, peer review, open peer review, open science, scientific communication, the future of peer review

Abstract

The evaluation of originals by peers is the best way of ensuring the science quality. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the evaluative system that is currently outlined: The open peer review. It is the macro objective of the paper to evaluate the feasibility of adopting open evaluation in the sphere of reviewers in the area of information science. The specific objectives are to analyze the perspective of future use of open peer review in the information science journals classified by the Qualis system of the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; to evaluate the knowledge of the open peer review from the viewpoint of the reviewers; to identify the (dis)advantages that scientific journals evaluators perceive regarding the open peer review. The research method (qualitative-quantitative research) is the survey. The research population includes reviewers of all 34 information science journals with concept A and B attributed by this Coordenação, reaching a sample of 189 out of the total of 709 reviewers (26.6 %). The data were collected through electronic questionnaires sent to the sample units. Among the results, it is remarkable that most (137 or 72.4 %) of the reviewers are willing to adopt open review, although they recognize that, like any other arbitration system, it has its advantages and disadvantages.

|Abstract

= 811 veces | PDF (PORTUGUÊS (BRASIL))

= 291 veces| | HTML (PORTUGUÊS (BRASIL))

= 0 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Maria das Graças Targino, Federal University of Paraíba

PhD in information science, University of Brasilia, Brazil. Post-doctorate in journalism from the Instituto Interuniversitario de Iberoamérica of the Universidad de Salamanca, Spain. International Master in Communication and Education from the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain. Professor at the Center for Open and Distance Education of the Federal University of Piauí and at the Graduate Program in Information Science of the Federal University of Paraíba (PPGCI), Paraíba - Brazil.

Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia, Federal University of Paraíba

PhD in information science, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian Institute of Information Science and Technology, Brazil. Coordinator of the Research Group: "From information and knowledge", registered with the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). President of the National Association for Research and Graduate Studies in Information Science (ANCIB). Full Professor of the Department of Information Science and the Graduate Program in Information Science at the Federal University of Paraíba (PPGCI), Paraíba - Brazil.

Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento da Silva, Federal University of Paraíba

Undergraduate in Library Science, Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil. Member of the Research Group: "Da Informação e do Conhecimento", registered with the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), as a research fellow - PIBIC/CNPq, Paraíba - Brazil

References

Amsen, Eva (2014). What is open peer review? F1000 Research.

Crawford, Susan; Stucki, Loretta (1990). Peer review and the changing research record. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(3), 223-228.

Csiszar, Alex (2016). Peer review: troubled from the start. Nature, 532, 306-308.

Curty, Renata (2016). eScience: diferentes vieses, fontes e iniciativas. In M. I. Tomael, A. R. Alcará (Orgs.), Fontes de informação digital (pp. 77-118). Londrina: UEL.

David, Paul; Spence, Michael (2003). Towards institutional infrastructures for eScience: the scope of the challenge. Oxford: The University of Oxford.

DeCoursey, Thomas (2006). Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review. Nature. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to peer/2006/06/perspective_the_pros_and_cons.html

Ford, Emily (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Portland: Portland State University.

Garcia, Joana; Targino, Maria (2017). Open peer review sob a ótica

de editores das revistas brasileiras da ciência da informação. Anais do Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação, Marília, SP, Brasil, 18.

Hey, Tony; Trefethen, Anne (2003). eScience and its implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 361(1809), 1809-1825.

Hopewell, Sally; Collins, Gary; Boutron, Isabelle; Yu, Ly; Cook, Jonathan; Shanyinde, Milensu;... Altman, Douglas (2014). Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. The BMJ, 349(4145), 1-11.

Kern, Vinícius (2017). Inovações na revisão por pares: o papel do software. Anais do Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação, Marília, SP, Brasil, 18.

Le Coadic, Yves-François. (1996). A ciência da informação. Brasília: Briquet de Lemos Livros.

Marconi, Marina; Lakatos, Eva (2010). Técnicas de pesquisa (7.a ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.

Merton, Robert (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635-659.

Mora, Andrea (2015). Nuevas formas de revisión por pares en revistas científicas: revisión abierta / open review. Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud, 13(1), 1-4.

Nassi-Calò, Lilian. (2015). Avaliação por pares: ruim com ela, pior sem ela. Scielo em Perspectiva. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2015/04/17/avaliacao-por-pares-ruim-com-ela-pior-sem-ela

Nassi-Calò, Lilian (2017). Aumenta a adoção de avaliação por pares aberta. Scielo em Perspectiva. Recuperado de https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2017/01/10/aumenta-a-adocao-de-avaliacao-por-pares-aberta/#.Ww2p30gvxPY

OMS (2018). OMS muda classificação de idade para jovens e idosos. http://www.boatos.org/brasil/oms-reclassifica-jovem-idoso.html

Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. (2006). Nature. doi: 10.1038 /nature05535

Ranalli, Brent (2011). A prehistory of peer review: religious blueprints from the Hartlib Circle. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 12-18.

Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000 Research, 6(588), 1-30.

Shanahan, Daniel; Olsen, Bjorn (2014). Opening peer-review: the democracy of science. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 13(2), 1-2.

Spinak, Ernersto (2018). (4 de março, 2018, consultado). Sobre as vinte e duas definições de avaliação aberta... e mais. Scielo em Perspectiva. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2018/02/28/sobre-as-vinte-e-duas-definicoes-de-revisao-por-pares-aberta-e-mais/#.Xe3Suy3SEW8

Stumpf, Ida (2005). Avaliação de originais nas revistas científicas: uma trajetória em busca do acerto. In S. M. S. P. Ferreira, M. G. Targino (Orgs.), Preparação de revistas científicas: teoria e prática (pp. 103-122). São Paulo: Reichmann & Autores.

Targino, Maria; Garcia, Joana (2018). (14 de maio, 2018, consultado). Perspectivas da avaliação por pares aberta: instigante ponto de interrogação. SciELO em Perspectiva. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2018/05/14/perspectivas-da-avaliacao-por-pares

Tennant, Jon; Graziotin, Daniel; Kearns, Sara (2017). Nós temos a tecnologia para salvar a avaliação por pares – agora compete às nossas comunidades implementá-las. Scielo em Perspectiva. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2017/09/27/nos-temos-a-tecnologia-para-salvar-a-avaliacao-por-pares-agora-compete-as-nossas-comunidades-implementa-las-publicado-originalmente-no-blog-lse-impact-of-social-sciences-em-setembro2017/#.Xe3Upy3SEW8

Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Applely, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 47-51.

Ziman, John (1979). Conhecimento público. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia.