Peer-review y acceso abierto a la información científica. Modelos y tendencias en el proceso de comunicación científica
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.2751Palavras-chave:
acceso abierto, revistas digitales, comunicación científica, revisión por expertos, modelos de edición, repositorios institucionalesResumo
Downloads
Referências
BARRUECO CRUZ, J.M.; SUBIRATS COLL, I. Open Archives Iniciative.«Protocol for MetadataHarvesting (OAI-PMH). Descripción, funciones yaplicación de un protocolo». El Profesional de la Información, 2003, vol. 12,no. 2, p. 99-106. [En línea]. Disponible en: < http://eprints.rclis.org/177/ >.[Consulta: 12-de mayo de 2008]
BENCE, V.; OPPENHEIM, C. The Influence of Peer Review on the ResearchAssessment Exercise. Journal of Information Science, 2004, vol. 30, no. 4,p. 347-368.
BINGHAM, C. Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation.The Lancet, 1998, vol. 351, p.10-14.
BJÖRK, B.C.; HEDLUND, T. A formalised model of the scientific publicationprocess. Online Information Review, 2004, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 8-21.
BOSC, H.; HARNAD, S. In a paperless world a new role for academiclibraries: providing open access. Learned Publishing. ALPSP Bulletin, 2005,vol. 18, no. 2, p.95-99.
BUTLER, D. Welcome to fund publication in open-access journals. Nature,October 2003, vol. 425, p.440. [En línea]. Disponible en: < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6957/pdf/425440b.pdf>. [Consulta: 12de mayo 2008]
CAMPANARIO, J.M. El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review):muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Revista Española de DocumentaciónCientífica, 2002, vol. 25, no. 3, p.166-184.
CORREIA, A.M.R.; TEIXEIRA, J.C. Reforming scholarly publishing andknowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to thechallenges of open access. Online Information Review, 2005, vol. 29, no. 4,p.349-364.
THE SCIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT NETWORK AND UNESCO.Effective Science communication in an era of globalisation. A workshopfor Science journalists from East Asia. 9-13 March 2006. The Science andDevelopment Network (SciDev.Net). 28p. [En línea]. 2006. Disponible en:<http://www.scidev.net/misc Effective%20science% 20communication%20in%20an%20era%20of% 20globalisation.pdf>. [Consulta: 10 de mayo de2008]
EYSENBACH, G. Peer Review and Publication of Research Protocols andProposals: A Role for Open Access Journals. Journal of Medical InternetResearch, 2004, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 37.
FRANKLIN, J. Open Access to Scientific and Technical Information: Thestate of the art.Information Services and Use, 2003, vol. 23, no. 2/3,p.67-87.
HAMES, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in ScientificJournals: Guidelines for Good Practice. London: Blackwell Publishing,2007.
HERNÁNDEZ, A.; Rodríguez Mateos, D.; BUENO DE LA FUENTE, G.Open Access: el papel de las bibliotecas en los repositorios institucionales deacceso abierto. Anales de Documentación, 2007, no. 10, p.185-204. [Enlínea]. Disponible en: <http://www.um.es/fccd/anales/ad10/ad1010.pdf>.[Consulta: 10 de febrero de 2008]
LIESEGANG, T.J.; SCHACHAT, A.P.; ALBERT, D.M.The Open Accessinitiative in scientific and biomedical publishing: Fourth in the series on editorship.American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2005, vol. 139, no. 1, p.156-168.
MORRIS, S. The true costs of scholarly journal publishing. LearnedPublishing, April 2005, vol. 18, no. 2, p.115-126.
NATURE. Peer review and fraud: Two assessments of the refereeing processhighlight challenges for journals. Nature, 2006, no. 444, p. 971-972. [En línea].2006. Disponible en: <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/full/444971b.html>. [Consulta: 12 de mayo de 2008]
PROSSER, D. Institutional repositories and Open Access: The future ofscholarly communication.Information Services and Use, 2003, vol. 23, no.2/3, p.67-87.
ROSS, J.S.; GROSS, C.P.; DESAI, M.M. (et al.). Effect of Blinded PeerReview on Abstract Acceptance. JAMA (Reprinted), 2006, vol. 295, no. 14,p.1675-1680. [En línea]. Disponible en: <http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/295/14/1675>. [Consulta: 8 de mayo de 2008]
ROWLAND, F. The Peer Review Process. A Report to the JISC ScholarlyCommunications Group. 16p. [En línea]. Disponible en: <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf>. [Consulta: 12 de enerode 2008]
SCHROTER, S.; TITE, L. Open access publishing and author-pays businessmodels: a survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. Journal of the RoyalSociety of Medicine, 2006, vol. 99, p.141–148. [En línea]. Disponible en: <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&pubmedid=16508053>.[Consulta: 12 de enero de 2008]
TAMBER, P.S.; GODLEE, F.; NEWMARK, M. Open access to peer-reviewed research: making it happen. Lancet, 2003, vol. 362, no. 9395, p.1575-1578
WAGER, E.; PARKIN, E.C.; TAMBER, P.S. Are reviewers suggested byauthors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded,retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 2006, vol. 4, no.13, p.1-5. [En línea].Disponible en: <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/4/13>. [Consulta:12 de enero de 2008]
WALTHAM, M. JISC: Learned Society Open Access Business Models. .83p. [En línea]. 2005. Disponible en: <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/infoenvironment/learnedsocietyoabusinessmodels.pdf>. [Consulta: 2 defebrero de 2008]
WELLER, A. Electronic Scientific Information, Open Access, and EditorialPeer Review. Science and Technology Libraries, 2005, vol. 26, no. 1, p.89-108.
WOOLLEY, K.L. (et al.): Declaration of Medical Writing Assistance inInternational Peer-Reviewed Publications. JAMA, 2006, vol. 296, no. 8, p.932-934. [En línea]. Disponible en: < http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/8/932-a#JLD60012T1>. [Consulta: 12 de febrero de 2008]
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
![](/revistas/index.php/RIB/manager/setup/"http:/aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/public/site/images/revistabibliotecologia/licencia11.png)
