Advantages and disadvantages of open peer review: consensus and dissent in the literature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.78583Keywords:
Open peer review, Advantages and disadvantages, Scholarly communication, Open science, Peer reviewAbstract
Objective: the opening of the peer review process is an emerging issue of the open science movement and usually divides opinions in the scientific community, especially among its direct actors such as editors, authors, reviewers. This research aims to identify and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of open peer review presented in studies published in Portuguese on he subject.
Method: this is an exploratory and descriptive bibliographic study, with a qualitative approach. The research corpus consists of articles published in journals or papers presented at academic events, in Portuguese, that address the open peer review system. Initially 360 papers were recovered, but only eleven met the purpose of the present study, which were analyzed.
Results: we found four categories (Transparency, Quality, Recognition and Ethics) and 45 considerations between advantages and disadvantages. The number of advantages (36) of open peer review is greater than of disadvantages (9). The ‘Quality’ category is more representative of both the advantages (45%) and the disadvantages (75%). Considerations regarding the fact that OPR brings “More constructive, consistent and coherent comments” prevailed in the mentioned advantages, and others related to “Interference in the relationship between researchers and their academic projects” are more usual in the disadvantages indicated by the literature.
Conclusions: eespite the challenges, peer review in the context of open science presents great possibilities to improve scientific production in order to make it more transparent, ethical and participatory and should be considered by the academic community.
Downloads
References
ALBAGLI, Sarita. Ciência aberta em questão. In: ALBAGLI, Sarita; MACIEL, Maria Lucia; ABDO, Alexandre Hannud (org.). Ciência Aberta, questões abertas. Brasília: IBICT; Rio de Janeiro: UNIRIO, 2015. p. 9-26.
AMARAL, Janaynne Carvalho do; PRÍNCIPE, Eloísa. Ciência Aberta e revisão por pares: aspectos e desafios para a participação da comunidade em geral. Cadernos Bad, Lisboa, n. 1, p. 320-325, jan./dez. 2018.
AMSEN, Eva. What is open peer review? F1000 Research, [s. l.], 2014. Disponível em: https://blog.f1000.com/2014/5/21/what-is-open-peer-review/. Acesso em: 10 set. 2019.
ARAÚJO, Paula Carina; LOPES, Maura Paula Miranda. Análise dos periódicos contemplados no edital de 201do programa editorial do conselho nacional de desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico (CNPq) no contexto da ciência aberta. In: ENCONTRO BRASILEIRO DE BIBLIOMETRIA E CIENTOMETRIA, 7., 2020, Salvador. Anais eletrônicos [...]. Salvador: UFBA, 2020. p. 47-54. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufba.br/ri/handle/ri/32385. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2020.
ARAÚJO, Ronaldo Ferreira de; PEDRI, Patricia. Publons: uma plataforma de visibilidade para revisão por pares no âmbito da ciência aberta? Cadernos Bad, Lisboa, n. 1, p. 59-69, jan./dez. 2018.
BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2011.
BORNMANN, Lutz. Evaluations by Peer Review in Science. Springer Science Reviews 1, p. 1-4, jan. 2013. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-012-0002-3 Acesso em: 25 nov., 2020.
BOTOMÉ, Sílvio Paulo. Avaliação entre pares na ciência e na academia: aspectos clandestinos de um julgamento nem sempre científico, acadêmico ou de avaliação. Psicologia USP, São Paulo, v. 22, n. 2, p. 335-356, jun. 2011. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/psicousp/article/view/42087/ 45761. Acesso em: 23 set. 2019.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. Os usos sociais da ciência: por uma sociologia clínica do campo científico. São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 2004.
DeCOURSEY, Tom. Perspective: the pros and cons of open peer review. Nature, 2006. Disponível em: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/ debate/ nature04991.html. Acesso em: 14 set. 2019.
FORD, Emily. Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Portland, v. 44, n. 4, p. 311-326, jan. 2013.
FREITAS, Christiana Soares de. Controvérsias sobre redes abertas de produção de conhecimento e de comunicação científica. Liinc em Revista, Rio de Janeiro, v. 10, n. 2, p. 472-486, nov. 2014. Disponível em: http://revista.ibict.br/liinc/article/view/3595/3074. Acesso em: 01 set. 2019.
FRESCO-SANTALLA, Ana; HERNÁNDEZ-PÉREZ, Tony. Current and evolving models of peer review. The Serials Librarian, Madrid, v. 67, n. 4, p. 373-398, 2014. Disponível em: http://eprints.rclis.org/24517/1/Models_of_Peer_Review_AFrescoSantalla_THernadez-Perez.pdf. Acesso em: 4 set. 2019.
GARCIA, Joana Coeli; TARGINO, Maria das Graças. Open peer review sob a ótica de editores das revistas brasileiras da Ciência da Informação. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO, 18., 2017, Marília. Anais eletrônicos [...]. Marília: Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, 2017. Disponível em: http://enancib.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/xviiienancib/ENANCIB/paper/view/19. Acesso em: 01 set. 2019.
GARCIA, Joana Coeli; TARGINO, Maria das Graças. O futuro da open peer review na ciência da informação. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO, 19., 2018, Londrina. Anais eletrônicos [...]. Londrina: Universidade Estadual de Londrina, 2018. Disponível em: http://enancib.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/xviiienancib/ENANCIB/paper/view/19. Acesso em: 01 set. 2019.
GARCIA, Joana Coeli; TARGINO, Maria das Graças; SILVA, Kleisson Lainnon. Adoção da open peer review no Portal de Periódicos da Universidade Federal da Paraíba. Convergências em Ciência da Informação, Aracaju, v. 1, n. 2, p. 168-174, maio/ago. 2018. Edição especial. Disponível em: https://seer.ufs.br/index.php/conci/article/view/10269. Acesso em: 01 set. 2019.
GIL, Antônio Carlos. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. São Paulo. Atlas. 1991.
MALHOTRA, Naresh K. Pesquisa de marketing. 3. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2001.
MERTON, Robert K. Ensaios de sociologia da ciência. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2013.
OVERVIEW: Nature’s peer review trial. Nature, [s. l.], p. 1-3, Dec. 2006.
PRÍNCIPE, Eloísa Conceição. Revisão por pares aberta: análise das revistas open access. In: ABEC MEETING, 2018, São Paulo. Anais Eletrônicos […] São Paulo: ABEC, 2018. Disponível em: http://ocs.abecbrasil.org.br/index.php/abec-meeting/abec-meeting-2018/paper/view/180. Acesso em: 1 ago. 2019.
ROSS-HELLAUER, Tony. What is open peer review? A systematic review. [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research, Londres, v. 6, n. 588, ago. 2017. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/1518-2924.2009v14n28p73. Acesso em: 10 ago. 2019.
SCIENCE-METRIX. Analytical Support for Bibliometrics Indicators Open access availability of scientific publications. Montréal: Science-Metrix, 2018 Disponível em: http://www.science-metrix.com/sites/default/files/science-metrix/publications/science-metrix_open_access_availability_scientific_publications_report.pdf . Acesso em: 15 ago. 2019.
SHANAHAN, Daniel R.; OLSEN, Bjorn R. Opening peer-review: the democracy of science. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 2, p. 1-2, jan. 2014. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259915520_Opening_peer-review_The_democracy_of_science. Acesso em: 15 ago. 2019.
SPINAK, Ernesto. Sobre as vinte e duas definições de revisão por pares aberta… e mais. SciELO em Perspectiva, 28 fev. 2018. Disponível em: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2018/02/28/sobre-as-vinte-e-duas-definicoes-de-revisao-por-pares-aberta-e-mais/. Acesso em: 10 set. 2019.
STUMPF, Ida. Avaliação pelos pares nas revistas de comunicação: visão dos editores, autores e avaliadores. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 1, p. 18-32, abr. 2008. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-99362008000100003&lng=en&nrm=iso. Acesso em: 28 ago. 2019.
TEIXEIRA, Juliano Machado; SIMÕES, Gabriel da Silva; OLIVEIRA; José Palazzo Moreira. Editoração colaborativa e revisão aberta de textos científicos. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE SISTEMAS MULTIMÍDIA E WEB, 17., 2011, Florianópolis. Anais Eletrônicos [...]. Florianópolis: UFSC, 2011. p. 109-112.
TENNANT, Jonathan; ROSS-HELLAUER, Tony. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research and Integrity Peer Review, [s. l.], n. 5, art. 6, abr. 2020. Disponível em: https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1/. Acesso em: 5 abr. 2021.
WERLANG, Elisabete. Revisão por pares: um estudo da gestão de avaliadores nas revistas científicas brasileiras. 2013. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência da Informação) − Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, 2013. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/107272. Acesso em: 10 set. 2019.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Patricia Pedri, Ronaldo Ferreira Araújo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author must guarantee that:
- there is full consensus among all the coauthors in approving the final version of the document and its submission for publication.
- the work is original, and when the work and/or words from other people were used, they were properly acknowledged.
Plagiarism in all of its forms constitutes an unethical publication behavior and is unacceptable. Encontros Bibli has the right to use software or any other method of plagiarism detection.
All manuscripts submitted to Encontros Bibli go through plagiarism and self-plagiarism identification. Plagiarism identified during the evaluation process will result in the filing of the submission. In case plagiarism is identified in a manuscript published in the journal, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct a preliminary investigation and, if necessary, will make a retraction.
This journal, following the recommendations of the Open Source movement, provides full open access to its content. By doing this, the authors keep all of their rights allowing Encontros Bibli to publish and make its articles available to the whole community.
Encontros Bibli content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Any user has the right to:
- Share - copy, download, print or redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt - remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
According to the following terms:
- Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything that the license permits.
As obras deste periódico estão licenciadas com 