Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e79506Keywords:
Open peer review, Directory of Open Access Journals, Scientific journalsAbstract
Objective: Open peer review is one of the evaluation models that has been discussed in the scientific literature, as it is in line with the principles of open science. Therefore, this study aims to identify the review model adopted by scientific journals indexed in the open peer review filter of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), in order to analyze whether these journals meet the seven characteristics pointed out by Ross-Hellauer (2017a) .
Methods: It was based on the quanti-qualitative approach, using the exploratory method and data collection techniques: documentary research and unstructured interview. The DOAJ proceeded with the download of metadata and visits to the websites of each journal to be analyzed. The unstructured interview was carried out by e-mail and social media from the editors. For data analysis, content analysis was adopted, with the establishment of categories.
Results: Most of the journals' sample comes from the United Kingdom, is under the responsibility of the BioMed Central (BMC) publisher, publishes in English, charges the payment of Article Processing Charges (APC) and covers the Health Sciences area. open and open opinions are the most adopted by the scientific journals in the sample. In addition, according to the editors, open reviews are fairer and act as a teaching tutorial on how to conduct a scientific opinion. The results also demonstrate that the open review impacts the quality of the manuscript, results in better, more constructive, less negative evaluations and acts as an alternative to value the volunteer work of the reviewers.
Conclusions: It is concluded that the open review model proves to be a viable alternative and that, based on the results, it can be considered as an effective model and that provides several contributions to the peer review process, in particular, for make it more transparent and fairer.
Downloads
References
AMARAL, J. C. do; PRÍNCIPE, E. A revisão por pares no contexto da Ciência Aberta: uma breve apresentação. In: SHINTAKU, Milton; SALES, Luana Farias (org.) Ciência aberta para editores científicos. Botucatu, SP: ABEC, 2019. p. 59-66.
BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2011.
BEZJAK, S. et al. Manual de Formação em Ciência Aberta. [S. l.]: FOSTERPlus, 2018. Disponível em: https://foster.gitbook.io/manual-de-formacao-em-ciencia-aberta/. Acesso em: 15 nov. 2019.
BIOMED CENTRAL. About BMC. [S. l.]. 2020. Disponível em: https://www.biomedcentral.com/about. Acesso em: 18 abr. 2020.
BMC NUTRITION. About. [S. l.]. 2020. Disponível em: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/about. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2020.
CARLOTTI JÚNIOR, C. G. Inglês: a língua da ciência. a língua da ciência. [S. l.]. 2019. Postado no Blog da Biblioteca Central da UFRGS. Disponível em: https://www.ufrgs.br/blogdabc/ingles-a-lingua-da-ciencia/. Acesso em: 18 abr. 2020.
FORD, E. Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: a review of the literature. Journal Of Scholarly Publishing, [S. l.], v. 44, n. 4, p. 311-326, jul. 2013. University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress). http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001.
FOSTER consortium. Open Peer Review (Version 1.0). Zenodo. [S. l.]. 2018. Disponível em: https://zenodo.org/record/2640675#.XuEUljr0lPY. Acesso em 10 jun. 2020.
GARCIA, J. C.; TARGINO, M. das G.; SILVA, K. L. Adoção da open peer review no Portal de Periódicos da Universidade Federal da Paraíba. ConCI: Convergências em Ciência da Informação, São Cristóvão, v. 1, n. 2, ed. especial, p.168-174, maio/ago. 2018.
MARCONI, M. de A.; LAKATOS, E. M. Fundamentos de metodologia científica. 5. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2003.
MUELLER, S. P. M.; PASSOS, E. J. L. As questões da comunicação científica e a ciência da informação. In: MUELLER, Suzana P. M.; PASSOS, Edilenice J. L. (org.) Comunicação científica. Brasília: Ciência da Informação, 2000. p. 13-22.
NASSI-CALÒ, L. Avaliação por pares: modalidades, prós e contras [online]. SciELO em Perspectiva, 2015a. Disponível em: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2015/03/27/avaliacao-por-pares-modalidades-pros-e-contras. Acesso em: 20 out. 2019.
NASSI-CALÒ, L. Avaliação por pares: ruim com ela, pior sem ela. SciELO em
Perspectiva, 2015b. Disponível em:
https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2015/04/17/avaliacao-por-pares-ruim-com-ela-pior-sem-ela/. Acesso em: 17 out. 2018.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS. Transparent peer review one year on. [S. l.], 2016, v. 7, n. 13626, p. 1-2, 10 nov. 2016. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13626#citeas. Acesso em: 24 jul. 2020.
PEREIRA, V.; FURNIVAL, A. Revistas científicas em acesso aberto brasileiras no DOAJ. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: Research Trends, [S. l.], v. 14, n. 1 jan.- mar, p. 88-111, 27 mar. 2020.
PUBLONS. How does Publons works. [S. l.]. Disponível em: https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000009179-how-does-publons-work-. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2020.
PUBPEER BLOG. Science self-corrects – instantly. [S. l.]. 2014. Disponível em: https://blog.pubpeer.com/publications/36E5D01DFD3E874F721E607D0ADDD2. Acesso em: 12 maio 2020.
ROPENSCI. About. [S. l.]. 2020. Disponível em: https://ropensci.org/about/. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2020
ROSS-HELLAUER, T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, [s. l.], v. 6, p. 1-31, 27 abr. 2017a. Version 1. F1000 Research Ltd. Disponível em: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-588/v1
ROSS-HELLAUER, T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, [s. l.], v. 6, p. 1-38, 31 ago. 2017b. Version 2. F1000 Research Ltd. Disponível em: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-588
SEVER, R. et al. BioRxiv: the preprint server for biology. the preprint server for biology. [S. l.]. 2019. Preprint. Disponível em: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/833400v1.full. Acesso em: 07 set. 2020.
SILVA, S. F. R. da. Revisão por pares e tecnologias eletrônicas: Perspectivas paradigmáticas nos procedimentos da comunicação científica. 2016. 202 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Curso de Ciência da Informação, Instituto de Ciência da Informação, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, 2016.
SPINAK, E. O que está mudando no processo de revisão por pares. São Paulo: Abec Meeting, 2018. 29 slides, color.
TONZANI, S. Who are you? ORCID knows the answer. Journal Of Applied Polymer Science, [S.L.], v. 128, n. 5, p. 2585-2585, 1 fev. 2013. Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/app.38985.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Francisca Clotilde de Andrade Maia, Maria Giovanna Guedes Farias
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 