Evaluations of scientific productions: challenges and motivations of editors and reviewers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92858Keywords:
Editors, Reviewers, Scientific productions, Articles, Peer reviewAbstract
Objective: This investigation was to understand the challenges and motivations of editors and reviewers in the evaluation process of productions submitted to scientific journals.
Methodology: To this end, this research was conducted through a methodological approach focused on the qualitative approach, using the exploratory research method and questionnaires directed to reviewers and editors of journals in Information Science and Education, to collect data to be treated through content analysis with the establishment of categories.
Results: The results show that most of the responding editors and reviewers of this research, showed to be experienced in the perception of editorial work, and that in Brazil those involved with scientific editing are volunteers, and still little recognized for academic merits.
Conclusion: It is concluded that, with the complexity, relevance and the controversies around the evaluation process, which involves all the actors of the scientific production (editors, reviewers and authors), perhaps these role experiences help in the understanding of the need of a well elaborated and timely opinion, but also, should contribute so that the several actions suggested by the research subjects, were really put into practice, collaborating to the development of science and the scientific community.
Downloads
References
BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. Tradução: Luís Antero reto e Augusto Pinheiro. Edição e revista atualizada. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2009.
CABRAL, S. Autores, pareceristas e editores: tripé do processo de revisão de artigos científicos. Revista de Administração de Empresas, São Paulo, SP, v. 58, n. 4, p. 433-437, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020180408. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
FARIAS, M. G. G. Análise da produção, implementação e avaliação de um modelo de mediação da informação no contexto de uma comunidade urbana. 2014. (Tese de Doutorado em Ciência da Informação). Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Ciência da Informação, Salvador.
GROSS, C. P.O. Parecerista: protagonista anônimo da qualidade. Revista Direito GV, São Paulo, v.16, n. 2, e1957, 2020, ISSN 2317-6172. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201957. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
MAIA, F. C. de A.; FARIAS, G. B. de; FARIAS, M. G. G. Percepção sobre o compartilhamento de conhecimento entre avaliadores sob a ótica dos editores científicos. RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, Campinas, SP, v. 20, e022003, 2022. DOI: 10.20396/rdbci.v20i00.8667456. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/article/view/8667456. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
RIGO, A. S. Comunidade acadêmica, produtivismo e avaliação por pares. Perspectivas: Revista de Administração de Empresas, São Paulo, SP, v. 57, n. 5, set./out., 2017. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020170508. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
STUMPF, I. R. C. 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, 2008. ISSN 1981-5344. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-99362008000100003. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
STUMPF, I. R. C. Revisão pelos pares: do tradicional ao inovador. In: CONFERÊNCIA IBEROAMERICANA DE PUBLICAÇÕES ELETRÔNICAS NO CONTEXTO DA COMUNICAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, 1., 2006, Brasília, DF. Anais da [...]. [S.l.]: [s.n.], 2006. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/3xw9v0a. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Maria Giovanna Guedes Farias, Gildenir Carolino Santos
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 