Editors' perceptions of the implementation of open review in scientific journals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2025.e99922Keywords:
Open peer review, Scientific Journals , Directory of Open Access Journals, Journal editorAbstract
Objective: The study aims to investigate scientific journals indexed in DOAJ that perform open peer review, from the perspective of their editors. The following specific objectives were outlined: a) to identify scientific journals indexed in DOAJ that adopt open peer review; b) to verify the open peer review model used by these journals; and; c) to describe the editors' perception of their experiences with the implementation of this evaluation method.
Methods: This is a quantitative-qualitative approach, documentary and survey research, carried out by applying a questionnaire to the editors of scientific journals indexed in DOAJ as an open review. The data was analyzed using content analysis and qualitative data analysis techniques.
Results: Regarding the characterization of the model adopted, the characteristics open identities and open opinions are the most used by the respondents. The majority of participants adopt the open review between one month and three years, but there are respondents who adopt it for more than a decade. Among the justifications for adopting open review were the contribution it makes to improving work, the promotion of transparency and communication between authors and reviewers and the recognition of reviewers. Most of the respondents did not notice any reactions from the academic community as a result of adopting open review, but they did notice changes in the opinions, in the sense that they were more respectful, detailed and less aggressive.
Conclusions: It was noted that the application of open review is heterogeneous, reflecting the diversity of the concept and providing flexibility in its use to increase transparency in evaluation. It was concluded that journals adopt open review in a variety of ways: some for more than a decade, others recently, and some have been using this model since the beginning. The majority adopt open review because they believe it increases transparency, quality and commitment in reviews. And finally, in contrast to the concerns discussed in the literature, many have not observed adverse reactions from the academic community or in the reviews
Downloads
References
APPEL, A. L.; ALBAGLI, S. Acesso Aberto em questão: novas agendas e desafios. Informação & Sociedade: Estudos, Paraíba, v. 29, n. 4, p. 187-208, 2019. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufpb.br/ojs2/index.php/ies/article/view/50113. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2019v29n4.50113
BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2011.
BRAVO, G. et al. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications, [S. l.], v. 10, n. 1, p. 1-8, 18 jan. 2019. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08250-2. Acesso em: 20 set. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2
BRODIE, S. et al. Equity in science: advocating for a triple-blind review system. Trends In Ecology & Evolution, [S. l.], v. 36, n. 11, p. 957-959, nov. 2021. Elsevier BV. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.07.011. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.07.011
COIMBRA JUNIOR, C. E. A. Desafios à avaliação da literatura científica: a revisão pelos pares. Caderno Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 5, n. 19, p. 1224-1225, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2003000500001
DOAJ. Guide to applying. 2023a. Disponível em: https://doaj.org/apply/guide/#basic-criteria-for-inclusion. Acesso em: 07 ago. 2023.
DOAJ. The DOAJ Seal. 2023b. Disponível em: https://doaj.org/apply/guide/#basic-criteria-for-inclusion. Acesso em: 07 ago. 2023.
DOAJ. Directory of Open Access Journals. 2024. Disponível em: https://doaj.org/. Acesso em 06 ago. 2024.
ELLWANGER, J. H.; CHIES, J. A. B. We need to talk about peer-review—Experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation. J Clinical Epidemiology, [S. l.], v. 125, p. 201-205, set. 2020. Elsevier BV. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.001. Acesso em: 22 jul. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.001
FORD, E. Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: a review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Toronto, v. 44, n. 4, p. 311-326, jul. 2013. UTPress. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001. Acesso em: 11 abr. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
GARCIA, J. C. R.; TARGINO, M. das G. 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 [...]. Marília: Unesp, 2017. p. 1-21. Disponível em: https://brapci.inf.br/index.php/res/v/104007. Acesso em: 18 maio 2022.
HENDRICKS, G.; LINS, J. Making peer reviews citable, discoverable, and creditable. 2017. Disponível em: https://www.crossref.org/blog/making-peer-reviews-citable-discoverable-and-creditable/. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2024.
KOWALCZUK, M.; SAMARASINGHE, M. Comparison of Acceptance of Peer Reviewer Invitations by Peer Review Model: Open, Single-blind, and Double-blind Peer Review. In: EIGHT INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON PEER REVIEW AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION. Anais [...]. 2017. Disponível em: https://peerreviewcongress.org/abstract/comparison-of-acceptance-of-peer-reviewer-invitations-by-peer-review-model-open-single-blind-and-double-blind-peer-review/. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2023.
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, n. 00, p. e022003, 2022. DOI: 10.20396/rdbci.v20i00.8667456. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/article/view/8667456. Acesso em: 9 ago. 2023.
NASSI-CALÒ, L. Avaliação por pares: modalidades, prós e contras [online]. SciELO em Perspectiva, 2015. Disponível em: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2015/03/27/avaliacao-por-pares-modalidades-pros-e-contras. Acesso em: 28 jun. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21452/ABEC.2022.isbn.978-65-89167-68-6.002
PACKER, A. L., et al. SciELO atualiza os critérios de indexação. Nova versão vigora a partir de maio de 2020 [online]. SciELO em Perspectiva, 2020. Disponível em: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2020/05/13/scielo-atualiza-os-criterios-de-indexacao-nova-versao-vigora-a-partir-de-maio-de-2020/. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2024.
PESSANHA, C. Critérios editoriais de avaliação científica: notas para discussão. Ci. Inf., Brasília, DF, v. 27, n. 2, p. 226-229, 1998. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/ci/a/Ntch65p4YJf4rbckkGQ5fWz/abstract/?lang=pt. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-19651998000200020
PINTO, V. B.; CAVALCANTE, L. E. Pesquisa bibliográfica e documental: o fazer científico em construção. In: BENTES PINTO, V.; VIDOTTI, S. A. B. G.; CAVALCANTE, L. E. Aplicabilidades metodológicas em Ciência da Informação. Fortaleza: UFC, 2015. p. 15-34.
ROBAINA CASTELLANOS, G. R.; SEMPER GONZALEZ, A. I. Ética de la revisión por pares en publicaciones científicas. Rev. Med. Electrón., Matanzas, v. 41, n. 6, p. 1533-1549, dez. 2019. Disponível em: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1684-18242019000601533&lng=es&nrm=iso. Acesso em: 26 ago. 2023.
ROSS-HELLAUER, T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. [versão 2; revisão por pares: 4 aprovados]. F1000Research, v. 6, n. 588, 2017. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. Acesso em: 18 out. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
ROSS-HELLAUER, T.; DEPPE, A.; SCHMIDT, B. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. Plos One, [S. l.], v. 12, n. 12, p. 1-28, 13 dez. 2017. Public Library of Science (PLoS). Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311. Acesso em: 20 set. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
SCHMIDT, B. et al. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, [S. l], v. 7, 2018. Disponível em: https://f1000research.com/articles/7-969. Acesso em: 29 ago. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
SHINTAKU, M.; BRITO, R. F.; FERREIRA JÚNIOR., R. S.; BARRAVIERA, B. Avaliação aberta pelos pares no âmbito da ciência aberta: revisão e reflexão. BIBLOS - Revista do Instituto de Ciências Humanas e da Informação, Rio Grande, v. 34, n. 1, p. 161-175, 2020. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.14295/biblos.v34i1.11189. Acesso em: 15 jan. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14295/biblos.v34i1.11189
SEVERINO, A. J. Metodologia do trabalho científico. São Paulo: Cortez, 2016.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9771/rpa.v11i2.24919
SILVA, K. L. N.; GARCIA, J. C. R.; TARGINO, M. das G. Efetivação da open peer review frente aos editores do Portal de Periódicos da Universidade Federal da Paraíba. Revista Brasileira de Educação em Ciência da Informação, São Cristóvão, v. 8, 2021. Disponível em: https://portal.abecin.org.br/rebecin/article/view/281. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24208/rebecin.v8i.281
SILVA, C. N. N. da; MOREIRO-GONZALEZ, J. A.; MUELLER, S. P. M. A revisão por pares a partir da percepção dos editores: um estudo comparativo em revistas brasileiras, espanholas e mexicanas. RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, Campinas, SP, v. 14, n. 1, p. 126–143, 2016. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/article/view/8640579. Acesso em: 24 maio 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v14i1.8640579
SILVA, C. N. N. da; SILVEIRA, M. A. A.; MUELLER, S. P. M. Sistema de revisão por pares na ciência: o caso de revistas científicas do Brasil, da Espanha e do México. Estudos em Comunicação, [S. l.], n. 21, p. 235-250, 2015. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suzana-Mueller/publication/289495909_Sistema_de_revisao_por_pares_na_ciencia_o_caso_de_revistas_cientificas_do_Brasil_da_Espanha_e_do_Mexico/links/56f5746808ae38d710a0d944/Sistema-de-revisao-por-pares-na-ciencia-o-caso-de-revistas-cientificas-do-Brasil-da-Espanha-e-do-Mexico.pdf. Acesso em: 17 nov. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20287/ec.n21.a17
TARGINO, M. das G. O óbvio da informação científica: acesso e uso. Transinformação, Campinas, v. 19, n. 2, p. 97-105, ago. 2007. Disponível em: https://brapci.inf.br/index.php/res/v/115894. Acesso em: 11 maio 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-37862007000200001
THELWALL, M. et al. Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model. Journal of Information Science, [S. l.], v. 47, n. 6, p. 809-820, 5 jul. 2020. SAGE Publications. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678. Acesso em: 27 jul. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678
VAN ROOYEN S; DELAMOTHE T; EVANS S. J. W. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, [S. l.], v. 341, n. 162, p. 1-16, 16 nov. 2010. BMJ. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729. Acesso em: 03 ago. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729
WERLANG, E. Revisão por pares: um estudo da gestão de avaliadores nas revistas científicas brasileiras. Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Ciências da Educação, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação, Florianópolis, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/31452
YIN, R. K. Pesquisa qualitativa do início ao fim. Porto Alegre: Penso, 2016.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 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 