The peer review in the view of the editors of the open access journals collected by the Portal oasisbr

• Autor(a) principal: Vilas Boas, Raphael Faria
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: RECIIS (Online)
• DOI: 10.29397/reciis.v11i0.1405
• Texto Completo: https://www.reciis.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php/reciis/article/view/1405
• topic: Open access to scientific information; Peer evaluation; Brazilian scientific journals; Brazilian Open Access Scientific Publications Portal (oasisbr).; Acceso abierto a la información científica; Evaluación por pares; Revistas científicas brasileñas; Portal Brasileño de Publicaciones Científicas en Acceso Abierto (oasisbr).; Acesso aberto à informação científica; Avaliação por pares; Revistas científicas brasileiras; Portal Brasileiro de Publicações Científicas em Acesso Aberto (oasisbr).

The research presents the characteristics of the peer evaluation carried out in the magazines collected by the Brazilian Portal of Scientific Publications in Open Access (oasisbr), as well as apprehends the opinion of the editors of these journals in relation to the peer evaluation processes used and their alternatives. In order to fulfill the proposed objectives, the questionnaire was chosen as an instrument for data collection and for the quantitative-qualitative approach. The universe of the research was delimited by the magazines collected by the Portal oasisbr that are registered in the Directory of Editorial Policies of the Brazilian Scientific Journals (Diadorim). The questionnaire was sent to 637 journals, of which 109 answers were obtained, representing 17.1% of the research universe. It was identified that the relationship between the actual practice of the journals and what the editors consider most appropriate is marked by both disparities and compatibilities, the undeniable reputation of the double-blind evaluation is highlighted as the evaluation used by 95.3% of the sample journals being considered the most efficient by 95.1% of the editors. Regarding the publication of the name of the evaluators, it is seen that only 31.4% of the journals publish the name of the evaluator in some way, while 49.5% of the editors agree that the name of the evaluator should be published. In relation to the general characteristics that can establish a system of evaluation by pairs it is noticed that, in general, these are little used, however there is a tendency that seems to be directed towards a greater acceptance of these characteristics or at least an awareness of the effectiveness of these characteristics to relate a more efficient peer review.