Revisão por pares aberta: uma análise dos periódicos científicos indexados no Directory of Open Access Journals

• Autor(a) principal: Maia, Francisca Clotilde de Andrade
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)
• Texto Completo: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/55632
• topic: Revisão por pares abertas; Directory of Open Access Journals; Periódicos científicos

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) and includes the seven characteristics identified by Ross-Hellauer (2017). The methodological path adopted for this investigation is based on a quantitative and qualitative approach and of an exploratory nature. As data collection techniques, documentary research and unstructured interviews were used. Data collection related to documentary research was carried out at DOAJ, with the download of its metadata and the respective visit to the website of each journal. The unstructured interview was carried out by e-mail and social media from the editors. For data analysis, content analysis was adopted, carried out by establishing subject categories. The results show that the majority of the sample of journals comes from the United Kingdom, is under the responsibility of the publisher BioMed Central (BMC), charges the payment of Article Processing Charges (APC) and covers the Health Sciences area. Open identities and open reports are the characteristics most adopted by the scientific journals in the sample. According to the editors, open reviews are fairer and act as a teaching tutorial on how to conduct a scientific report. 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. 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.