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: 2021
• Outros Autores: Farias, Maria Giovanna Guedes
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)
• Texto Completo: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/62648
• topic: Revisão por pares aberta; Periódicos científicos; Directory of Open Access Journals

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.