Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Andrade Maia, Francisca Clotilde de
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Guedes Farias, Maria Giovanna
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Encontros Bibli
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506
Resumo: 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.
id UFSC-29_06a3157625ca0c0d2db2ec43f8055347
oai_identifier_str oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/79506
network_acronym_str UFSC-29
network_name_str Encontros Bibli
repository_id_str
spelling Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access JournalsRevisión abierta por pares: un análisis de revistas científicas indexadas en el Directorio de revistas de acceso abiertoRevisão por pares aberta: uma análise dos periódicos científicos indexados no Directory of Open Access JournalsRevisão por pares abertaDirectory of Open Access Journals Periódicos científicosOpen peer reviewDirectory of Open Access JournalsScientific journalsObjective: 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.Identificar el modelo de revisión adoptado por las revistas científicas indexadas en el filtro abierto de revisión por pares del Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), para analizar si estas revistas incluyen las siete características señaladas por Ross-Hellauer (2017). Se basó en el enfoque cuanti-cualitativo, utilizando el método exploratorio y técnicas de recolección de datos: investigación documental y entrevista no estructurada. El DOAJ procedió con la descarga de metadatos y visitas a los sitios web de cada revista a analizar. La entrevista no estructurada se realizó por correo electrónico y redes sociales de los editores. Para el análisis de datos se adoptó el análisis de contenido, con el establecimiento de categorías. Señalan que la mayor parte de la muestra de revistas proviene del Reino Unido, está bajo la responsabilidad de la editorial BioMed Central (BMC), publican en inglés, cargo el pago de los Cargos por Procesamiento de Artículos (APC) y cubren el área de Ciencias de la Salud Las características de identidades abiertas y opiniones abiertas son las más adoptadas por las revistas científicas de la muestra. Además, según los editores, las revisiones abiertas son más justas y actúan como un tutorial didáctico sobre cómo realizar una opinión científica. Los resultados también demuestran que la revisión abierta impacta la calidad del manuscrito, da como resultado evaluaciones mejores, más constructivas, menos negativas y actúa como una alternativa para valorar el trabajo voluntario de los evaluadores. Concluimos que el modelo de revisión abierta demuestra ser una alternativa viable y que, con base en los resultados, se puede considerar como un modelo efectivo que brinda varios aportes al proceso de revisión por pares, en particular, para hacerlo más transparente y justo.Objetivo: A revisão por pares aberta é um dos modelos de avaliação vem sendo discutido na literatura científica, por estar em consonância com os princípios da ciência aberta. Diante disso, este estudo objetiva identificar o modelo de revisão adotado pelos periódicos científicos indexados no filtro open peer review do Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), a fim de analisar se essas revistas contemplam as setes características apontadas por Ross-Hellauer (2017a). Método: Baseou-se na abordagem quanti-qualitativa, com uso do método exploratório e das técnicas de coleta de dados: pesquisa documental e entrevista não-estruturada. No DOAJ procedeu-se com o download de metadados e visitas aos websites de cada periódico a ser analisado. Já a entrevista não-estruturada foi efetivada por e-mail e mídia social dos editores. Para a análise dos dados adotou-se a análise de conteúdo, com o estabelecimento de categorias. Resultados: Apontam que a maior parte da amostra dos periódicos é oriunda do Reino Unido, está sob responsabilidade da editora BioMed Central (BMC), publicam em inglês, cobram o pagamento de taxa Article Processing Charges (APC) e cobrem a área Ciências da Saúde. As características identidades abertas e pareceres abertos são as mais adotadas pelos periódicos científicos da amostra. Além disso, de acordo com os editores, as revisões abertas são mais justas e atuam como um tutorial de ensino sobre como realizar um parecer científico. Os resultados demonstram ainda que a revisão aberta impacta na qualidade do manuscrito, resulta em avaliações melhores, mais construtivas, menos negativas e atua como uma alternativa para valorizar o trabalho voluntário dos avaliadores. Conclusões: Conclui-se que o modelo de revisão aberta mostra-se ser uma alternativa viável e que, com base nos resultados, pode-se considerá-lo como um modelo eficaz e que proporciona diversas contribuições para o processo de revisão por pares, em especial, para torná-lo mais transparente e justo.  Departamento de Ciência da Informação – UFSC2021-08-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdftext/xmlhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/7950610.5007/1518-2924.2021.e79506Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação; Vol. 26 (2021): Encontros Bibli "25 years giving voice to Science"Encontros Bibli: revista electrónica de bibliotecología y ciencias de la información.; Vol. 26 (2021): Encontros Bibli "25 años dando voz a la ciencia"Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação; v. 26 (2021): A Encontros Bibli "25 anos dando voz à Ciência"1518-2924reponame:Encontros Bibliinstname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506/48591https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506/53843https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506/47472Copyright (c) 2021 Francisca Clotilde de Andrade Maia, Maria Giovanna Guedes Fariashttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAndrade Maia, Francisca Clotilde deGuedes Farias, Maria Giovanna 2023-07-19T12:59:47Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/79506Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/indexPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/oaiencontrosbibli@contato.ufsc.br||portaldeperiodicos.bu@contato.ufsc.br1518-29241518-2924opendoar:2023-07-19T12:59:47Encontros Bibli - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
Revisión abierta por pares: un análisis de revistas científicas indexadas en el Directorio de revistas de acceso abierto
Revisão por pares aberta: uma análise dos periódicos científicos indexados no Directory of Open Access Journals
title Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
spellingShingle Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
Andrade Maia, Francisca Clotilde de
Revisão por pares aberta
Directory of Open Access Journals
Periódicos científicos
Open peer review
Directory of Open Access Journals
Scientific journals
title_short Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
title_full Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
title_fullStr Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
title_full_unstemmed Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
title_sort Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
author Andrade Maia, Francisca Clotilde de
author_facet Andrade Maia, Francisca Clotilde de
Guedes Farias, Maria Giovanna
author_role author
author2 Guedes Farias, Maria Giovanna
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Andrade Maia, Francisca Clotilde de
Guedes Farias, Maria Giovanna
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Revisão por pares aberta
Directory of Open Access Journals
Periódicos científicos
Open peer review
Directory of Open Access Journals
Scientific journals
topic Revisão por pares aberta
Directory of Open Access Journals
Periódicos científicos
Open peer review
Directory of Open Access Journals
Scientific journals
description 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.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-08-06
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506
10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e79506
url https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506
identifier_str_mv 10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e79506
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506/48591
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506/53843
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/79506/47472
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Francisca Clotilde de Andrade Maia, Maria Giovanna Guedes Farias
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Francisca Clotilde de Andrade Maia, Maria Giovanna Guedes Farias
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/xml
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Departamento de Ciência da Informação – UFSC
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Departamento de Ciência da Informação – UFSC
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação; Vol. 26 (2021): Encontros Bibli "25 years giving voice to Science"
Encontros Bibli: revista electrónica de bibliotecología y ciencias de la información.; Vol. 26 (2021): Encontros Bibli "25 años dando voz a la ciencia"
Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação; v. 26 (2021): A Encontros Bibli "25 anos dando voz à Ciência"
1518-2924
reponame:Encontros Bibli
instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
instacron:UFSC
instname_str Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
instacron_str UFSC
institution UFSC
reponame_str Encontros Bibli
collection Encontros Bibli
repository.name.fl_str_mv Encontros Bibli - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv encontrosbibli@contato.ufsc.br||portaldeperiodicos.bu@contato.ufsc.br
_version_ 1797067779062366208