Open peer review: an analysis of scientific journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | |
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 |