Scientific Editor Understanding on Open Science: Study of the Editorial Program from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

• Autor(a) principal: Araújo, Paula Carina de
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Lopes, Maura Paula Miranda
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Encontros Bibli
• Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/78660
• topic: Journal; Open Science; Scientific Editor; Scientific Publishing; Journal Editing; Periódicos Científico; Ciência Aberta; Editores Científicos; Editoração Científica; Editoração de Periódico

Objective: it aims to recognize the understanding of journal’s editors that received the grant from the 2019 Editorial Program from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico about open science practices that may be applied to the editorial process to each journal. Methods: it develops a descriptive research with quantitative and qualitative approach in two parts. The first part describes the journal’s profile. The second part applies an electronic questionnaire to 51 editors and it obtained 23 answers. The data was organized, presented and analyzed through graphs and tables using the software Excel and the questionnaire was created with the tool Google Forms. Results: open access, open data management, the use of Creative Commons licenses, the use of altmetrics and the acceptance of the submission of preprints were indicated by the majority of the editors as important or too important. The open peer review and the publication of data article were classified as no important or less important by the majority of editors. Conclusions: the editors understand the concept and recognize the majority of open science practices, especially those regarded to scientific editing. There is a lack of understanding about the practices of open scientific data management, sharing and reuse, regarded to copyright and to the documentation of data used in the research. The editors are resistant to open peer review.