Actitudes de los editores de revistas académicas brasileñas hacia la revisión por pares abierta (open peer review). Una encuesta

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.nov.20

Palabras clave:

Revisión abierta, Revisión por pares, Editores científicos, Revistas científicas, Revistas académicas, Comunicación académica, Ciencia abierta, Encuestas

Resumen

 

La revisión abierta es uno de los componentes de la ciencia abierta que las revistas científicas están incorporando en la gestión de los procesos editoriales. A diferencia del acceso abierto a las publicaciones o a los datos de investigación, la revisión abierta suscita aún dudas y recelos por parte de los agentes implicados (editores, revisores y autores). Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar la percepción de los editores de revistas publicadas en Brasil sobre la revisión por pares abierta (open peer review). Para ello, se utilizó un cuestionario online de 42 preguntas que se envió a 3.208 editores, de los cuales contestaron 351. Los editores mostraron satisfacción por el modelo actual de comunicación científica, el modelo de revisión doble ciego, mostraron desacuerdo con la identificación de los revisores, aunque percibieron una ventaja en que la revisión abierta permitiera la interacción mutua entre autores y revisores con el objetivo de mejorar la calidad de los contenidos. Como barreras, señalaron los conflictos de intereses y las rivalidades que la apertura de la revisión pudiera generar y la dificultad para encontrar revisores dispuestos a aceptar este modelo de revisión. La conclusión general apunta a un perfil conservador de los editores en lo que se refiere a la introducción de prácticas de apertura en la revisión.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Abadal, Ernest; Silveira, Lúcia da (2020). “Open peer review: otro paso hacia la ciencia abierta por parte de las revistas científicas”. Anuario ThinkEPI, v. 14, e14e02. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e02

Cassella, Maria (2018). “Tools and methods of innovation in the open science: Open peer review”. AIB studi, v. 58, n. 1, pp. 95-107. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-11714

Delikoura, Eirini; Kouis, Dimitrios (2021). “Open research data and open peer review: Perceptions of a medical and health sciences community in Greece”. Publications, v. 9, n. 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020014

Dobusch, Leonhard; Heimstädt, Maximilian (2019). “Predatory publishing in management research: a call for open peer review”. Management learning, [S. l.], v. 50, n. 5, pp. 607-619, 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1350507619878820

Fontenelle, Leonardo F.; Sarti, Thiago D. (2021). “Attitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil”. Transinformação, v. 33, e200072. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202133e200072

Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Targino, Maria das Graças (2017). “Open peer review sob a ótica de editores das revistas brasileiras da Ciência da Informação”. In: XVIII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação, Marília, São Paulo. https://brapci.inf.br/index.php/res/v/104007

Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Targino, Maria das Graças (2018). “O futuro da open peer review na ciência da informação”. Tendências da Pesquisa Brasileira em Ciência da Informação, v. 11, n. 2. https://brapci.inf.br/index.php/res/v/102816

Garrido-Gallego, Yeimy (2018). “Open peer review for evaluating academic legal publications: The ‘antidote’ to an ‘ill’ blind peer review?”. Tilburg law review, v. 23, n. 1, pp. 77-90. https://tilburglawreview.com/article/10.5334/tilr.128

Hamilton, Daniel G.; Fraser, Hannah; Hoekstra, Rink; Fidler, Fiona (2020). “Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review”. eLife, n. 9, e62529. https://elifesciences.org/articles/62529.pdf

Hodonu-Wusu, James-Oluwaseyi (2018). “Open science: A review on open peer review literature”. Library philosophy and practice, v. 2018, 1874. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1874

Hodonu-Wusu, James-Oluwaseyi; Noorhidawati, Abdullah; Abrizah, Abdullah (2021). “The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review”. Malaysian journal of library and information science, v. 25, n. 3, pp. 57-76. http://jice.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/34584/14249

Maia, Francisca Clotilde de Andrade; Farias, Maria Giovanna Guedes (2021). “Revisão por pares aberta: uma análise dos periódicos científicos indexados no Directory of Open Access Journals”. Encontros Bibli, v. 26. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2021.e79506

Melero, Remedios (2022). “Questions corresponding to the online survey of the article ‘Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain’”. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6922431

Melero, Remedios; Boté-Vericad, Juan-José; López-Borrull, Alexandre (2023). “Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain”. Learned publishing, v. 36, n. 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1511

Melero, Remedios; López-Santoveña, Fernando (2001). “Referees’ attitudes toward open peer review and electronic transmission of papers”. Food science and technology international, v. 7, n. 6, pp. 521-527. https://doi.org/10.1106/0MXD-YM6F-3LM6-G9EB

Nassi-Calò, Lilian (2015) “Peer review modalities, pros and cons”. SciELO in perspective, March 27. https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/27/peer-review-modalities-pros-and-cons

Panda, Saumya (2019). “The peer review process: Yesterday, today and tomorrow”. Indian journal of dermatology, venereology, and leprology, v. 85, n. 3, pp. 239-245. http://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?2019/85/3/239/255789

Peebles, Erin; Scandlyn, Marissa; Hesp, Blair R. (2020). “A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal”. Plos one, v. 15, n. 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237804

Rath, Manasa; Wang, Peiling (2017). “Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers perceptions”. In: Joint conference on digital libraries. Toronto, Canada: IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7991608

Ribeiro, Nivaldo Calixto (2022). Ciência aberta em universidades públicas federais brasileiras: políticas, ações e iniciativas. Tesis doutoral. Belo Horizonte: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão e Organização do Conhecimento, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/50212

Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017). “What is open peer review? A systematic review”. F1000Research, v. 6, p. 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1

Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Deppe, Arvid; Schmidt, Birgit (2017). “Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers”. Plos one, v. 12, n. 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311

Schmidt, Birgit; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Van-Edig, Xenia; Moylan, Elizabeth C. (2018). “Ten considerations for open peer review”. F1000Research, v. 7. https://f1000research.com/articles/7-969/v1

Segado-Boj, Francisco; Martín-Quevedo, Juan; Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan-José (2018). “Attitudes toward open access, open peer review, and altmetrics among contributors”. Journal of scholarly publishing, v. 50, n. 1, pp. 48-70. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08

Silva, Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento da; Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Targino, Maria das Graças (2021). “Efetivação da open peer review frente aos editores do Portal de Periódicos da Universidade Federal da Paraíba”. Revista brasileira de educação em ciência da informação, v. 8. https://doi.org/10.24208/REBECIN.V8I.281

Silveira, Lúcia da (2023). Políticas editoriais de periódicos no ecossistema da ciência aberta: impactos da avaliação por pares aberta, preprint e dados abertos. Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/265494

Stamm, Thomas; Meyer, Ulrich; Wiesmann Hans-Peter; Kleinheinz, Johannes; Cehreli, Murat; Cehreli, Zefer C. (2007). “A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine”. Head & face medicine, v. 3, n. 1. https://head-face-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-160X-3-27

Targino, Maria das Graças; Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; Silva, Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento da (2020). “Avaliadores da área de ciência da informação frente à open peer review”. Revista interamericana de bibliotecología, v. 43, n. 1, eI3. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1eI3

Tattersall, Andy (2015). “For what it’s worth - the open peer review landscape”. Online information review, v. 39, n. 5, pp. 649-663. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2015-0182

Tennant, Jonathan P.; Dugan, Jonathan M.; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien… et al. (2017). “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review”. F1000Research, v. 6, n. 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.1

Van-Rooyen, Susan; Godlee, Fiona (1999). “Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial”. BMJ, v. 318, n. 7175, pp. 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23

Wang, Peiling; You, Sukjin; Manasa, Rath; Wolfram, Dietmar (2016). “Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of PeerJ authors and reviewers”. Journal of data and information science, v. 1, n. 4, pp. 60-80. https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201625

Wolfram, Dietmar; Wang, Peiling; Park, Hyoungjoo (2019). “Open peer review: The current landscape and emerging models”. In: XVII International conference on scientometrics & informetrics. Rome: ISSI. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=utk_infosciepubs

Zendel, Oliver; Schörghuber, Matthias; Vignoli, Michela (2017). “Open peer review CMS support”. In: OpenSym ‘17: Proceedings of the 13th International symposium on open collaboration. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3125433.3125458

Zong, Qianjin; Xie, Yafen; Liang, Jiechun (2020). “Does open peer review improve citation count?” Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ. Scientometrics, v. 125, n. 1, pp. 607-623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03545-y

Descargas

Publicado

2023-12-10

Cómo citar

Silveira, L. da, Melero, R., Caregnato, S. E., & Abadal, E. (2023). Actitudes de los editores de revistas académicas brasileñas hacia la revisión por pares abierta (open peer review). Una encuesta. Profesional De La información Information Professional, 32(6). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.nov.20

Número

Sección

Artí­culos de investigación / Research articles