Discussion about open peer review in open science

Authors

  • Milton Shintaku
  • Ronnie Fagundes de Brito
  • Rui Seabra Ferreira Junior
  • Benedito Barraviera

Keywords:

Journals, Open review, Peer review, Editorial flow, Open Science

Abstract

The publication of scientific discoveries changes periodically as a result of the massive and impactful presence of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), as well as its processes, including "opening" movements. Open Science has shown an innovative and interesting path for several initiatives, including the Open Peer Review . The latter promotes a heated discussion between researchers and editors, resulting mainly from existing conflicts of interest. The present study aimed to evaluate the scarce and available literature on Open Peer Evaluation, in order to identify concepts and trends for using Editors in the implementation of this new evaluation modality. This subject is quite pertinent and challenging at a time when the world of “speed” presents a new paradigm for everyone involved in scientific editing. Although theoretically has advantages, as drastically changes traditionally accepted procedures, including a double-blind assessment, an openness of the contents and results obtained is a reality and has a drastic impact on the production of scientific knowledge. It is possible that this "opening" is irreversible, since about 70% of the published science in the world has no reproducibility. Openness of scientific data and evaluator would provide transparency and would be a way to soften the huge public investment in scientific research without returning to the community.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ALBAGLI, Sarita; CLINIO, Anne; RAYCHTOCK, Sabryna. Ciência Aberta: correntes interpretativas e tipos de ação. Liinc em Revista, v. 10, n. 2, 2014. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v10i2.749>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

AMARAL, Janaynne Carvalho do; PRÍNCIPE, Eloísa. Ciência aberta e revisão por pares: aspectos e desafios para a participação da Comunidade em geral. Cadernos BAD, n. 1, p. 320-325, 2018. Disponível em:<https://www.bad.pt/publicacoes/index.php/cadernos/article/view/1934>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

BANKS, George C. et al. Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, v. 34, n. 3, p. 257-270, 2019. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9547-8> . Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

BARRETT, Spencer CH. Proceedings B 2018: the year in review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,v. 286, n. 1894, 2 Jan. 2019. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2590>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

BRAVO, Giangiacomo et al. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature communications, v. 10, n. 1, p. 322, 2019. Disponível em: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08250-2>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

COLE, Jonathan R. Balancing acts: Dilemmas of choice facing research universities. Daedalus, v. 122, n. 4, p. 1-36, 1993. Disponível em: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027197?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

DAVID, Paul A. Reputation and Agency in the Historical Emergence of the Institutions of ‘Open Science’. In: NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COLLOQUIUM ON THE ECONOMICS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 1995, Irvine, Ca. Proceedings... . Irvine: Beckman Center, 1995. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239063416_Reputation_and_agency_in_the_historical_emergence_of_the_institutions_of_Open_Science>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

FALAGAS, Matthew E. Peer review in open access scientific journals. Open medicine, v. 1, n. 1, p. e49 - e51, 2007. Disponível em: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801911/>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

GIL, Antonio Carlos. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6. ed. São Paulo : Atlas, 2008. 200 p. ISBN 978-85-224-5142-5.

HARZING, Anne-Wil. Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?. Scientometrics, p. 1-9, 2019. Disponível em: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

LOBO, Matheus P. 2019. Peer Reviewers as Co-authors. OSF Preprints. 27 maio 2019. Disponível em: <https://osf.io/jtnq2/>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019. DOI:10.31219/osf.io/jtnq2.

MILHAM, Michael P.; KLEIN, Arno. Be the change you seek in science. BMC biology, v. 17, n. 1, p. 27, 2019. Disponível em: <https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-019-0647-3>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

PARTHA, Dasgupta; DAVID, Paul A. Toward a new economics of science. Research policy, v. 23, n. 5, p. 487-521, 1994. Disponível em: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048733394010021>. Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

ROMERO, Flávio. A Ciência na idade das trevas. Estadão, São Paulo, 27 jun. 2017. Disponível em: <https://cultura.estadao.com.br/blogs/estado-da-arte/a-ciencia-na-idade-das-trevas/> Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

ROSS-HELLAUER, Tony; GÖRÖGH, Edit. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, v. 4, n. 1, p. 4, 2019. Disponível em: <https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9> Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

SCHMIDT, Birgit et al. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, v. 7, 2018. Disponível em: <https://f1000research.com/articles/7-969> Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

SILVA, Jaime A. Teixeira da. Challenges to open peer review. Online Information Review, v. 43, n. 2, p. 197-200, 2019. Disponível em: <https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-04-2018-0139/full/html> Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

VAN ROOYEN, Susan et al. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, v. 318, n. 7175, p. 23-27, 1999. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23> Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

WALSH, Elizabeth et al. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, v. 176, n. 1, p. 47-51, 2000. Disponível em: < https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/open-peer-review-a-randomised-controlled-trial/1F81447FC67B3BAFDCCCCE82B6C7A187> Acesso em: 02 set. 2019.

Published

2019-09-25

Issue

Section

ABEC MEETING 2024

How to Cite

SHINTAKU, Milton; BRITO, Ronnie Fagundes de; FERREIRA JUNIOR, Rui Seabra; BARRAVIERA, Benedito. Discussion about open peer review in open science. Abec Meeting, [S. l.], p. 1–8, 2019. Disponível em: https://ojs.abecbrasil.org.br/abec/article/view/138. Acesso em: 7 may. 2026.