Participação aberta na revisão por pares aberta: pareceristas, conceitos e modelos

• Ano de defesa: 2022
• Autor(a) principal: Amaral, Janaynne Carvalho do
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil; Escola de Comunicação; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação - PPGCI IBICT-UFRJ; IBICT-UFRJ
• Palavras-chave em Português: Ciência Aberta; Revisão por Pares Aberta; Participação Aberta; Revistas Científicas; Open science; Open Peer Review; Open Participation; Scientific Journals; CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::CIENCIA DA INFORMACAO
• Link de acesso: http://ridi.ibict.br/handle/123456789/1356

One of the changes introduced by Open Science to peer review is the participation of reviewers non-selected by editors or indicated by authors in the evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals. This study aimed to identify and describe from the literature what peers, concepts, and models of peer review are associated with open participation in scientific journals. An integrative review was conducted. The literature was retrieved in March 2021 limited to the languages English, Portuguese, and Spanish but with no time limitations. Models of open peer review with open participation were considered as those that contemplate the participation of the public. These models were characterized according to terminology of open peer review established by Tony Ross-Hellauer1. Self-appointed reviewers were regarded as a new type of reviewer. Concepts around open peer review models with open participation were understood as a foundation for its implementation. A total of 562 studies were retrieved. However, 407 remained after removing duplicates, and 20 met the inclusion criteria. These studies were published in English from 1998 to 2018. Nine (45%) present implemented models, 7 (35%) discuss public participation and comments; 2 (10%) propose a model; 1 (5%) approaches the quality of the manuscript selection process; 1 (5%) analyzes the reliability of peer review in open participation. Six models of open peer review models with open participation were found. These models can be totally open or be combined with the traditional peer review to discuss publicly manuscripts. They can keep the steps of the traditional peer review process or can be divided into 2 stages or more (Table 1). The peers can be the readers of the journal, reviewers invited by the editor or author, and patients. Studies focused on public participation and comments are questioning the expertise of this audience to evaluate manuscripts, the incentives to comment, and potential impacts on the researcher's career. Public comments help to improve the quality of the publication and the manuscript process selection, but they do not increase inter-rater reliability among reviewers. Open Access, crowdsourcing, interaction, and transparency are the main concepts of the models of open peer review with open participation. Open peer review models with open participation models have different degrees of openness, are expanding the identity of a peer and bringing new challenges to peer review. Furthermore, open identities are a sensitive aspect of these models, for which concepts are aligned with open science values.