Revisão por pares aberta: percepção dos editores de periódicos científicos indexados no Directory of Open Access Journals

• Ano de defesa: 2023
• Autor(a) principal: Maia, Francisca Clotilde de Andrade
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Palavras-chave em Português: Revisão por pares aberta; Diretrizes para revisão aberta; Periódicos científicos; Directory of Open Access Journals; Open peer review; Open review guidelines; Scientific journals; CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::CIENCIA DA INFORMACAO
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/75299

Open review is a model for evaluating scientific productions aligned with open science practices and based on pillars such as transparency, collaboration and ethics. Because it has different characteristics, there are divergences in the literature regarding its definition, which is discussed more and more frequently, as shown by authors who investigate the topic. In this sense of growing debates, researchers point out the need to develop guidelines for the adoption and implementation of open review characteristics. From this perspective, we question whether there are instructions in the scientific literature for the adoption of open review, and, in addition, we ask what are the perceptions of editors of journals indexed as open peer review (OPR) in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) on the implementation of these more transparent features and practices. Based on such questions, this study aimed to map and analyze proposals, models, recommendations and editors' perceptions about the adoption of open peer review, in order to propose guidelines for implementing OPR in scientific journals. With a quantitative-qualitative approach, the research is considered bibliographic, documentary and survey, carried out by applying a questionnaire to the editors of scientific journals indexed in the DOAJ as OPR. The data were discussed in light of Bardin's (2011) content analysis techniques and Yin's (2016) qualitative data. As a result of the search in the literature for guidelines for implementing open review, two works were found that presented general and specific directions for experimenting with open review. The respondents' perception about the adoption of open review practices was categorized into four lines of discussion: characterization of the model adopted, experiences using open review, procedures established for implementation and conclusions about the adoption of open review. Regarding the characterization of the model adopted, the characteristics of open identities and open opinions are the ones most used by respondents. Among the main justifications for adopting open review, the contribution it provides to improving the work, the promotion of transparency and communication and exchange between authors, evaluators and authors and the appreciation and recognition of reviewers were mentioned. The majority of respondents did not notice reactions from the academic community due to adopting the open review, and, on the other hand, noticed changes in the opinions, in the sense that they were more respectful, detailed and less aggressive. Regarding the procedures for adopting peer review, most participants followed their own model and declared that they did not have complex technological solutions. Finally, respondents reiterated the importance of editorial mediation for the process and the interest in continuing to adopt open evaluation practices. The relationship between data obtained in the literature and the editors' perception supported the development of guidelines for the implementation of OPR by journals that are interested in experimenting with open practices in their scientific evaluation. In this sense, the guidelines are segmented into stages: planning, implementation, evaluation and adaptation, supported by the editor's support and mediation. It is concluded that open review is considered a concept with different meanings and applicability, which made it possible, at the end of this research, to infer how its adoption occurs heterogeneously between journals and how optional anonymity is considered an essential condition to allow that reviewers and authors feel confident and not coerced into trying open review. Finally, it is important to highlight that both the literature and the respondents' perception highlight the relevance of paying attention to the characteristics of open evaluation, testing and evaluating the aspects that best suit the interests of the journal and its community, since each journal can be considered a unique channel for scientific dissemination and communication.