Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2006 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Costa, Ana Ludmila Freire |
| Orientador(a): |
Yamamoto, Oswaldo Hajime |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia
|
| Departamento: |
Psicologia, Sociedade e Qualidade de Vida
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/17430
|
Resumo: |
Recently, Brazilian scientific production has increased greatly, due to demands for productivity from scientific agencies. However, this high increases requires a more qualified production, since it s essential that publications are relevant and original. In the psychological field, the assessment scientific journals of the CAPES/ANPEPP Commission had a strong effect on the scientific community and raised questions about the chosen evaluation method. Considering this impact, the aim of this research is a meta-analysis on the assessment of Psychological journals by CAPES to update the Qualis database. For this research, Psychology scientific editors (38 questionnaires were applied by e-mail) were consulted, also 5 librarians who work with scientific journals assessment (semi-structured interviews) and 8 members who acted as referees in the CAPES/ANPEPP Commission (open questions were sent by e-mail). The results are shown through 3 analysis: general evaluation of the Qualis process (including the Assessment Committee constitution), evaluation criteria used in the process and the effect of the evaluation on the scientific community (changes on the editing scene included). Some important points emerged: disagreement among different actors about the suitability of this evaluation model; the recognition of the improvement of scientific journals, mainly toward normalization and diffusion; the verification that the model does not point the quality of the journal, i.e., the content of the scientific articles published in the journal; the disagreement with the criteria used, seemed necessary and useful but needed to be discussed and cleared between the scientific community. Despite these points, the scientific journals evaluation still is the main method to assure quality for Psychology publications |
