Editors' perceptions of the implementation of open review in scientific journals
Objective: The study aims to investigate scientific journals indexed in DOAJ that perform open peer review, from the perspective of their editors. The following specific objectives were outlined: a) to identify scientific journals indexed in DOAJ that adopt open peer review; b) to verify the open pe...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
| Repositorio: | Encontros Bibli |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/99922 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/eb/article/view/99922 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Revisão por pares aberta Periódicos científicos Directory of Open Access Journals Editor de periódico Open peer review Scientific Journals Journal editor |
| Sumario: | Objective: The study aims to investigate scientific journals indexed in DOAJ that perform open peer review, from the perspective of their editors. The following specific objectives were outlined: a) to identify scientific journals indexed in DOAJ that adopt open peer review; b) to verify the open peer review model used by these journals; and; c) to describe the editors' perception of their experiences with the implementation of this evaluation method. Methods: This is a quantitative-qualitative approach, documentary and survey research, carried out by applying a questionnaire to the editors of scientific journals indexed in DOAJ as an open review. The data was analyzed using content analysis and qualitative data analysis techniques. Results: Regarding the characterization of the model adopted, the characteristics open identities and open opinions are the most used by the respondents. The majority of participants adopt the open review between one month and three years, but there are respondents who adopt it for more than a decade. Among the justifications for adopting open review were the contribution it makes to improving work, the promotion of transparency and communication between authors and reviewers and the recognition of reviewers. Most of the respondents did not notice any reactions from the academic community as a result of adopting open review, but they did notice changes in the opinions, in the sense that they were more respectful, detailed and less aggressive. Conclusions: It was noted that the application of open review is heterogeneous, reflecting the diversity of the concept and providing flexibility in its use to increase transparency in evaluation. It was concluded that journals adopt open review in a variety of ways: some for more than a decade, others recently, and some have been using this model since the beginning. The majority adopt open review because they believe it increases transparency, quality and commitment in reviews. And finally, in contrast to the concerns discussed in the literature, many have not observed adverse reactions from the academic community or in the reviews |
|---|