Open Science is still an incipient topic in Business Administration journals

 João Paulo Moreira Silva, Professor do Mestrado em Administração da Unihorizontes, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, MG and Edmundo Inácio Júnior, Professor na Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Limeira, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Image: Created by the authors.

Despite advocating important and current precepts, the Open Science (OS) movement is still in its infancy among Business Administration journals. As an example, badges–insignia assigned by journals to articles and authors who meet the requirements regarding data transparency and other research methods–recognized as an effective action for scientific dissemination are used by only one journal.

Many journals do not perform much better in terms of the other criteria highlighted by the Guide to promoting the opening, transparency and reproducibility of research published by SciELO journals,¹ based on the TOP (Transparency and Openness Promotion) guidelines, only encouraging actions by authors.

By means of an exploratory survey seeking to develop the expanded abstract Mapeamento da Ciência Aberta em Revistas Brasileiras de Administração: Situação Atual e Perspectivas Futuras² presented at the 2024 ABEC Meeting, we selected the 17 journals in the area of Business Administration and asked ourselves: are the main Administration journals in line with the precepts of OS? The aim was for the survey to be objective and simple. Thus, we investigated mentions of the guidelines and precepts of Open Science on each journal page on the SciELO platform and, when there were clear inconsistencies or absences, also on the journals’ websites.

As scientific publishers attentive to the emerging discussions on scientific publishing, the question that guided our survey arises naturally: we defend and support a more transparent science, both in its process of creating knowledge and in its evaluation and communication. On the other hand, wearing the hat as Brazilian researchers, we realize that many of the recent changes in the publishing process and in the way scientific knowledge is made are taking time to reach us, especially in a context of high volumes of information and the constant emergence of new technological tools.

During the data collection and analysis, we were able to note some interesting scenarios. Firstly, it became clear that the guidelines in the SciELO TOP guidelines guide¹ have limited suitability in the field of Applied Social Sciences, such as items 5, 6, 7 and 8; (v) transparency of design and analysis; (vi) pre-registration of studies; (vii) pre-registration of analysis plan; and (viii) replication. On the other hand, when evaluating items 1 to 4, it is possible to notice that, for the most part, the journals only “encourage” or “say nothing”; the equivalent of Level 0 of evaluation. Table 1 shows the complete survey.

Table 1. Frequency count of the levels of application of the SciELO TOP guidelines guide¹ criteria.

In this way, it is possible to notice that the application of OS precepts in Administration journals is still incipient and diffuse. It is therefore argued that there is a need for journals to adopt systematic and clear forms regarding OS guidelines, especially those linked to the SciELO TOP guidelines guide.¹ As an example, let’s take the “encouragement” of data transparency. This effort on the journal’s part keeps it in the Level 0 category and is not considered an effective effort.

Simple but objective activities, such as creating a specific section for guidelines on OS in each journal that do not yet have one, where all the information on the subject is explained–including orientation on each of the eight guidelines in the TOP Guide (remembering that the 1^st version dates from 2015, and was published by SciELO in 2018, and it will be updated again in 2025) and the level that the journal reaches through its activities tends to be more efficient and, as a consequence, achieving greater results for the journal.

To read the article, access

SILVA, J.P.M. and INÁCIO JÚNIOR, E. Mapeamento da Ciência Aberta em Revistas Brasileiras de Administração: Situação Atual e Perspectivas Futuras. In: Anais da ABEC Meeting 2024, São Paulo, 2024 [viewed 15 January 2024]. https://doi.org/10.21452/abecmeeting2024.240. Available from: https://ojs.abecbrasil.org.br/index.php/abec/article/view/240

Note

1. SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Guide to promoting the opening, transparency and reproducibility of research published by SciELO journals [online]. SciELO.org. 2018 [viewed 15 January 2024].  Available from: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_TOP_en.pdf 

2. SILVA, J.P.M. and INÁCIO JÚNIOR, E. Mapeamento da Ciência Aberta em Revistas Brasileiras de Administração: Situação Atual e Perspectivas Futuras. In: Anais da ABEC Meeting 2024, São Paulo, 2024 [viewed 15 January 2024]. https://doi.org/10.21452/abecmeeting2024.240. Available from: https://ojs.abecbrasil.org.br/index.php/abec/article/view/240

References

MUNAFÒ, M.R., et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour [online]. 2017, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 0021 [viewed 15 January 2024]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021

SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Guide to promoting the opening, transparency and reproducibility of research published by SciELO journals [online]. SciELO.org. 2018 [viewed 15 January 2024].  Available from: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_TOP_en.pdf 

UNESCO. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science [online]. UNESCO. 2022 [viewed 15 January 2024]. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949_eng

External links

ABEC Meeting 2024

TOP Guidelines

Updated Guidelines to Promote the Verifiability of Published Empirical Research Claims – Introducing TOP 2025

Translated from the original in Portuguese by Lilian Nassi-Calò.