Tag: Research Evaluation

The role of non-Brazilian contribution in the publishing performance of psychology journals in Brazil

An examination of publishing performance among psychology journals in Brazil finds higher publishing performance associated with non-Brazilian contribution, in terms of: authors and editorial board members from English-speaking countries; as well as collaboration with authors from English-speaking countries. Implications are discussed for editors and publishers, as well as arbiters of public policy. Read More →

The absurdity of the same requirement for law that the rest of the scientific publications

Bibliometric indexes (e.g., WoS/Scopus), normally used for hard sciences and even social sciences, should not be used as a parameter for law research in the same way, as it does not respond to the same extent to measure quality or productivity of research in this field. Text available only in Spanish. Read More →

Implications of SciELO in the history of science coverage in LA&C

Historical data on the presence of America/Latin America in bibliographic sources were used as references to review the implications of SciELO in the recent coverage of scientific journals in the region. Three scenarios were mentioned. Expansion of modern science (journals and catalog of the Royal Society, XVII-XIX centuries); hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon citation indexes (20th century); diversification of coverage and type of indexes (21st century). Through the citation geography visible in SciELO, signs of changes can be seen in the specialization of regional journals as cited sources; we believe that this trend will continue in journals covering regional issues. Text available only in Spanish. Read More →

The Local and the Global: Puncturing the myth of the “international” journal

What are journals for? In one view they are a brand, a masthead that stands as a widely recognized proxy for some notion of quality assurance or interest. An alternate view is that they are communities, even “clubs” as we have explored in one article. The first of these views privileges the concept of “international” journals and an assumption that general interest implies better work. The second focuses attention on local needs and interests. Here the question is different, how well does a specific journal serve a specific community. Read More →

All journals should have a policy defining authorship – here’s what to include [Originally published in LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog in January/2018]

Scientific research papers with large numbers of authors have become more commonplace, increasing the likelihood of authorship disputes. Danielle Padula, Theresa Somerville and Ben Mudrak emphasise the importance of journals clearly defining and communicating authorship criteria to researchers. As well as having a policy for inclusion, journals should also indicate unethical authorship practices, clarify the order of authors at an early stage, consider recognising “contributorship”, and refer any disputes that do arise to the authors’ institutions. Read More →

Output and impact of Brazilian research: confronting international and national contexts

Brazilian scientific research, seen through its articles and their impact reveals a scenario that 30 years ago could not have been described. SciELO concretizes what Garfield envisioned for Latin America in the 1990s, allowing to delineate the citation flow, as in many countries, as yet unseen, and allowing to question the pertinence of Gibbs’s expression: “lost science in the third world”. Read More →

Do the article and scientific journals have a future?

How to think the future of scholarly communication, aiming at its broadest circulation, use, citation, and impact? It is proposed to preferentially focus on meeting the needs of the “Great Dialogue” in knowledge production and less on the financing and survival strategies of canonical forms of scholarly communication before the disruptive effects of open access. Read More →

Book Review: Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age by Matthew J. Salganik [Originally published in LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog in July/2018]

In Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age, Matthew J. Salganik explores the process of undertaking social research in the digital era, examining a wide range of concepts while also offering teaching activities and materials. In bringing together the expertise of social and data scientists to the benefit of both, this is a comprehensive overview of new approaches to social research in our time, recommends Marziyeh Ebrahimi. Read More →

Scientific-public interface in times of correction of scientific literature: Contemporary ethical issues

The process of correcting scientific literature becomes increasingly accelerated and reflects, among several factors, a greater scrutiny by scientific publishers. Unlike what happened about two decades ago, when retracting an article was rare, today it has been integrated into the editorial culture. In this context, the way in which this correction process is articulated with the news flow about science deserves attention. In the science-public interface, retractions broaden the spaces to strengthen public understanding about science and its mechanisms of self-regulation. How to extend this space is one of the ethical discussions of our time. Read More →

What does a new approach mean (for journals, research councils)?

Preprints are a development underway in science communication and publishing. For journals, this has consequences. They may adopt a passive role, an opposing stance, or an encouraging, stimulating role, and see it as an opportunity, placing their journal in the midst of the preprint development. These are issues to be discussed in detail at the SciELO 20 Years Conference in September 2018. Read More →

eLife tests out an innovative approach in peer review

The journal eLife is conducting an innovative experiment by accepting all articles sent to peer review after initial screening. To test the feasibility of an even more participative peer review process, authors will be able to control the decision whether to publish (or not) their articles and how they will respond to reviewers’ comments. By breaking with the paradigms of the author-editor-reviewer relationship, eLife aims to promote a constructive dialogue between the parties and reduce the burden of the journals’ prestige in research evaluation. Read More →

How long does it take to do science? The emergence of time in scholarly communication

Scholarly communication has undergone great transformations in the last two decades, mainly due to the popularization of new information technologies, which imposes a new regime of time and speed in scientific publishing. However, these changes are not just responses to technological advances. These are more complex issues related to the reconfiguration of academic work and changes on the paradigm of communication and the difficulties and challenges faced by editors and researchers over time management. Read More →

Communication and peer review should be universally separated

The SciELO 20 Years Week will promote an ample and open forum on the future of scientific communication and journals. There is a discussion group for each topic of the SciELO 20 Years Conference. The discussion starts with this comment by Jan Velterop on the separation between communication and peer review posted in the discussion group of the Panel 3.1 that deals with fast communication via preprints and other means to accelerate the availability of research results. Read More →

Open peer review perspectives: a thought-provoking question mark

Research analyzes the feasibility of adopting Open Peer Review by Information Science journals. This post presents the first step already completed focusing on the editors. The second stage, already underway, is focused on referees in order to reach a comprehensive view on the adoption of Open Peer Review by Information Science journals. Read More →

Authorship criteria preserve scholarly communication integrity

The increasing demand for transparency and openness in research and its communication aims to increase the reliability and reproducibility of published results. The attribution of authorship, due to its relevance in the academic processes of evaluation and reward, requires commitment, transparency and clearly defined rules. A group of researchers comprised of scholars, research institutions, funding agencies, publishers and scientific societies developed a taxonomy with 14 categories to classify authors’ contributions. Linking the categories of this taxonomy to the author’s persistent digital identifier (ORCID) and article metadata allows to track authors’ contributions through their publications and their careers. Read More →