O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Sonia Vasconcelos - Ethics in the Evaluation of Manuscripts...

135 visualizações

Publicada em

With the progress towards open science, scientific communication is facing a new wave of innovations towards more openness and speed of research publication which will deeply affect the way the peer review function is carried out and the overall role of journals in assuring quality and adding value to manuscripts.

Several initiatives are promoting the generalized adoption of open access preprints as a formal beginning stage of research publication, which has been common since the 90’s in the physics community. And, in the last decade, new ways to carry out the evaluation of manuscripts have emerged either to replace or to improve the traditional methods, which are widely criticized as being slow and expensive in addition to lacking transparency.

Quality nonprofit journals from emerging and developing countries have succeeded to follow the main innovations brought by the Internet. In addition to the technicalities of the digital publishing, there is a wide adoption of Open Access in the international flow of scientific information. The new wave of innovations that affect the peer review function and the changing role of journals pose new challenges to the emerging and developing countries in regard of scientific publishing. The adoption of these innovations is essential for progress of SciELO as a leading open access program to enhance scientific communication.

The scope of this workshop aims at an in-depth analysis and discussion of the state of art and main trends of the peer review function, the modalities of carrying it out as well as of the increasing adoption of mechanisms to speed publication such as preprints and how they affect and potentially renew the role of journals. These recommendations will guide SciELO policies on manuscript evaluation and on the adoption of preprint publications.

Publicada em: Ciências
  • Login to see the comments

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Sonia Vasconcelos - Ethics in the Evaluation of Manuscripts...

  1. 1. 1 Ethics in the Evaluation of Manuscripts...Ethics in the Evaluation of Manuscripts... Sonia VasconcelosSonia Vasconcelos, Prog. Educação, Gestão e Difusão em Biociências, Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis, IBqM/UFRJ
  2. 2. 2 https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2016/04/universities-need-to-escape-the-trap-of-competition/
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. 4
  5. 5. 5 http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v11/n4/full/nrg2777.html “The Editor of Plant Science wrote in his comments, As these were review articles, the "plagiarism" involved had less to do with copying specifichad less to do with copying specific sections of textsections of text and more about borrowing the ideas contained in theand more about borrowing the ideas contained in the original paragraph, one of only a handful in the Plant Scienceoriginal paragraph, one of only a handful in the Plant Science manuscript that contained mention of new ideas or hypothesesmanuscript that contained mention of new ideas or hypotheses.” http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28886/title/Plagiarism-retracts-review/
  6. 6. April 7, 2010 [Editor of NRG] As Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Genetics (and indeed the handling editor on Dr Sticklen’s review article) I would like to make a few clarifications… A novel idea,A novel idea, not simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to thenot simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to the source.source. Furthermore, the idea was obtained by breaching the confidentiality of the peer review process... a retraction was the appropriate response. April 7, 2010 [Editor of NRG] As Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Genetics (and indeed the handling editor on Dr Sticklen’s review article) I would like to make a few clarifications… A novel idea,A novel idea, not simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to thenot simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to the source.source. Furthermore, the idea was obtained by breaching the confidentiality of the peer review process... a retraction was the appropriate response. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28886/title/Plagiarism-retracts-review/
  7. 7. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32287/title/All-s-Not-Fair-in-Science-and-Publishing/ “At conferences, the fear of potential theft of ideas is often the unacknowledged elephant in the room.” False attribution within the sciences threatens the integrity of research as a whole. The ultimate goal must be open scientific dialogue and assurance that appropriate credit is given. If these conditions are not fulfilled, not only individual scientists, but our entire society will be harmed. The price of inaction is the slowing of progress and the pursuit of truth.
  8. 8. https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2012/120209/pdf /nj7384-265a.pdf Less competition and more sharing : less ideas stolen/plagiarism? What to say to young researchers???
  9. 9. https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf https://www.nature.com/news/let-s-make-peer-review-scientific-1.20194
  10. 10. svasconcelos@bioqmed.ufrj.br

×