Perception of knowledge sharing among reviewers from the perspective of scientific editors

IF 0.3 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Francisca Maia, Gabriela Farias, Maria Farias
{"title":"Perception of knowledge sharing among reviewers from the perspective of scientific editors","authors":"Francisca Maia, Gabriela Farias, Maria Farias","doi":"10.20396/rdbci.v20i00.8667456/27887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction/Objective: This work aims to analyze the editors’ perception about the contribution of knowledge sharing among reviewers of scientific articles, aiming at the improvement of the reviews elaboration.Methods:The study is of exploratory type, conducted through bibliographic research, associated with the questionnaire as a technique for data collection. Content analysis was applied to analyze the data obtained. Results: The instrument was sent via e-mail,and 32 editors from various areas of knowledge responded. Most of themarefromtheApplied Social Sciencesareas, and more than half have six or more years of experience. It was found that most respondents believe that sharing knowledge among reviewers contributes to their improvement and to the improvement of their opinions, and although they recognize such contribution, 87.5% claim that there are no initiatives in the journal where they work that propose the exchange of knowledge. Finally, when asked about having knowledge about similar initiatives, even if in other spheres, some respondents claim to knowand cite: the practices proposed by international publishers, which hold webinars and make content available on their websites; the projects and events of the Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors, WhatsApp groups and e-mail lists, and the interaction proposed by the practices of open peer review. Conclusions: Basedon the above, it is understood that editors perceive the relevance of knowledge sharing among reviewers.However, they have not yet put into practice such initiatives in the journals in which they work.","PeriodicalId":36988,"journal":{"name":"Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciencia da Informacao","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciencia da Informacao","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20396/rdbci.v20i00.8667456/27887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/Objective: This work aims to analyze the editors’ perception about the contribution of knowledge sharing among reviewers of scientific articles, aiming at the improvement of the reviews elaboration.Methods:The study is of exploratory type, conducted through bibliographic research, associated with the questionnaire as a technique for data collection. Content analysis was applied to analyze the data obtained. Results: The instrument was sent via e-mail,and 32 editors from various areas of knowledge responded. Most of themarefromtheApplied Social Sciencesareas, and more than half have six or more years of experience. It was found that most respondents believe that sharing knowledge among reviewers contributes to their improvement and to the improvement of their opinions, and although they recognize such contribution, 87.5% claim that there are no initiatives in the journal where they work that propose the exchange of knowledge. Finally, when asked about having knowledge about similar initiatives, even if in other spheres, some respondents claim to knowand cite: the practices proposed by international publishers, which hold webinars and make content available on their websites; the projects and events of the Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors, WhatsApp groups and e-mail lists, and the interaction proposed by the practices of open peer review. Conclusions: Basedon the above, it is understood that editors perceive the relevance of knowledge sharing among reviewers.However, they have not yet put into practice such initiatives in the journals in which they work.
科学编辑视角下审稿人知识共享的感知
前言/目的:本研究旨在分析编辑对科技文章审稿人之间知识共享贡献的认知,以提高审稿的精细化程度。方法:本研究为探索性研究,通过文献研究进行,并结合问卷调查作为数据收集技术。采用内容分析法对所得数据进行分析。结果:该仪器通过电子邮件发送,得到32位来自不同知识领域的编辑的回复。他们中的大多数来自应用社会科学领域,超过一半的人有六年或六年以上的工作经验。研究发现,大多数受访者认为审稿人之间的知识共享有助于他们的进步和意见的改进,尽管他们承认这种贡献,但87.5%的人声称在他们工作的期刊中没有提出知识交流的倡议。最后,当被问及是否了解类似的倡议时,即使在其他领域,一些受访者声称知道并引用:国际出版商提出的做法,他们举办网络研讨会并在其网站上提供内容;巴西科学编辑协会的项目和活动、WhatsApp群组和电子邮件列表,以及开放同行评议实践所提议的互动。结论:综上所述,编辑感知到审稿人之间知识共享的相关性。然而,他们还没有在他们工作的期刊上实践这些倡议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciencia da Informacao
Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciencia da Informacao Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信