Editores de Publicações Científicas

Pessoal, nos trabalhos do CongressoCEV de novembro os pareceres e pareceristas vão constar da publicação. Publicações abertas e interativas estão tomando lugar dos velhos sistemas fechados e (duplo)cegos de arbitragem, como mostra o artigo da IFLA.

Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance
Ulrich Pöschl

Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, u.poschl@mpic.de

The traditional forms of scientific publishing and peer review do not live up to the demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be complemented by interactive and transparent forms of review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public peer review and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional publishing and peer review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, www.atmoschem-phys.net) and a growing number of sister journals launched by the publisher Copernicus (www.copernicus.org) and the European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu). These journals are practicing a two-stage process of publication and peer review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. The same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Note, however, that alternative approaches where interactive commenting and public discussion are not fully integrated with formal peer review by designated referees tend to be less successful. The principles, key aspects and achievements of interactive open access publishing (top quality and impact, efficient self-regulation and low rejection rates, little waste and low cost) are outlined and discussed. Further information is available on the internet: www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/general_information/ public_relations.html

Key Words: scientific evaluation • open peer review • collaborative peer review • open peer commentary

IFLA Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, 40-46 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0340035209359573

Para comentar, é necessário ser cadastrado no CEV fazer parte dessa comunidade.