Category Archives: oa.brazil

Increasing agility and visibility in scientific publishing – Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Posted on by
Reply

“Since its inception, AE&M aimed to establish itself as a leading source of high-quality scienti?c information in the areas of endocrinology and metabolism ( 1 ). In that sense, maintaining open access to our articles was paramount to amplify the reach of such information in a globalized, albeit inequitable, world ( 2 ). Aiming to continue to serve the community of readers, authors, and reviewers in the best possible way, two new implementations are underway: AE&M has joined PubMed Central (PMC), and from May 2023, AE&M will adopt the continuous publication model.

 

AE&M’s incorporation into PMC re?ects its growth and scienti?c relevance in the ?eld. PMC is a free full-text repository of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM), directly linked to its preeminent search engine. Created in 2000, it houses more than 7.6 million records and, like SciELO, PMC-indexed journals make their issues and articles available in full format. Its global reach will certainly bring even more visibility and prominence to the research ?ndings published in AE&M….”

Economic analysis of antenatal screening for human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 in Brazil: an open access cost-utility model – The Lancet Global Health

Posted on by
Reply

“HTLV-1 antenatal screening is cost-effective in Brazil. An open-access model was developed, and this tool could be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of such policy globally, favouring the implementation of interventions to prevent HTLV-1 mother-to-child transmission worldwide….”

Coverage and Correlations Between Open Citations in Crossref and Readership in Mendeley: Different Fields of Brazilian Science | Journal of Scientometric Research

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  This study dwells on the coverage of altmetric indicators in the Mendeley reference manager, citations in the Crossref platform, and the correlations between readers and citations of papers by researchers working in Brazil, according to different fields and subfields of knowledge.

We analyzed 152,727 scientific papers published between 2017-2018 by researchers working in Brazil.

The coverage of Brazilian papers by Mendeley is relatively high (87.91%) and 63% of Brazilian papers had citations in Crossref. In the Brazilian context, Mendeley readership is relatively high (average R2 reaching 70% in some areas).

The correlation between readers in Mendeley and citations in Crossref of Brazilian scientific output is between moderate and high. This indicates that Mendeley and Crossref data can be relevant for evaluating Brazilian science. The data reveal that Mendeley readership can, in many fields, predict citations. These data are generally higher and mor homogeneous than those found in the international researches. The scientific communication of international context (based on international journals) and Brazilian (heavily published in national open access journals) and the information sources used in the studies may partly explain the differences between them.

How can altmetrics improve the Public Communication of Science and Technology? An analysis on universities and altmetrics

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  In current research evaluation models, monitoring and impact evaluation are extended beyond peer-reviewed articles to include Public Communication of Science and Technology activities. Through an online survey, we analyzed the perceptions of relevance and degree of application of the altmetric indicators for the PCST of 51 sampled Brazilian federal universities. Perceptions of relevance and application of altmetrics proved to be an outlier in 26 indicators. 66.7% of respondents said they did not know the relevance of altmetrics for the PCST or considered it not applicable to the field. Regarding the perception of relevance, the indicator “Mentions tracked by altmetrics” received high relevance scores (7 and 9) from 21.5% of respondents. The indicator was also the least applied, with only one university (1.9%) using it. In addition, 45% of respondents reported having no intention of applying it, 41.1% intend to apply it in the long term, and 11.7% in the short term.

SciELO MarketPlace – commercialization platform for scholarly communication products and services | March 16, 2023

Posted on by
Reply

In 2023, the SciELO Program launches the SciELO MarketPlace as a platform to promote the supply and demand of scholarly communication products and services compatible with the methodologies and technologies of the SciELO Publication Model, being projected as an important advance for the scholarly communication infrastructure in the countries of the SciELO Network. …

SciELO MarketPlace is an evolution of SciELO’s policy and procedures to certify companies from Brazil and abroad that are qualified in the provision of products and services in line with SciELO’s methodologies and standards for the production of journals and articles with more than ten years of experience. These companies decisively contributed to the improvement of SciELO journals and to the national research communication infrastructure. From these experiences, SciELO MarketPlace is projected as a notable advance based on an online platform initially in Portuguese and in the future multilingual that will bring together the competitive offer of a growing number of scholarly communication products and services and the informed purchase by well-defined mechanisms of selection and evaluation.

The SciELO Program will implement SciELO MarketPlace by means of the Fundação de Apoio à Universidade Federal de São Paulo (FapUNIFESP), responsible for the administrative and legal management of the SciELO Brazil Collection, in partnership with Bradoo, a company specialized in customizing services based on ERP Odoo, which is an Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) that will provide reliability, maintenance and updating of its functionalities.

The MarketPlace is primarily intended to serve the research communication of the SciELO Network, but it will be accessible and publicly available to any user….”

SciELO – Brazil – OLIVA: La Producción Científica Indexada en América Latina. Diversidad Disciplinar, Colaboración Institucional y Multilingüismo en SciELO y Redalyc (1995-2018) OLIVA: La Producción Científica Indexada en América Latina. Diversidad Disciplinar, Colaboración Institucional y Multilingüismo en SciELO y Redalyc (1995-2018)

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  This article presents the results of the Latin American Observatory of eVAluation Indicators (OLIVA, its Spanish acronym) which aims to contribute to the visibility of indexed scientific output in Latin America and the Caribbean and enhance its value in evaluation systems. This study addresses the production published in open access by journals indexed in SciELO and Redalyc, based on a single database of a total of 1,720 journals (from 15 countries), 908,982 documents and 2,591,704 authors. It also highlights its disciplinary diversity, and trends in national and international research collaboration. Finally, only for the case of Brazil and SciELO, intranational collaboration is analyzed. The study concludes that there is a predominance of diamond journals, of university publishing institutions and of multiscalar forms of circulation. These characteristics, even with linguistic and disciplinary diversity, can contribute very effectively to the current needs of science communication in times of open science.

 

SciELO 25 Años em São Paulo – 2023 | Registration | Sympla

Posted on by
Reply

“The SciELO 25 Years Week will bring together a series of events that will be designed as a global forum for face-to-face and online discussion on the state of the art and perspectives on the execution and communication of open science research and its contributions to the development of collections of research communication objects operated by SciELO with a focus on journals of increasing quality that the SciELO Network indexes, publishes, and interoperates. The evolution, current status, and future perspectives of the open science modus operandi, the importance of public policies, advancement of infrastructure and knowledge, characteristics for different thematic areas, different types of research, different operating models and contributions to research progress and its communication will be articulated in the agenda of the SciELO 25 Years Week in the dimensions of scientific impact, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (IDEIA).”

SciELO joins OA Switchboard with over 300 open access journals in the SciELO Brazil collection

Posted on by
Reply

SciELO Brazil is delighted to announce a partnership with the OA Switchboard making it much easier for research institutions and their libraries worldwide to be alerted to articles of affiliated authors in Brazilian open access journals and connect with their research. Integration between SciELO and the OA Switchboard is now in place, and SciELO Brazil has begun sending automated publication notification messages (so-called P1 messages), with article-level metadata.

Sociolinguistic repositories as asset: challenges and difficulties in Brazil | Emerald Insight

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Purpose

This paper aims to provide a context for Brazilian Portuguese language documentation and its data collection to establish linguistic repositories from a sociolinguistic overview.

Design/methodology/approach

The main sociolinguistic projects that have generated collections of Brazilian Portuguese language data are presented.

Findings

The comparison with another situation of repositories (seed vaults) and with the accounting concept of assets is evocated to map the challenges to be overcome in proposing a standardized and professional language repository to host the collections of linguistic data arising from the reported projects and others, in the accordance with the principles of the open science movement.

Originality/value

Thinking about the sustainability of projects to build linguistic documentation repositories, partnerships with the information technology area, or even with private companies, could minimize problems of obsolescence and safeguarding of data, by promoting the circulation and automation of analysis through natural language processing algorithms. These planning actions may help to promote the longevity of the linguistic documentation repositories of Brazilian sociolinguistic research.

Indicators of research quality, quantity, openness and responsibility in institutional review, promotion and tenure policies across seven countries

Posted on by
Reply

The need to reform research assessment processes related to career advancement at research institutions has become increasingly recognised in recent years, especially to better foster open and responsible research practices. Current assessment criteria are believed to focus too heavily on inappropriate criteria related to productivity and quantity as opposed to quality, collaborative open research practices, and the socio-economic impact of research. Evidence of the extent of these issues is urgently needed to inform actions for reform, however. We analyse current practices as revealed by documentation on institutional review, promotion and tenure processes in seven countries (Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States of America). Through systematic coding and analysis of 143 RPT policy documents from 107 institutions for the prevalence of 17 criteria (including those related to qualitative or quantitative assessment of research, service to the institution or profession, and open and responsible research practices), we compare assessment practices across a range of international institutions to significantly broaden this evidence-base. Although prevalence of indicators varies considerably between countries, overall we find that currently open and responsible research practices are minimally rewarded and problematic practices of quantification continue to dominate.

Open Science, equity and the Brazilian context

Posted on by
Reply

“Open Science, a global movement created by the scientific community, has undertaken efforts aimed at increasing the popularity of scientific knowledge production and making the results of scientific research widely accessible to society. Open Science principles, which aim to make research outcomes freely available through scientific journals or open access repositories, and to promote transparency to their processes, replication and reproducibility, have generally been well received by the scientific community. Its transparent, accessible and collaborative nature is widely recognized, but discussion of potentially reckless aspects for implementation, such as the costs of participation and the need for a favorable policy agenda, are also in focus.1

 

As this “umbrella of strategies” spreads, some questions become more frequent: how can we promote equity from such an inequitable basis, after all? The venue for the “open science party” has been set, but the capacity of the guests to take part in it has not been the same. Surveys show that the article processing charges (APCs), charged by international open access journals have increased sharply and constituted a barrier to the visibility of scientific production of researchers globally.2,3 Thus, the Brazilian scientific community is among those agents whose capacity to participate is compromised by budget constraints for research and the lack of resources directed to publication fees by funding agencies in Brazil.

 

Science has been deeply marked by advances and setbacks, in Brazil. Even in the early 2000s, the structural working conditions, regional imbalances, funding options and conflicts between the public and private sectors were already seen as challenges.4 The situation has not changed much and, despite an upward trend in federal government spending on science and technology, from 2003 to 2015, this trend was reversed as of 2016, reaching levels below the investments in 2009 by 2020.5 This funding setback has imposed heavy burdens on the entire scientific community, reflected in difficulties to maintain institutions and projects, and consequent expansion of barriers, making Brazilian researchers even more distant from the effective implementation of Open Science….”

Breve cronologia da Ciência Aberta no Brasil – Vida acadêmica – modo de usar

Posted on by
Reply

From Google’s English:  “This brief chronology will map the history of discussions and initiatives on Open Science in Brazil (and some highly relevant international initiatives that put pressure on Brazilian actors, such as the UNESCO resolution). Until 2020 it includes academic works (such as articles, editorials and theses and dissertations – especially those related to the so-called Applied Human and Social Sciences), but even in these cases it will not contain all the production on the subject in the period . Thus, this survey is not intended to be a definitive ‘guide’ on the subject, but to present a glimpse into how the movement has unfolded, with special emphasis on the impacts on the publishing system and on doing science….”

Open access: Brazilian scientists denied waivers and discounts

Posted on by
Reply

“A study comparing open-access versus paywalled publications finds less geographical diversity among authors who choose open access (see Nature https://doi.org/gpkt87; 2022). This does not surprise us in Brazil, where article-processing charges (APCs) typically correspond to many months, or even years, of a scientist’s stipend. Yet we are not eligible for waivers or discounts under the open-access initiative Plan S (see go.nature.com/3d1qh), or for research-accessibility programmes such as Research4Life.

Both schemes support publications from low-income and lower-to-middle-income economies. Because Brazil is classed as an upper-middle-income economy, requests for APC waivers and discounts are generally turned down, in our experience. Many of us opt instead to publish behind paywalls. But that might not be possible after 2024, when Plan S transformative agreements will end and journals will transition to exclusively publishing open-access content….”

Pontika et al. (2022) Indicators of research quality, quantity, openness and responsibility in institutional promotion, review and tenure policies across seven countries | MetaArXiv Preprints

Posted on by
Reply

Pontika, N., Klebel, T., Correia, A., Metzler, H., Knoth, P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2022, March 3). Indicators of research quality, quantity, openness and responsibility in institutional promotion, review and tenure policies across seven countries. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/b9qaw

Abstract: The need to reform research assessment processes related to career advancement at research institutions has become increasingly recognised in recent years, especially to better foster open and responsible research practices. Current assessment criteria are believed to focus too heavily on inappropriate criteria related to productivity and quantity as opposed to quality, collaborative open research practices, and the socio-economic impact of research. Evidence of the extent of these issues is urgently needed to inform actions for reform, however. We analyse current practices as revealed by documentation on institutional review, promotion and tenure processes in seven countries (Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States of America). Through systematic coding and analysis of 143 RPT policy documents from 107 institutions for the prevalence of 17 criteria (including those related to qualitative or quantitative assessment of research, service to the institution or profession, and open and responsible research practices), we compare assessment practices across a range of international institutions to significantly broaden this evidence-base. Although prevalence of indicators varies considerably between countries, overall we find that currently open and responsible research practices are minimally rewarded and problematic practices of quantification continue to dominate.