Pandemia trouxe oportunidades para mais inclusão na ciência | RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação

From Google’s English:  Abstract:  Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic produced a large volume of scientific data and encouraged open science practices due to data sharing for the control of the Sars-CoV-2 virus. This scenario generated opportunities for the Open Science (AC) movement. Objective: The purpose of this article is to map the circulating narratives about AC practices during the pandemic – with emphasis on debates on public access to knowledge and practices and values ??characteristic of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). Methodology:A documental and thematic analysis of 30 scientific articles, news in the press, blog posts and institutional materials published in Portuguese was carried out, obtained by searching for keywords in SciELO, Google and libraries of the Chamber and Senate. Results: It was observed that 36.6% (11) of the documents mentioned EDI values, while 70% (21) included discussions about public and universal access to knowledge. The texts could present both themes, being counted both in the EDI and public access categories. Of the sample, 23% (7) did not mention either of these two categories and 77% presented at least one of them. Conclusion:In general, the use of open science has been associated with the rapid production of responses to the pandemic, which raises questions about the continuity of open practices in periods when this urgency is not present. As for the debate on EDI, although still incipient, the pandemic presents opportunities for more inclusive knowledge co-production and practices — with real-time public debate experiences of building evidence.

Os modelos de negócio para a publicação de livros em acesso aberto por editoras universitárias brasileiras (Business models for publishing open access books used by Brazilian university presses) | RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação

Amaral, Fatima Beatriz Manieiro do, and Ariadne Chloe Mary Furnival. ‘Os modelos de negócio para a publicação de livros em acesso aberto por editoras universitárias brasileiras (Business models for publishing open access books used by Brazilian university presses)’. RDBCI: Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação 21 (2 August 2023): e023010–e023010.

Introdução: existe crescente tendência entre as Editoras Universitárias Brasileiras (EUB) publicar livros científicos e acadêmicos em acesso aberto, disponibilizando-os online como e-books. Para tal, as EUB adotam um ou mais modelo de negócio, especialmente focados na forma de financiar a editoração e publicação de livros em acesso aberto. Objetivo: Descrever os modelos de negócio utilizados pelas EUB para a publicação de e-books acadêmicos e científicos em acesso aberto. Metodologia: Foi realizada pesquisa documental com levantamento das políticas editoriais dispostas nos websites de 92 EUB de instituições de ensino superior públicas brasileiras. Na maioria dos casos, a partir da leitura e análise dos documentos e informações disponíveis nos websites, foi possível identificar os modelos de negócio adotados. Também foi aplicado um questionário às EUB para captar alguns dados sobre os modelos adotados, que suplementaram as informações não encontradas nos websites das editoras; foram retornados 36 questionários preenchidos. Resultados: Foi identificado que 94,6% das editoras participantes publicam livros em acesso aberto, exclusivamente ou associado às vendas de livros (impressos e e-books). Verificou-se modelos de negócios adotados para subsidiar as atividades editoriais e para as publicações abertas: financiamento institucional, subsídios cruzados, concessão de financiamento de pesquisa e/ou bolsas, infraestrutura compartilhada, parcerias com bibliotecas universitárias, doações financeiras, taxa de processamento de livro, liberação, híbrido e período de embargo. Conclusão: A pesquisa aponta que, ao aderirem-se ao movimento da ciência aberta e acesso aberto para a publicação de livros, as EUB adotam práticas editoriais inovadoras, mas enfrentam desafios no que tange à sua sustentabilidade financeira.

Abstract: Introduction: There is a growing trend among Brazilian University
Presses (BUPs) to publish scientific and academic books in open access, making them available online. To this end, the BUPs adopt one or more business models, especially focussed on how to finance the publishing of books. Objective: The research here presented aimed to describe the
business models and sources of funding used by the BUPs to fund the publication of academic and scientific e-books in open access.
Methodology: Document research was carried out to survey the editorial policies accessible from the websites of 92 BUPs of Brazilian public higher education institutions. In most cases, after analysing the
documents available on the websites, it was possible to identify the business models adopted for open access publishing. A questionnaire was also applied to the BUPs to identify, from the semi-structured questions, other details on the business models, which supplemented information not found on the university press websites. Results: The results reveal that 94.6% of participating BUPs publish books in open access, exclusively or associated with print book sales. The following business models adopted to finance editorial activities and open book publications were identified: institutional funding, cross-subsidies, grants, shared infrastructure, partnerships with university libraries, donations, book processing fees, release, hybrid and embargo period publishing. Conclusion: The research shows that, by aligning themselves to the open science movement in general and open access movement for book publishing specifically, BUPs adopt innovative editorial practices, but face challenges in terms of their financial sustainability.

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

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….”

Open Science: Emergency Response or the New Normal? | Acta Médica Portuguesa

From Google’s English:  “To align with open science, the assessment of research and researchers has to be broader, valuing all contributions and results (and not just publications), and adopting an essentially qualitative perspective, based on the review by peers, with limited and responsible use of quantitative indicators. There has also been slow progress in this domain, but it is hoped that the recently presented Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment and the Coali-tion for Advancing Research Assessment10 will speed up and give greater breadth to the transformation of the assessment process. If the three conditions mentioned above are met in the coming years, open science will no longer be just the science of emergencies. And open and collaborative research practices, with rapid dissemination of results, could become dominant, being considered the correct way of doing science, without the need to designate them as open science.”

Preprints em CSP

From Google’s English:  “CSP [Cad Saúde Pública] is a journal that guarantees public and free access to its entire collection for the reading public, an essential part of the principles of Open Science. In addition, CSP recognizes the importance of preprints in today’s scientific publishing scenario and, since 2020, accepts articles previously deposited in non-commercial preprint repositories (eg: arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, Zenodo and SciELO Preprints), before submission to the journal or during the peer review process.


In these two situations, it is necessary for the author to notify the journal’s editorial team and inform the name of the preprints server and the DOI assigned to the article.two?? However, the practice of publishing preprints of an article already approved in CSP on a server is not recommended. In this case, the participation of the scientific community debating with the author will not contribute to the improvement of the article and the duplicate DOI can harm the authors and the journal….

It is emphasized that the deposit of the article in the preprints server is a decision of the author. It is worth noting, however, the implications for the double-blind peer review system adopted by CSP, since it makes it possible to identify authorship.”

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

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.


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


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.


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.

Sciety welcomes ASAPbio–SciELO Preprints crowd review for the evaluation of Brazilian-Portuguese preprints | For the press | eLife

Sciety is pleased to announce the first non-English group to bring open review and curation to the platform: ASAPbio–SciELO Preprints crowd review. Based in Brazil, the group reviews preprints relating to infectious disease research that are posted on the SciELO Preprints server in Brazilian Portuguese.

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

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….”

SciELO – Brazil – Divulgação científica imuniza contra desinformação Divulgação científica imuniza contra desinformação

From Google’s English:  “Scientific knowledge gained a relevant audience in the pandemic because lies about Covid-19 threaten the lives of the population. It has been a long time since humanity faced such a high mortality disease globally. The pandemic required scientific journals to ensure the rapid publication of available evidence, ensuring the quality of information and the identification of biases that could compromise ittwo, since these works are the essential raw material to fight fake news , misinformation and conspiracy theories, which undermine the population’s adherence to the measures necessary to fight the pandemic….

in an infodemic1, naturally, fanciful, incredible news, which appeals to emotions and seems more phenomenal than reality itself, gains repercussions. The scientific dissemination of Covid-19 became an objective response by scientists to the denial movement3, which calls into question the effectiveness of vaccines, sabotages prevention measures and propagates miracle cures….”

SciELO – Brazil – Desafios para a sustentabilidade dos periódicos científicos brasileiros e do Programa SciELO Desafios para a sustentabilidade dos periódicos científicos brasileiros e do Programa SciELO


NOVA FCSH celebra Mês da Ciência Aberta 2021 em outubro

Google translate: “Open Science Month takes place in October, an initiative promoted by the NOVA FCSH’s Open Science Working Group, with several debates, workshops, webinars and dissemination initiatives. This initiative is part of the global celebration of the International Open Access Week, organized annually by SPARC. This year, the International Open Access Week (25 to 31 October) has the theme “It matters how we open up knowledge: Building structural equity”, and the NOVA FCSH Working Group will launch during this month the campaign “Open Science for All”. …

The Open Science Month at NOVA FCSH consists of sessions that will always be held online, mainly through the ZOOM platform. The complete program can be found below, as well as the links for registration in the respective sessions:

Webinar “Editorial quality and visibility of the magazines: the Latindex experience October 11, 2pm-3pm, Colibri Platform / ZOOM…”

SciELO Preprints em operação | SciELO em Perspectiva

From Google’s English:  “The SciELO Program starts the operation of the SciELO Preprints server – – in order to speed up the availability of research articles and other scientific communications before or in parallel with their evaluation and validation by scientific journals. Although open to all thematic areas, SciELO Preprints will immediately serve especially for communications related to COVID-19….”

SciELO Preprints em operação | SciELO em Perspectiva

From Google’s English:  “The SciELO Program starts the operation of the SciELO Preprints server – – in order to speed up the availability of research articles and other scientific communications before or in parallel with their evaluation and validation by scientific journals. Although open to all thematic areas, SciELO Preprints will immediately serve especially for communications related to COVID-19….”

Most of the no-fee OA journals listed in the DOAJ are published in languages other than English

“Leo Waaijers has dug some interest facts out of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and allowed me to post the results.

From Leo: The 7240 journals in the no-fee category in DOAJ has 1911 journals with Spanish full text, 1366 with Portuguese, 753 with French, and 692 with Indonesian. In percentages: 26, 19, 10, and 10. In the 2998 journal of the fee-based category these figures were respectively: 81, 76, 23, and 212; and in percentages: 3, 3, 1, and 7….”

Mais de 400 ferramentas de gestão de pesquisa disponíveis para os pesquisadores – edição 2017 – SIBiUSP – Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas da Universidade de São Paulo.

From Google’s English: “In a continuing effort to chart the changing landscape of academic and scientific communication, scientists from the University of Utrecht , the Netherlands, conducted a survey among researchers [1] in 2015, focusing on the use of research management tools. In the edition of 2 015, 101 research tools / sites  – only those that represented an innovation – were selected based on the questionnaire applied to more than 20 thousand researchers from about 100 organizations (universities and publishers). Since then, the results have been presented at various conferences and webinars….Read, view, annotate  and manage references – Acrobat Reader , HTML view, MS Word ,  Mendeley, ReadCube , iAnnotate , , Papers , Annotated Books Online,  HistoryPin , PeerLibrary , TagTeam ,  Google Scholar Library , Zotero , EndNote Web , CiteUlike , Proquest Flow ,  RefBank , Stackly , Reference Manager ,  RefWorks , etc. …”