Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mary-Anne Van Sluys - Open Science: quality control, transparency & ethic

23 views

Published on

In 2018, the SciELO Program will celebrate 20 years of operation, in full alignment with the advances of open science.

The SciELO 20 Years Conference will address and debate – during its three-day program – the main political, methodological and technological issues that define today’s state of the art in scholarly communication and the trends and innovations that is shaping the future of the universal openness of scholarly publishing and its relationship with today’s Open Access journals, in particular those of the SciELO Network.

The program of the conference is organized around the alignment of SciELO journals and operations with the best practices on communication of open science, such as publishing research data, expediting editorial processes and communication through the continuous publication of articles and the adoption of preprints, maximizing the transparency of research evaluation and the flow of scholarly communication, and searching for more comprehensive systems for assessing research, articles and journals.

A two-day meeting of the coordinators of the national collections of the SciELO Network will take place prior to the Conference with focus on the evaluation of SciELO journals and the SciELO Program and their improvement following the lines of action that will guide their development in the forthcoming five years.

The celebration of SciELO’s 20-year anniversary constitutes an important landmark in SciELO’s evolution, and an exceptional moment to promote the advancement of an inclusive, global approach to scholarly communication and to the open access movement while respecting the diversities of thematic and geographic areas, as well as of languages of scientific research.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mary-Anne Van Sluys - Open Science: quality control, transparency & ethic

  1. 1. Open Science: quality control, transparency & ethic Marie-Anne Van Sluys, Full Professor – USP Life Sciences Advisor Panel Member- FAPESP
  2. 2. Evaluation of SciELO-Brazil journals by FAPESP: preliminary results J. Roberto F. Arruda 1 Luiz Nunes Oliveira 2 Marie-Anne Van Sluys 3 1 Professor, FEM-Unicamp 2 Professor, IFSC-USP 3 Professor, IB-USP Special Advisors of the Scientific Director The São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP 209/10/2018 fapesp-short-pres-20150916.pptx; © C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp
  3. 3. • Created in 1962 by the State of São Paulo • 1% of all state revenues • Mission: “Support research in all fields of knowledge” 09/10/2018 3© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp *PPP: Purchasing Power Parity Fapesp: São Paulo Research Foundation
  4. 4. 09/10/2018 4© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Fapesp: São Paulo Research Foundation
  5. 5. Web of Science Documents SciELO Brazi l China USA InCites: Open Access
  6. 6. Normalized Citation Impact Brazil China USA InCites: Open Access SciELO
  7. 7. Evaluation: Life Sciences 09/10/2018 7© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp
  8. 8. Evaluation: Engineering, Physics & Earth Sciences 09/10/2018 8© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp
  9. 9. Evaluation: Humanities & Social Sciences 09/10/2018 9© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp
  10. 10. SciELO funding by Fapesp 09/10/2018 10© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp 0.00 5,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 30,000,000.00 2003-2005 2006-2008 2008-2011 2011-2013 2013-2016 2016-2019 R$ Abel Laerte PackerRogerio Meneghini Need to evaluate outcome
  11. 11. Fapesp evaluation of SciELO journals 09/10/2018 11© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp FAPESP & SciELO joint discussion on EDP • Defining key questions to the Editor • Significance & Sustainability • Best practices • Journal metrics evolution • Future Goals up to 2021 • Instructions for Editorial Development Plan (EDP)
  12. 12. FAPESP & SciELO: joint discussion 09/10/2018 12© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp FAPESP & SciELO joint discussion on evaluation form • A lot – Sufficiently – Reasonably – Little - Nothing • Criterion 1. Editorial Board • Criterion 2. Area/Field Significance • Criterion 3. International Visibility • Criterion 4. Institutional & Sustainability • General Recommendation
  13. 13. Fapesp evaluation of SciELO journals 09/10/2018 13© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp • Message sent to the Editors (11 June 2018) • EDP sent by July 10 postponed to July 15 • July-August evaluation by the area panels ?
  14. 14. Fapesp evaluation of SciELO journals 09/10/2018 14© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Panel PDEs Evaluated Journals EVALUATION Total VG G R L N N/A Agri/Vet 28 16 3 6 6 1 0 0 16 Bio 15 10 4 4 2 0 0 0 10 Health 71 18 7 6 7 3 1 0 24 Natural Sci 8 8 4 2 1 1 0 0 8 Eng 10 10 5 3 2 0 0 0 10 Human Sci 61 28 19 7 0 0 0 2 28 Social 30 7 3 2 1 0 0 1 7 Lang/Arts 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 234 103 45 30 19 5 1 3 103 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 VG G R L N N/A General figures 44% 77% 6%
  15. 15. Fapesp: Evaluation of SciELO journals 09/10/2018 15© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp • Q1a: Editor(s) are internationally recognized in the field of the journal? • Q2a: Journal reputation (quality of the papers and review) • Q2b: Would you recommend publishing in this journal? • Q3c: Impact indicators are good compared to other journals in this field? • Q4h: Final recommendation about keeping the journal in SciELO
  16. 16. Evaluation: Agriculture and veterinary 09/10/2018 16© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Q4h SJR Q Q4h Final recommendation
  17. 17. Evaluation: Life Sciences 09/10/2018 17© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Q4h SJRQ Q4h Final recommendation
  18. 18. Evaluation: Natural Sciences and Engineering 09/10/2018 18© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Q4h SJR Q Q4h Final recommendation
  19. 19. Evaluation: Social and Human Sciences 09/10/2018 19© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Q4h SJR Q Q4h Final recommendation
  20. 20. Fapesp evaluation of SciELO journals 09/10/2018 20© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp • Very preliminary analysis and conclusions • Difficult to obtain unbiased evaluation, as experts are almost always involved with the journals (past or present) • Uneven quality of evaluations • Interesting suggestions by many reviewers will be helpful to journals • What to do with journals that have not send PDE?
  21. 21. Fapesp evaluation of SciELO journals 09/10/2018 21© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Contact information: José Roberto F. Arruda <JRArruda@fapesp.br> Luiz Nunes de Oliveira <LNunes@fapesp.br> Marie-Anne Van Sluys <MSluys@fapesp.br>
  22. 22. 09/10/2018 22© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp
  23. 23. Fapesp evaluation of SciELO journals 09/10/2018 23© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp • Instructions for EDP preparation (up to 5 pages) – Editorial practices – Institutionality – Sustainability – Singularity (relevance) – Visibility and impact – Technology – Editorial goals • Evaluation form (4 criteria) – Criterion 1: Quality of the Editorial Board and reviewers – Criterion 2: Reputation of the journal – Criterion 3: International visibility and impact factors – Criterion 4: Institutionality and sustainability
  24. 24. 09/10/2018 24© C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp Fapesp: São Paulo Research Foundation
  25. 25. 200 2005 2010 2015 Examples: Revista Bras. Ciências Sociais
  26. 26. 500 2005 2010 2015 Examples: Rodriguésia
  27. 27. 500 2005 2010 2015 Examples: Scientia Agricola
  28. 28. 120 2011 2015 Examples: LA J. of Solids and Structures
  29. 29. © C.H. Brito Cruz e Fapesp 2909/10/2018 Fapesp: São Paulo Research Foundation

×