[ANPPOM-Lista] sobre a "objetividade" científica

[Carlos Palombini]

Esta é pra "elevar o tom".

*Behavioral and Brain Science*, um journal da CUP, publicou em 1982 um
artigo interessante:
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published
articles, submitted againEis o resumo:

Abstract

A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern
peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide
range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability,
accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has
been very little direct research on these variables.

The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process
directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of
submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published
research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive
American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly
regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection
rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.

With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones
(e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were
formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and
published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and
reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed
nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive
an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18
referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred.
The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious
methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data
are reviewed and evaluated.

Keywords

   - bias<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=bias>;

   - evaluation<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=evaluation>;

   - journal review
system<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=journal%20review%20system>;

   - manuscript
review<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=manuscript%20review>;

   - peer review<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=peer%20review>;

   - publication
practices<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=publication%20practices>;

   - ratings<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=ratings>;

   - refereeing<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=refereeing>;

   - reliability<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=reliability>;

   - science management<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh&term=science%20management>


-- 
carlos palombini
pesquisador visitante, centro de letras e artes, unirio
ufmg.academia.edu/CarlosPalombini
proibidao.org
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://www.listas.unicamp.br/pipermail/anppom-l/attachments/20130604/6ad31bd3/attachment.html>