Inovações na revisão por pares: o papel do software

Kern, Vinícius M Inovações na revisão por pares: o papel do software., 2016 . In XVIII Encontro Nacional De Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação – ENANCIB 2017, Marília-SP, Brazil, October 23-27, 2017. [Conference paper]


Download (429kB) | Preview

English abstract

An international group of 33 scientists, led by Tennant, recently released their multidisciplinary perspective on future and emerging innovations for editorial peer review inspired in Web 2.0 platforms: Amazon, Blockchain, GitHub, Hypothesis, Reddit, Stack Exchange, and Wikipedia. Several innovations proposed are actions to be carried out by artificial agents, in line with Fuchs' concept of sociotechnological system, in which the properties emerge from human-machine dynamic collaboration. The research objective was to identify knowledge-intensive automatable tasks among the innovations described. What are these processes performed by software and what other actors in the system do they involve? The research objective was to identify these processes and actors involved. This is a bibliographic research using as corpus the study of emerging innovations by Tennant et al. Of 56 identified passages that refer to automatable peer review functions and tasks, 44 were discarded for focusing on bureaucratic activities. We analyzed the 12 excerpts that describe knowledge-intensive tasks, resulting in allocation, evaluation, classification, diagnosis, modeling, monitoring, and prediction tasks. Some tasks' automation speeds up the system or improve it with previously unavailable services. Some tasks are associated with the repression of scientific misconduct. The innovations are discussed as a symptom of software's transition from mere virtualization to dynamic collaboration with people, and from technocentrism to sociotechnological functioning, in which software supports human decision-making instead of replacing it.

Portuguese abstract

Um grupo internacional de 33 cientistas, encabeçados por Tennant, divulgou recentemente sua perspectiva multidisciplinar sobre inovações futuras e emergentes para a revisão por pares editorial a partir de plataformas da Web 2.0: Amazon, Blockchain, GitHub, Hipotesis, Reddit, Stack Exchange e Wikipedia. Várias inovações propostas são ações a serem efetivadas por agentes artificiais, em sintonia com o conceito de sistema sociotecnológico de Fuchs, no qual as propriedades emergem da colaboração dinâmica humano-máquina. O objetivo da pesquisa foi identificar, entre as inovações descritas, as tarefas automatizáveis intensivas em conhecimento. Nesta pesquisa bibliográfica, o corpus foi o estudo de inovações emergentes de Tennant et al. De 56 trechos identificados que remetem a funções e tarefas da revisão por pares automatizáveis, 44 foram descartados por enfocar atividades burocráticas. Foram analisados os 12 que descrevem tarefas intensivas em conhecimento dos tipos alocação, avaliação, classificação, diagnóstico, modelagem, monitoramento e predição. Há tarefas cuja automação agiliza o sistema ou o melhoram com serviços antes indisponíveis, bem como tarefas associadas à repressão da má conduta científica. Discutem-se essas inovações como sintoma da transição do papel do software, da informatização ao desempenho de tarefas em colaboração dinâmica com pessoas e do tecnocentrismo ao funcionamento sociotecnológico, em que o software apoia a tomada de decisão humana em vez de substituí-la.

Item type: Conference paper
Keywords: peer review; scholarly communication; sociotechnological systems; CommonKADS; knowledge engineering.
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HN. e-journals.
L. Information technology and library technology > LP. Intelligent agents.
Depositing user: Dr. Vinícius M. Kern
Date deposited: 05 Jan 2018 09:24
Last modified: 05 Jan 2018 09:24


"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

ALTER, Steven. 18 reasons why IT-reliant work systems should replace “the IT artifact” as the core subject matter of the IS field. Communications of the AIS, v. 12, art. 23, p. 366-395, 2003.

ALVAREZ, Gonzalo Rubén; CAREGNATO, Sônia Elisa. Preprints na comunicação científica da Física de Altas Energias: análise das submissões no repositório arXiv (2010-2015). Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, v. 22, n. 2, p. 104-117, 2017.

BOSTROM, Robert P.; HEINEN, J. Stephen. MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, v. 1, n. 3, p. 17-32, 1977.

CHERNS, Albert. The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, v. 2, n. 9, p. 783-792, 1976.

DENISCZWICZ, Marta; KERN, Vinícius Medina. Fontes dos problemas na revisão por pares que levam à retratação de artigos divulgados no Retraction Watch. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO, 17., 2016, Salvador. Anais… Salvador: UFBA, 2016. p. 3447-3466.

ECCLES, D. W.; GROTH, P. T. Agent coordination and communication in sociotechnological systems: Design and measurement issues. Interacting with Computers, v. 18, n. 6, p. 1170-1185, 2006.

FUCHS, Christian. The internet as a self-organizing socio-technological system. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, v. 12, n. 3, p. 57-81, 2005.

KILOV, Haim; SACK, Ira. Mechanisms for communication between business and IT experts. Computer Standards & Interfaces, v. 31, n. 1, p. 98-109, 2009.

KINCAID, J. Peter; FOSHBURNE, Robert P.; ROGERS, Richard L.; CHISSOM, Brad S. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch, 1975. 40 p. Disponível em: <>. Acesso em: 13 ago 2017.

O'REILLY, Tim. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, n. 1, p. 17-37, 2007.

PINHEIRO, Lêna Vania Ribeiro. Free access to open science: concepts and implications for science communication. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação & Inovação em Saúde, v. 8, n. 2, 2014.

RENNIE, Drummond. Make peer review scientific: thirty years on from the first congress on peer review, Drummond Rennie reflects on the improvements brought about by research into the process--and calls for more. Nature, v. 535, n. 7610, p. 31-34, 2016.

RESEARCH INFORMATION NETWORK. Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK: Report commissioned by the Research Information Network (RIN). 2008. 88 p. Disponível em: <>. Acesso em: 06 ago 2017.

SAWYER, Steve; CROWSTON, Kevin. Information systems in organizations and society: Speculating on the next 25 years of research. In: Information systems research. Boston: Springer, 2004. p. 35-52.

SCHREIBER, Guus; AKKERMANS, Hans; ANJEWIERDEN, Anjo; DE HOOG, Robert; SHADBOLT, Nigel; VAN DE WELDE, Walter; WIELINGA, Bob. Knowledge engineering and management: the CommonKADS methodology. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000. 455 p.

TENNANT, Jonathan P. et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 1; referees: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research, v. 6, n. 1151, 2017. Disponível em: <>. Acesso em: 21 jul. 2017.

YARKONI, Tal. Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, v. 6, article 72, 2012.

ZUCKERMAN, Harriet; MERTON, Robert K. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, v. 9, n. 1, p. 66-100, 1971.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item