{"id":396,"date":"2018-11-06T14:00:46","date_gmt":"2018-11-06T16:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/humanas.blog.scielo.org\/en\/?p=396"},"modified":"2023-04-27T13:39:46","modified_gmt":"2023-04-27T16:39:46","slug":"challenges-in-peer-review-of-scientific-articles-on-administration-in-brazil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/humanas.blog.scielo.org\/en\/2018\/11\/06\/challenges-in-peer-review-of-scientific-articles-on-administration-in-brazil\/","title":{"rendered":"Challenges in peer review of scientific articles on Administration in Brazil"},"content":{"rendered":"

Andr\u00e9a Cerqueira Souza specializes in marketing, works with communication and publications scientific marketing at Getulio Vargas Foundation, S\u00e3o Paulo, SP, Brazil<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Marcelo

Marcelo Bispo<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Sandro

Sandro Cabral<\/p><\/div>\n

RAE-Revista de Administra\u00e7\u00e3o de Empresas presents in issue number 4, 2018 articles from different areas of knowledge and brings, in the Perspectives section, two articles that discuss the challenges of peer review of scientific articles on Administration in Brazil. In “Authors, reviewers and editors: tripod of the review process of scientific articles”, Sandro Cabral, PhD from Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA) and Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 (Pantheon-Sorbonne) and post doctorate in Public Policies at UFBA. He is a professor at INSPER, a licensed professor from UFBA School of Management, a CNPq productivity fellow and editor of the journal Organiza\u00e7\u00f5es & Sociedade ,shares his experience and talks about how authors, referees and editors can reconcile their visions in the process of evaluating articles. Contributing to the discussion, Marcelo de Souza Bispo,\u00a0PhD in Administration from Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie and post doctorate in social theory from the University of Kentucky (USA). He is a professor at Universidade Federal da Para\u00edba (UFPB), coordinator of the N\u00facleo de Estudos em Aprendizagem e Conhecimento (NAC-CNPq) and editor-in-chief of Revista Teoria e Pr\u00e1tica em Administra\u00e7\u00e3o, reflects on the reviewer\u2019s position and which are the technical skills needed to perform a good evaluation during the editorial process.<\/p>\n

By sharing their experiences as authors, referees and editors of scientific journals, Cabral and Bishop mention particularly productivism that ends up overwhelming the reviewers. Bishop recalls that Brazil looks up to the countries of the North, especially the United States and the United Kingdom (FARIA, 2011), which measure the number of articles published in high impact scientific journals. This model has led to the creation of a large number of Brazilian journals on Administration and, consequently, increased the demand for reviewers. To ensure the quality of the published content, it is necessary to have rigorous editorial processes (CHRISMAN; SHARMA; CHUA, 2017), therefor, both authors corroborate the lack of good reviewers. For Bishop, postgraduate courses must also address the editorial process, since the eagerness to publish is transforming masters and doctoral courses into article producing laboratories, stimulating the search for texts of final work that may be published (BISPO, COSTA, 2016). In this sense, Cabral states that authors who merely\u00a0 write for writing do not deserve the effort of editors and reviewers who seek to improve the level of what is published (CABRAL; LAZZARINI, 2011).<\/p>\n

For Cabral, the good results of the triad formed by authors, referees and editors depend on the alignment of interests of the parties involved, and the imbalance in one end compromises the whole. In order to guarantee the rigor and relevance of what is published, according to Cabral, it is necessary to fight the so-called “salami science”, the one that divides the results into several by-products to increase the number of publications (DINIZ, 2018), and authors must place themselves as reviewers to better understand the review process. Bishop points out that it is not uncommon for researchers to commit in a lesser extent while playing the role of reviewers than when they are authors, and ensures that to increase the system\u2019s credibility, commitment to reviews must be equal or greater. In times of academic productivism (ALCADIPANI, 2011, FARIA, 2011, RIGO, 2017), Bishop warns the large number of authors with published articles, but with few reviews recorded in their curricula, which speaks about the lack of commitment to the area and their peers.<\/p>\n