Caballero RA, Nonato MSR, Trzesniak P

Language: Portugués
References: 29
Page: 1-28
PDF size: 607.01 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Theoretical studies substantiate the existence of epistemic cultures in academic communities, as well as the influence that evaluation policies exert upon them. The present study reviews the analyses conducted by authors of previous research to improve understanding of the changes taking place in health sciences publication practices in Brazil between the years 2000 and 2014. A longitudinal non-experimental quantitative-qualitative study was conducted. Data about health sciences scientific production were collected from the Research Groups Directory of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and a graphic representation is provided of the historical series of papers, monographies and studies contained in annals, as well as of the ratios of national/international papers and papers/monographies, with the purpose of identifying and comparing the patterns. An analysis was performed of documents from the Area Committees (Capes) and the Health Sciences Advisory Committees (CNPq), identifying, examining and classifying the evaluation criteria used. Results suggest that evaluation criteria contribute to foster changes in the publication practices of health sciences researchers, particularly a significant increase in the percentage of international papers and a decrease in national papers, monographies and full papers in proceedings.

REFERENCES

1. Brosnan C. Epistemic cultures in complementary medicine. Health Sociol Rev. 2016; 25(2):171-86.

2. Ganeri J. Well-Ordered Science and Indian Epistemic Cultures: towards a polycentered history of science. Isis. 2013;104(2): 348-59.

3. Knorr-Cetina K. Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge cultures and epistemic culture. In: Jacobs MD, Hanrahan NW, editores. The blackwell companion to the sociology of culture. In: Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2005. p.65-79.

4. Knorr-Cetina K. Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999.

5. Trzesniak P. Indicadores quantitativos: como obter, avaliar, criticar e aperfeiçoar. Navus – Rev Gest Tecnol, Florian SC. 2014;4(2):5-18.

6. Charlot B. A pesquisa educacional entre conhecimentos, políticas e práticas: especificidades e desafios de uma área de saber. Belo Horizonte: Rev Bras Educaç. 2006;11(31):7-18.

7. Alexander JC. A importância dos clássicos. In: Giddens A, Turner J, organizadores. Teoria social hoje. São Paulo: Editora UNESP; 1999. p. 23-89.

8. Becher T. The significance of disciplinary differences. Stud High Educ. 1994;10(2):151-61.

9. Caballero Rivero A, Santos RNM, Trzesniak P. Caracterización de las prácticas de publicación de las grandes áreas de conocimiento em Brasil. Rev Cubana Inform Cienc Salud. 2017;28(4):1-19.

10. Caballero Rivero, A. Caracterização das práticas de publicação das grandes áreas do conhecimento no Brasil. [Dissertação]. Recife: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE); 2017.

11. Puuska HM. Scholarly publishing patterns in Finland: a comparison of disciplinary groups. [Tese]. Tampere: School of Information Science, University of Tampere; 2014.

12. Meadows AJ. A comunicação científica. Brasília, DF: Briquet de Lemus; 1999.

13. Adams J, Gurney K. Evidence for excellence: has the signal overtaken the substance? London: Digital Science; 2014.

14. Piro FN, Asknes DW, Rørstad K. A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2013;64(2):307-20.

15. Trzesniak P. A questão do livre acesso aos artigos publicados em periódicos científicos. Em Aberto. 2012;25(87):77-112.

16. Bourdieu P. O poder simbólico. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Bertand Brasil S.A.; 1989.

17. Council of Canadian Academies (CCA). Informing Research Choices: indicators and judgment. Otawa: Council of Canadian Academies; 2012.

18. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. The Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2015.

19. Research Information Network (RIN). Communicating knowledge: how and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings. RIN Report. London: RIN; September 2009.

20. Laudel G, Glässer J. Tensions between evaluation and communication practices. J Hig Educat Pol Manag. 2006;28(3):289-95.

21. Santos RNM, Caballero-Rivero A, Sánchez-Tarragó N. Práticas de publicação e avaliação em Ciências Sociais e Humanidades: contradições e desafios. Rio de Janeiro: P2P&Inovação. 2018;4(1):18-34.

22. Trzesniak P. Qualis in four quarters: history and suggestions for the Administration, Accounting and Tourism area. Rev Contab Finanç. 2016; 27(72):279-90.

23. Luz, MT. Especificidade da contribuição dos saberes e práticas das Ciências Sociais e Humanas para a saúde. São Paulo: Saúde e Sociedade. 2011;20(1):22-31.

24. Carvalho YM, Manoel EJ. Para além dos indicadores de avaliação da produção. Movimento. 2006;12(3):193-225.

25. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). Brasil: Roteiro para classificação de livros. Capes; 2009.

26. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). Brasil: Comunicado No 002/2013- Área de Artes – Música. Capes; 2013.

27. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). Qualis. Capes; 2015. Acceso: 16/3/2018. Disponível em: http://www.capes.gov.br/acessoainformacao/perguntas-frequentes/avaliacao-da-pos-graduacao/7422-qualis

28. Trzesniak P. As dimensões da qualidade dos periódicos científicos e sua presença em um instrumento da área da educação. Rev Bras Educ. 2006;11(32): 346-61.

29. Santos RNM, Kobashi NY. Bibliometria, cientometria, informetria: conceitos e aplicações. Brasília: Pesq Bras Ci Inf. 2009;2(1):155-72.