REFLECTIONS ON THE PRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

Today, we are engulfed by the daily news regarding the COVID-19 pandemic that it is almost impossible to think about the issues that involve the production and publication of scientific articles. In the academic publishing context, several national and international journals have already stated that the deadlines need to be revised. They are willing to consider the impact of COVID-19 on the productivity of professors and researchers. For women researchers, this issue is more aggraveted; in addition to working a double shift, many need to support their children in home teaching,. Not only the deadlines for delivering reviews but also the production of articles have been delayed. However, the time is appropriate for taking a fresh look at scientific production in Business Administration in this context, and RAE has just launched a special call on the pandemic’s impact on the production of knowledge in various areas of management; for more information, click here.

Nevertheless, our focus here is on issues surrounding the national debate on the production and publication of scientific articles. The first aspect worth mentioning is whether publishing an article in a congress and then submitting it to scientific journals should be considered plagiarism. As noted in RAE, the answer is no; we do not consider that presenting an article in a congress and submitting it to a journal is plagiarism. The software used by RAE, iThenticate^®, can identify similarities between articles and does not identify this specific case as a problem, as indicated in our Editorial Guideline. The second aspect that has been of concern to editors and researchers is whether the identity of reviewers should be revealed and the blind review process suspended. Although the blind review is a standard practice adopted by international journals, there is no consensus on this issue. Although SciELO advocates this model, we have seen reactions from the community for and against this measure. The third aspect, which we have already dealt with in the editorial “Data and Open Science” (Tonelli & Zambaldi, 2019), refers to open data. Open data is already being adopted by some management journals, and debates on the same continue amid controversies. Finally, the proposal of suspending Qualis for the 2021-2024 quadrennium is also controversial, with the scientific production of Graduate Programs being assessed based on international standards (Coordination for the Evaluation of Higher Education Personnel - Capes, 2020). We do not have definitive answers to these three aspects surrounding scientific publications in Brazil. However, we consider that it is a good time to clarify that all these processes are, in parallel with the pandemic, drawing the attention of professors belonging to the Brazilian Academy of Business Administration.

We invite our readers to enjoy the articles in this edition: “Role of empowerment and worker’s identification with their teams for an innovative climate.” by Manuel Fernando Montoya Ramírez, Jhony Ostos, and Arturo Rodolfo Saenz Arteaga; “Analyzing marketing innovation in Peruvian manufacturing companies of lower technological intensity” by Javier Fernando Del Carpio Gallegos and Francesc Miralles; “Women of Easy Living? Time, pleasure and suffering in the work of prostitutes” by Kely César Martins de Paiva, Jefferson Rodrigues Pereira, Letícia Rocha Guimarães, Jane Kelly Dantas Barbosa, and Caissa Veloso e Sousa; and “Integrated information according to IIRC from 2011 to 2015” by Esther Ortiz-Martínez, Salvador Marín-Hernández e Luis Alfonso Sánchez-Aznar. This edition is completed by Nelson Lerner Barth and Carlos Eduardo Lourenço’s essay, “Does P still have value?”; the Book Revew, “Emerging market multinational companies: Challenges and opportunities” by Fernanda Lemos and the Book Recommendation, “Social technologies for the transformation of solid waste management and management systems” by Adalberto Mantovani Martiniano de Azevedo.

Enjoy your reading!

• Translated version

REFERÊNCIAS

• Coordenação de Avaliação de Pessoal de Nível Superior. (2020). Relatório 2019, Proposta de Aprimoramento da Avaliação da Pós-Graduação Brasileira para o Quadriênio 2021-2024 - Modelo Multidimensional Recuperado de https://www.capes.gov.br/images/novo_portal/documentos/PNPG/25052020_Relat%C3%B3rio_Final__2019_Comiss%C3%A3o_PNPG.pdf https://www.capes.gov.br/images/novo_portal/documentos/PNPG/25052020_Relat%C3%B3rio_Final__2019_Comiss%C3%A3o_PNPG.pdf https://www.capes.gov.br/images/novo_portal/documentos/PNPG/25052020_Relat%C3%B3rio_Final__2019_Comiss%C3%A3o_PNPG.pdf
  » https://www.capes.gov.br/images/novo_portal/documentos/PNPG/25052020_Relat%C3%B3rio_Final__2019_Comiss%C3%A3o_PNPG.pdf» https://www.capes.gov.br/images/novo_portal/documentos/PNPG/25052020_Relat%C3%B3rio_Final__2019_Comiss%C3%A3o_PNPG.pdf» https://www.capes.gov.br/images/novo_portal/documentos/PNPG/25052020_Relat%C3%B3rio_Final__2019_Comiss%C3%A3o_PNPG.pdf
• Tonelli, M. J., & Zambaldi, F. (2019). Propriedade dos dados e ciência aberta. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas. 59(6), 372-373. doi: 10.1590/S0034-759020190601.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020190601

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 July 2020
• Date of issue
  May-Jun 2020