Perception of knowledge sharing among reviewers from the perspective of scientific editors

ABSTRACT

Introduction/Objective:

This work aims to analyze the editors’ perception about the contribution of knowledge sharing among reviewers of scientific articles, aiming at the improvement of the reviews elaboration.

Methods:

The study is of exploratory type, conducted through bibliographic research, associated with the questionnaire as a technique for data collection. Content analysis was applied to analyze the data obtained.

Results:

The instrument was sent via e-mail, and 32 editors from various areas of knowledge responded. Most of them are from the Applied Social Sciences areas, and more than half have six or more years of experience. It was found that most respondents believe that sharing knowledge among reviewers contributes to their improvement and to the improvement of their opinions, and although they recognize such contribution, 87.5% claim that there are no initiatives in the journal where they work that propose the exchange of knowledge. Finally, when asked about having knowledge about similar initiatives, even if in other spheres, some respondents claim to know and cite: the practices proposed by international publishers, which hold webinars and make content available on their websites; the projects and events of the Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors, WhatsApp groups and e-mail lists, and the interaction proposed by the practices of open peer review.

Conclusions:

Based on the above, it is understood that editors perceive the relevance of knowledge sharing among reviewers. However, they have not yet put into practice such initiatives in the journals in which they work.

KEYWORDS
Knowledge management; Editors; Knowledge sharing.

RESUMO

Introdução/Objetivo:

Visa analisar a percepção de editores sobre a contribuição do compartilhamento de conhecimento entre avaliadores de artigos científicos, visando o aperfeiçoamento da elaboração de pareceres.

Métodos:

O estudo é do tipo exploratório, realizado por meio de pesquisa bibliográfica, associada ao questionário como técnica de coleta de dados. Para análise dos dados obtidos aplicou-se a análise de conteúdo.

Resultados:

O instrumento foi enviado via correio eletrônico e obteve o retorno de 32 editores de diversas áreas do conhecimento, sendo a maioria da área de Ciências Sociais Aplicadas e mais da metade possuem seis ou mais anos de atuação. Identificou-se que a maior parte dos respondentes acreditam que o compartilhamento de conhecimento entre avaliadores contribui para o aperfeiçoamento dos mesmos e de seus pareceres, e apesar de reconhecerem tal contribuição, 87,5% afirmam não existir, no periódico em que atuam, iniciativas que proponham a troca de conhecimentos. Por fim, quando indagados sobre ter conhecimento a respeito de iniciativas semelhantes, mesmo que em outros âmbitos, alguns respondentes afirmam conhecer e citam: as práticas propostas por editoras internacionais, que realizam webinários e disponibilizam conteúdos em seus websites, os projetos e eventos da Associação Brasileira de Editores Científicos, grupos de WhatsApp e lista de e-mails, além da interação proposta pelas práticas da avaliação por pares aberta.

Conclusão:

A partir do exposto, compreende-se que os editores percebem a relevância do compartilhamento de conhecimento entre os avaliadores, no entanto, ainda não colocaram em prática tais iniciativas nos periódicos em que atuam.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Gestão do conhecimento; Editores científicos; Compartilhamento de conhecimento.

1 INTRODUCTION

Scientific knowledge is the result of researches that adopts the scientific method, a systematic set of procedures used for the observation and analysis of different phenomena, being a relevant resource for the development and evolution of life in society. It is the main asset that provides social advancement in different aspects: from the creation of medicines that fight diseases, tools for industrial and commercial progress, technological growth that facilitates social routine and the debate for the promotion of public policies; all these aspects, with the aim of ensuring social welfare, as explained by Farias and Maia (2020).

Before integrating what is understood as science, this knowledge is evaluated following the assumptions of peer review, a process carried out by reviewers who are, or should be, researchers in the same area of knowledge, and who assess the research regarding the methods used, rigor and good scientific practices, among other aspects. Thus, it can be inferred that authors, as well as reviewers, are fundamental in the production flow of scientific knowledge.

The peer review process is one of the principles of scientific communication, and occurs within the scope of various communication channels, such as books, event proceedings, and scientific journals, which is one of the most relevant formal vehicles for the dissemination of scientific information. According to Meadows (1999) this process has been going on for centuries and depends on the scrutiny of reviewers. During this process, there is the role of scientific editor, which is responsible for the management, mediation and flow of information and knowledge between authors and evaluators in the editorial process.

It is understood that knowledge is a resource inherent to the various human contexts,

whether scientific, political, economic or social, and, due to its relevance and application in all these fields, it has become essential to create practices and processes capable of performing its management, and one of these procedures is knowledge management. As from a bibliometric study conducted in Scopus, the authors Osinski, Roman and Selig (2015) identified that the management and sharing of this resource are themes whose publications began to grow, significantly, as from the year 2009. Those are topics discussed in several areas of scientific knowledge, but with greater focus in the areas of Administration and Information Science.

Thus, this research aimed to analyze the perception of scientific editors about the potential and contributions of knowledge sharing among reviewers, with a view to improving the reports of scientific articles. To this end, a literature review was conducted, associated with the application of a questionnaire on the Google Forms platform for data collection.

2 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND SHARING

Knowledge management involves a series of processes and steps that aim to make knowledge an active and manageable resource. However, it is relevant to pay attention to the fact that the concept of knowledge is plural and diverse, ranging from notions of scientific knowledge, to popular, philosophical, religious, and artistic knowledge, among others. In Takeuchi and Nonaka's (2008, p. 19) view, knowledge consists of two components, the tacit and the explicit, the first of which is hardly perceptible and explainable, highly subjective and arduous to formalize, because "it is deeply rooted in the individual's actions and bodily experience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions that he incorporates." The explicit, on the other hand, is liable to be recorded and expressed through words, numbers, symbols and other representations, whether visual, sound, etc., and has as its main characteristic to be easily disseminated.

In terms of an informational and collaborative context, Farias, Almeida and Vasconcelos (2020) reiterate that the construction of knowledge occurs from individual experiences, so that it becomes relevant to reflect on the singularities inherent to each subject in the process of applying knowledge, since it is a significant resource for the various spheres of society, It is necessary to develop mechanisms and processes capable of managing knowledge, aiming at its better acquisition, dissemination, and use. One of these mechanisms is knowledge management, which is concerned with "planning and controlling actions (policies, mechanisms, tools, strategies, and others) that govern the flow of knowledge [...]", as explained by Leite and Costa (2007, p. 95). In another definition, in a simplified way, Tonet and Paz (2006) conceptualize knowledge management as a process that aims to optimize the use of this resource. In this sense, knowledge management has as one of its actions the sharing of this important asset in the various spheres of society, including the academic sphere. According to the authors, knowledge sharing can be understood as the subject's attitude of sharing their perceptions with other collaborators and, at the same time, receiving the knowledge that others have. This behavior, according to Tonet and Paz (2006), results in a mutual assimilation of shared knowledge between source and issuer. From a similar perspective, Bartol (2002, p. 92, our translation) highlights knowledge sharing as the action of “individuals who share organizationally relevant information, ideas, suggestions and experience with each other”.

Knowledge is a way to help meet the continuous need for learning, which is imposed on all professionals who aim to keep themselves always updated and qualified for their function. However, it is a process of difficult achievement, as Tonet and Paz (2006) explain. To contribute to the actions and initiatives in favor of knowledge management and sharing, the authors developed a sharing model that is represented in figure 1 below:

Figure 1
Knowledge sharing model

The proposed model considers that the knowledge sharing process is composed of four stages: initiation, implementation, support and incorporation. The initiation is related to the analysis of knowledge needs and opportunities, which will result in the location of sources to meet this demand. According to the authors, an interesting example is the entry of a new member into the group:

The entrance of a new member into the work group, for example, immediately suggests the need to pass on knowledge. It is prudent, however, that an analysis be made of what knowledge should be passed on to the new element, and the sources that can best meet this demand be located. It may be that the new member has already mastered at least part of the set of knowledge that he/she should possess in order to understand well what happens in the unit; and to pass on to him/her what he/she has already mastered, besides being tedious, would be a waste of time (TONET; PAZ, 2006, p. 81, our emphasis).

In other words, it is necessary to evaluate, before the execution of any sharing activity, which knowledge will be shared, in order to save resources, whether human, material or financial. In the case of new evaluators joining scientific journals, it is considered that they already have the basic knowledge of how to perform the evaluation of a manuscript, but, as the journals have different scopes and criteria, it is essential to share the procedures adopted with the reviewers.

According to Tonet and Paz (2006), the implementation deals with the process of interaction between the source and the receiver of knowledge, and this step may face barriers in its execution, that are commonly associated:

(a) with the ability of the source to pass on what he knows, and of the recipient, to understand and manage the knowledge that is being shared; (b) with the attitudes and personal traits of both, which may facilitate or hinder the process, depending on how they face the knowledge sharing; and (c) with aspects of the organizational context, such as availability of time and appropriate structural conditions for sharing; such as, formal and informal situations for meetings and conversations between people, and appropriate places and equipment for the transfer of knowledge that require demonstrations. (TONET & PAZ, 2006, p. 83, our emphasis).

The authors believe that barriers can be derivated from different orders, whether related to the competences of the source and recipient to pass on, receive and process knowledge, or subjective and personal aspects of the subjects, which can facilitate or hinder and make sharing difficult, and, finally, the organizational context, with regard to time availability and flexibility, as well as the appropriate structural requirements for sharing, whether formally or informally.

Support is the third stage of the model and resides in the need to offer support to clarify or correct knowledge that has been passed on, but is being used inappropriately. The authors state that this step is fundamental, since setbacks may arise in the application of knowledge, and, in this case, it is necessary to propose solutions quickly, considering that “[...] taken; incorrect practices, when they become ingrained, are more difficult to remove.” (TONET & PAZ, 2006, p. 86).

The last step, incorporation, is related to efforts to enable the application and free flow of shared knowledge among those who need to use it in order to avoid obstacles in its use. For the authors, the obstacles that may arise at this stage are related to several factors, such as:

People may diverge in the routines of applying shared knowledge, due to: (a) differences in the mechanisms for perceiving the benefits and threats that may arise from its routine use; (b) lack of skills to redirect actions and review routines, when obstacles or hindrances to the use of knowledge in a routine manner occur; (c) resistance or unwillingness of people to changes that become necessary, as the practices resulting from the new knowledge begin to consolidate; (d) discredit, and consequent contrary pressure, from superiors and peers about the advantages and benefits of using the new knowledge (TONET; PAZ, 2006, p. 87, our emphasis).

Each subject in the organization is a unique being, and may assume different perspectives about the same process. Depending on their perception about the incorporation of knowledge in an already consolidated procedure, the subject may be unavailable for changes and hinder the cycle, the sharing, and the implementation of new conceptions, even if the intention is to optimize the process.

Knowledge is an asset of esteemed importance at all levels and contexts, acting, especially, with regard to innovation and competitive intelligence, so that organizations must be concerned in advance with the sharing of such a resource, as well as stimulate the creation of spaces favorable to its circulation and conducive for individuals to meet, talk and act as source and recipients of knowledge, according to Tonet and Paz (2006). Still according to the authors, the creation of such opportunities becomes important and justifies the investment, because it will develop spaces for people to report solutions to the adversities of the work routine, and, in the sense of this study, in the scientific evaluation routine.

As previously explained, as it is a mutual process, knowledge sharing can face obstacles that makes this process difficult. In the study by Moresi and Mendes (2010, p. 27) the main difficulties for the process lie in the lack of time for sharing, and even people's interest in the knowledge that is intended to be shared. To overcome these obstacles, the authors suggest “creating the 'moment of sharing' and having identified the types of knowledge that really interest people and the organization is a critical success factor for overcoming the two obstacles pointed out by the study.”

The sharing of knowledge depends on the creation of an organizational culture that encourages the process, and the creation of a culture of sharing. The example of the “leaders”, in this context, of the scientific editor, are the main factors that will favor the exchange of knowledge, as highlighted by Moresi and Mendes (2010). In addition, creating this timely space can, according to the authors, stimulate productivity and improve operational processes. The following topic presents the relationships between knowledge sharing and scientific communication processes, more specifically, peer review.

2. 1 Knowledge sharing in the scientific context

Among the different types of knowledge, there is the scientific, originated from a series of methodological and systematic procedures that aim to answer questions and problems identified by researchers in different areas of knowledge. As it is considered as a set of notions built from a collaborative perspective, the development of processes and mechanisms that aim at its management and sharing of scientific thinking becomes relevant. According to Leite and Costa (2007), the communication of this knowledge is directly related to knowledge management because they are involved in the academic context and the culture of sharing in the scientific environment. However, despite this latent relationship, according to the authors, there are few initiatives, studies or proposals that aim to investigate the process of managing and sharing knowledge in the academic and scientific spheres.

For the authors, the scientific and academic environment has unique cultural characteristics that make it different from other contexts, such as the contexts of commercial, social or governmental organizations. For Leite and Costa (2007, p. 95), these characteristics are linked to “values, assumptions and beliefs that are shared among individuals who live in the environment and are reaffirmed daily because they are involved in their activities and social relationships”. In other words, these characteristics, according to the authors, which make up what can be understood as a scientific organizational culture, shape interactions, processes and perspectives in the academic environment.

Regarding the sharing of scientific knowledge, Leite and Costa (2007) define that the exchange of explicit knowledge occurs through formal communication channels, such as books and periodicals, and tacit knowledge through informal channels, such as lectures at events, conversations and debates. In other words, researchers and scientists have access to different forms and channels of knowledge sharing within the scope of their work. In this sense, it is important to understand if the sharing, the exchange of knowledge and the interaction among scientific reviewerss, regardless of the channels and means used, whether formal or informal, contribute to their improvement and to the improvement of their reports.

3 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

This study is characterized as exploratory because it seeks to provide new information on the subject to be investigated, in order to enable its thematic delineation and guide for the formulation of hypotheses and new research perspectives, according to Prodanov and Freitas (2013). As for the procedures, it is bibliographic type because of the researcher acts, according to Severino (2016, p. 131) from the "[...] contributions of the authors of the analytical studies contained in the texts".

The construction of the theoretical and bibliographic repertoire of this research occurred through consultations in the Scielo and Brapci databases, with the search conducted by the terms "management and knowledge sharing", "knowledge sharing" and "knowledge management in scientific journals". As a data collection technique, the questionnaire was used, considered as per Severino (2016, p. 134) as "a set of questions, systematically articulated, which are intended to raise written information by the subjects surveyed, in order to know their opinion on the subjects under study." Thus, the purpose of the questions, presented in chart 1 below, is to compose a diagnosis of the editors' perception of knowledge sharing among reviewers:

Chart 1
Questions presented in the form “Perceptions of scientific editors on knowledge sharing among reviewers”

Questions
1) How long have you been working as an editor?*
2) Which is the area of knowledge of the journal that you work?*
3) In addition to being an editor, are you a reviewer in other journals?*
4) From your perspective, can the sharing and exchange of knowledge among reviewers contribute to the improvement of your performance as a reviewer and of your reports?*
5) If yes, how could this contribution occur?
6) In the journal where you work, are there actions that provide the sharing among reviewers?
7) If yes, how does this happen?
8) Do you know of any initiative or discussion spaces that promote the sharing of knowledge and experiences among reviewers?*
9) If yes, which ones?

Source: Research data (2021).

The collection instrument was developed in the Google Forms platform, containing nine questions. Among the nine questions, six that are indicated with an asterisk on chart 1 were mandatory, and the others were optional. The form was shared via an individual electronic mail. The e-mail addresses are freely accessible data, since they were obtained through research in journal portals. Thus, we consulted the journal portals of the respective institutions: Universidade Federal do Ceará, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, and Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. The choice for these institutions, which make up the sample, happened randomly and the journals selected were those considered active, which had at least one publication in the year 2021. Therefore, the link to the questionnaire was sent to 86 editors of scientific journals.

Regarding the ethical aspect of the research, Resolution No. 510, 2016, issued by the National Health Council reiterates that studies aimed at the "theoretical deepening of situations that emerge spontaneously and contingently in professional practice" (BRASIL, 2016) and that do not have mechanisms that identify the respondents, within the Human and Social Sciences, are exempt from evaluation by the Ethics Committee as long as they do not reveal data that can identify the subject. Therefore, to protect the research, an Informed Consent Form (ICF) was attached to the form.

The data collection period lasted fifteen days, beginning on August 5 and ending on August 20, 2021. During this period, the questionnaire was returned by 32 journal editors, with a response rate of 37%. It is important to emphasize that, by agreeing to participate in the research, the editor indicates that he or she consents to what is proposed in the TCLE, that his or her participation is voluntary, that his or her identity will remain anonymous, and that the data obtained from the questionnaire will be only used for strictly academic and scientific purposes. Data analysis followed the theoretical assumptions of Bardin's content analysis (2011) from the establishment of categories, namely: a) qualification activities and practices; b) sharing of assessments, ideas and experiences; c) standardization and structuring of assessed items; d) open peer review.

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

During the compilation of the collected data, the responses of the editors, subjects of the research, were presented using an alphanumeric code, for example, E17, which corresponds to the order of response on the questionnaire. The first three questions aimed to characterize the respondent group and will be presented below. About the time of acting as an editor, the following answers were obtained:

Chart 2
Time working as editor

Period	Number of respondents
Two months	1
6 months - 2 years	5
2 - 4 years	5
4 - 6 years	3
6 years or more	16
17 years	1
22 years	1
Total	32

Source: Research data (2021).

This question aimed to identify how long the respondent has been working as na editor of the scientific journal, and that had the following items to mark: "6 months - 2 years", "2 - 4 years", "4 - 6 years" and " 6 years or more”. In order to cover other time intervals, the “Others” field was defined. According to the data in chart 1, it can be identified that more than half of the respondents (18=56.25%) have worked as an editor for more than six years, including cases of participants with 17 and 22 years of experience, which indicates a considerable period of experience in the role. Regarding the area of knowledge of the journal in which the editor works, the following data were obtained:

Chart 3
Area of knowledge of the scientific journal

Field	Number of respondents	Percentage
Applied Social Sciences	14	43,75%
Social Sciences	8	25%
Linguistics, Letters and Arts	6	18,75%
Health Sciences	2	6,25%
Agricultural Sciences	1	3,12%
Exact and Earth Sciences	1	3,12%
Engineering	1	3,12%
Biological Sciences	-	-
Total	32	100%

Source: Research data (2021).

The knowledge areas in chart 3 followed the classification proposed by the Capes Knowledge Areas Table. According to what was presented above, the area of knowledge with the largest number of representatives was Applied Social Sciences, with fourteen replies, followed by the Human Sciences area, with eight respondents, and Linguistics, with six. With a smaller representation comes the area of Health Sciences, with two editors, and the areas of Agricultural Sciences, Exact and Earth Sciences and Engineering, each with only one responding editor. Despite providing a small representation, the responses of these editors greatly contribute to broadening the perspectives and views of the sample on the subject, in order to avoid biases or discussions linked to only one spectrum of scientific knowledge.

The third question identified that 29 of the 32 responding editors are evaluators in another journal. This number reflects the fact that editors, as respondents and responsible for managing and mediating the editorial flow, are aware of these processes, both in the role of editor and in the role of evaluator.

The questions analyzed below address the editor's understanding of knowledge sharing. The fourth question identified that, in the perception of 29 editors, sharing and exchanging knowledge among evaluators can improve both their performance as reviewers and their reports. Due to the wide range of the answers to the fifth question, which aimed to understand the editors' perception of how this contribution can take place, the following categories were established to guide the discussion: a) qualification activities and practices; b) sharing of assessments, ideas and experiences; c) standardization and structuring of the items evaluated; d) open peer review. In addition to these aforementioned categories of analysis, some editors mentioned the benefits of knowledge sharing, which will be presented as na additional topic.

Among the responses, four editors stated that the contribution of sharing can occur through activities and practices aimed at qualification as a professional, such as courses (mentioned by respondents E1 and E32), remote education and newsletters (also mentioned by E1), discussion forums (suggestion given by E12) and panels at events in the area (proposed by E4). Still on qualification, E32 emphasized that the work of the reviewer should also be part of the training of scientists. In other words, peer review is a process that could be further discussed and deepened in academic training, since there has been an expansion of scientific literature with the growth of the scientific community (MEADOWS, 1999), which for Jenal, Vituri, Ezaías, Silva and Caliri (2012), demands an increasingly efficient process with regards to the quality of published manuscripts, speed and promotion of good scientific practices. Therefore, more qualified researchers are required for the process, so that there is no work overload for those reviewing.

Another way mentioned for the exchange of knowledge to occur was through sharing evaluations, ideas and experiences, wherein E2 mentions that it can happen with the evaluators “becoming aware of the evaluation of the other without the anonymity of the reviewers being affected in the process. There will be an exchange of knowledge based on the evaluation, as well as the preservation of its impersonality.” Thus, it is inferred that for the editor, simply sharing opinions already provides the exchange of knowledge and the improvement of the evaluators. Furthermore, the sharing of evaluations gives greater value and recognition to the evaluator and to the time invested in the preparation of the judgment, contributing so that the evaluation is not just a document filed in the system and that it also acquires an educational role in the academic community.

In addition, respondent E16 states that sharing can happen through dialogue and the exchange of tips about the evaluation process, good practices, journal standards, etc. E9 replied that the exchange of knowledge can happen through the sharing of difficulties that usually arise and the possible solutions for the process, however, he states that this sharing would be more useful among editors. Similarly, E28 believes that the exchange of information and different ideas about the same text results in the improvement of the evaluation and E29 reiterates that sometimes evaluators point out issues that the same had not yet thought about. The ideas presented by the respondents are lined with that proposed by Queiroz, Silva and Almeida (2017), as they ensure that the sharing of knowledge between researchers allows both the creation of resources, since the exchange of knowledge acts as an addition, which results in new shares of this important asset, and also favors the generation of innovations. Regarding the exchange and sharing of ideas and experiences, respondent E3 reiterates that this can happen as follows:

Share experiences; cite cases (in the case of a blind review, do not cite the names), because this contributes to the improvement of future reviews depending on the editor's area of expertise; seek partnerships, focusing on the creation of a bank of expert evaluators for themes with a degree of evaluation difficulties, etc.; build social networks for exchanging ideas and experiences, for example WhatsApp group or even by email.

The respondent recognizes that the sharing of experiences and cases contributes to the improvement of future assessments. In addition, the editor states that it is important to seek partnership in order to establish a kind of database of evaluators and their respective specialties. In addition, it reiterates that the construction of social networks is relevant, precisely with the goal of exchanging ideas and experiences, such as WhatsApp or email groups, since, from the perspective of Moreno, Cavazotte and Dutra (2020), the exchange of knowledge happens through interactions between social subjects.

Respondent E18 claims that it would be useful to hold conversation circles to discuss the most relevant topics, for example: flaws in methodology, data analysis, and other crucial points. However, the editor stated that the ideal is for the journal to guide the evaluator on the points that should be analyzed in the study, and to present an objective and clear evaluation form. Such a statement leads to the belief that an objective and practical orientation of the journal optimizes the work of the evaluator and, consequently, of his/her opinion, which may result, directly or indirectly, in the improvement of the manuscript. Consolidating the idea of objective evaluation, the integrative study by Jenal, Vituri, Ezaías, Silva and Caliri (2012, p. 808) pointed out suggestions to improve peer evaluation, which include items mentioned in the response, to examples of “[...] use of 'checklist' type instruments and training of reviewers.”

The standardization and structuring of the evaluated items or the definition of a model was pointed out by four editors as a possible contribution to the improvement of the evaluators, as exposed by E22:

I think that each journal and its respective sections (target audience, objectives, etc.) produce specific criteria and effects for evaluations. It is not the same thing to be an evaluator of a Qualis A1 journal, with an international vocation, for example, and to be a reviewer of a student journal that encourages the publication of researchers at the beginning of their journey - even though the same evaluator may eventually perform both of these functions. I understand that exchanges between reviewers can help to elaborate the different levels of demand between opinions of each type of journal, as well as operate as an important means for exchanging experiences in evaluation.

According to the respondent, the exchange between evaluators can provide the elaboration and establishment of different levels of requirements, in view of the varied requirements that each journal can establish for its authors. To justify this idea, E26 states that this contribution could occur “through minimally improved written guidance, suggested in the OJS itself.” He points out that, in the journal he works, there is a “basic form to guide evaluators” attached.

Confirming the statement of respondent E26, Moresi and Mendes (2010) reiterate that organizations should learn from their experiences, and in the sense of this study, applying to the context of the scientific journal, it is necessary to keep in mind that the experiences and the best practices of editors and evaluators must be recorded and shared, as essential knowledge must become common property and, in the case of the respondent, the suggestion of institutionalization of knowledge occurs through the establishment of a basic form guiding the evaluators on the points to be analyzed in the study.

Still on this issue, open peer review was mentioned by two respondents, who discussed how it can contribute to knowledge sharing practices. E30 states that in journals that adhere to this evaluation model, this collaboration is already present and is often performed, but the editor reiterates that in the case of journals that adhere to the blind model, “planning and implementation of dedicated spaces and strategies are necessary to the discussion of topics of interest to the referees, respecting the editorial policies of each journal.” Respondent E31, on the other hand, indicates that:

The exchange of knowledge is always beneficial for learning. However, extreme care is needed not to violate the confidentiality of the blind evaluation. Journals that provide open evaluation can be a source of learning, because by reading comments and arguments issued by peers, we can learn.

The editor states that the discussion and interaction provided by the open review acts as a source of learning, since other evaluators can consult the opinion and learn from the above.

Thus, in the speech of the respondents E30 and E31, the care and attention in seeking to follow the editorial guidelines and policies adopted by each journal for the exchange of knowledge, whether adept at open or closed review, stands out.

Regarding the benefits of sharing mentioned by the respondents, E5 believes that “it would make the process more agile, as we would more easily get to know the research of colleagues and their areas of interest”, as pointed out by Moresi and Mendes (2010), who ensure that the creation of knowledge exchange spaces can improve operational processes, that is, in the sense of this study, the creation of these sharing environments would allow improving the scientific evaluation process. E8 emphasizes that sharing is capable of contributing to the improvement of articles, and E10 states that such a process provides greater cooperation between evaluators. In addition to these benefits, it is important to consider the point of E7, when he states that “many novice evaluators feel insecure about how to make an opinion.” Thus, sharing knowledge between evaluators, depending on how it occurs, can contribute to reducing such insecurity.

Regarding the scope of the sixth question, which deals with the existence of actions that provide sharing between evaluators in journals, 28 respondents state that there are no actions of this type in the journal they operate, and four stated that there are actions that allow this sharing. Regarding the way in which these actions occur, in the context of the seventh question, respondent E2 mentioned that this exchange of knowledge in the journal happens through the sharing of unidentified evaluations among the reviewers, possibly to present a “model” of evaluation, and E29 stated that when evaluators have doubts, there is an exchange of ideas. E3 mentioned that the sharing happens through communication channelss such as the instant messaging social network WhatsApp and e-mail. From these answers, we can infer that editors and evaluators make predominant use of formal communication channels, such as email, and informal ones, such as WhatsApp, possibly because of their wide dissemination and speed in sharing. Regarding the experience of the journal he works, respondent E21 states that:

We are carrying out this dialogue movement from the open peer review forums, in line with the open science policies proposed by the Scielo system. It is still a timid movement, but it has generated interesting developments for these discussions, involving not only the evaluators among themselves, but also authors and editors.

The journal and the editor in question demonstrate that they are aware of the advantages proposed by open peer review, since one of its characteristics, according to RossHellauer (2017), is open interaction, which aims to provide discussions and dialogues between evaluators, authors and editors, in order to collaborate for a more participatory construction of the manuscript, and to impact its quality.

About knowing initiatives or discussion spaces that promote the sharing of knowledge and experiences among evaluators, in the context of the eighth question, 27 of the respondents stated that they did not know about the initiatives and discussion spaces, and five stated that they knew about them. Regarding the last question, which asks what are these spaces and discussion initiatives known by them, E1 states that international publishers have made content available on their websites and held webinars to discuss the theme. One example is the webinar Web of Science Academy¹, which offers online mini-courses on peer review and research integrity and Springer Nature², which has training and tutorials on how the scientific evaluation process works, as well as initiatives such as Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCiD), a unique alphanumeric code assigned to researchers, and the Publons Platform, an initiative that aims to provide recognition to reviewers, that can register and publish their evaluation on their profile.

In addition, other research subjects cited initiatives, such as courses and events, and informal communication channels such as WhatsApp¸ groups composed of editors and reviewers who use this space to exchange information. The advantages of informal communication groups lie in the rapid dissemination and sharing of information, in order to easily reach a wider audience and without geographical barriers.

Still regarding Open Science, E9 evaluated that open review provides dialogue among reviewers, authors and editors, thus enabling the sharing of knowledge and experiences. This evaluation modality has been discussed in the Brazilian literature by researchers from different areas, but, in the scope of Information Science, there are authors such as Targino, Garcia and Silva (2020), Araújo and Pedri (2021), and Shintaku, Brito, Ferreira Júnior and Barraviera (2020), who evaluate that the open review, in accordance with the principles of Open Science, can provide more transparency and honesty to the scientific evaluation process.

As evidenced by the data collected and analyzed, most respondents of this investigation have six years or more of experience in the role of scientific editor (56.25%) and similarly, most editors, regardless of the period of experience (90.63%) ensure that sharing between evaluators contributes to the improvement of reviewers and their reports, and that this sharing can happen in the most different ways, and through formal and informal channels.

Although most respondents assume that sharing and exchanging knowledge contributes to the improvement of evaluators, one research subject, E13, stated that he was not sure how this contribution could occur “since it does not explain what knowledge.” From this observation of E13, it is emphasized that knowledge is a plural and diversified resource, so the objective of the research was to capture the perception of respondents about the sharing of knowledge in the scientific field, without restricting or delimiting to any specific field.

Furthermore, it is elementary to note that among the responses collected, there were mentions of the open evaluation modality as a possibility to collaborate with the knowledge sharing process and contribute to the improvement of the evaluators. Such answers indicate that scientific editors are increasingly aware of the potential of evaluation and Open Science, enabling new debates about this modality in the Brazilian academic context.

5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Regardless of the organizational context analyzed, whether academic, scientific, industrial, commercial or social, knowledge is an invaluable asset for the development of its operations, since it acts as a basic resource to provide planning, analysis and process execution. And for performing an assignment of such magnitude, its sharing becomes an essential procedure for maintaining the functioning of organizations.

The research sought to identify the perception of scientific journal editor on knowledge sharing among reviewers. Thus, more than 90% of the editors confirm that this practice can contribute to both their improvement and reports as reviewers, and, furthermore, point to a series of initiatives that, in their understanding, can collaborate with this process. Based on the editors' responses, we illustrate recommendations that provide knowledge sharing actions in scientific journals for reviewers, namely:

• → Create and disseminate newsletters with indications of courses, lectures, round tables and other initiatives;

• → Make available and facilitate the exchange of unidentified reports between the journal's reviewers;

• → List the name of the permanent and ad hoc reviewers in the editorial team section of the journal;

• → Define the standardization of evaluation criteria, according to the scope of each journal;

• → Create a database of referees with their respective specialties;

• → Create social interaction channels and networks for exchanging ideas and sharing experiences among the evaluators, such as groups on WhatsApp, e-mail discussion lists, forums.

It is important to reflect on the creation of these practices, as approximately 85% of respondents claim not to know initiatives and discussion spaces that promote the sharing of knowledge, which may be relatively simple actions, but as pointed out by the research subjects themselves, provide several advantages and benefits, both for the journal and for other participants in the editorial process, such as editors, reviewers, authors, and even for civil society, because when science and its methodological procedures evolve, scientific knowledge advances, and this progress may be directly or indirectly associated with social development.

• 1
  Available at: https://webofscienceacademy.clarivate.com/learn/signin
• 2
  Available at: https://www.springernature.com/br/authors/campaigns/how-to-peer-review

• Availability of data and material:

  https://zenodo.org/record/ 5643847 - https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5643846.
• Funding: This study was funded by the Cearense Foundation for Scientific Development Support (Fucanp) through an academic training grant.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ARAÚJO, Ronaldo; PEDRI, Patrícia. Revisão por pares aberta. AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento, Curitiba, v. 10, n. 1, V-VIII, jan./abr. 2021. Disponível em: https://revistas.ufpr.br/atoz/article/view/78747 Acesso em: 15 jul. 2021.
  » https://revistas.ufpr.br/atoz/article/view/78747
• BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo, SP: Edições 70, 2011. 279 p.
• BARTOL, Kathryn. Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, [S. l.], v. 9, n. 1, 2002. Disponível em: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107179190200900105 Acesso em: 17 ago. 2021.
  » https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107179190200900105
• BRASIL. Resolução nº 510, de 07 de abril de 2016 Brasília, DF: 07 abr. 2016. Disponível em: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf Acesso em: 13 jan. 2022.
  » http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf
• FARIAS, G. B.; ALMEIDA, L. M; VASCONCELOS, M. C. N. Efetividade da Competência em Informação no Compartilhamento e Visibilidade da Ciência. In: FARIAS, M. G. G.; PINTO, V. B. (org.). Ciência da informação em contextos Fortaleza: Imprensa Universitária, 2020. 252 p. p. 77-95. Disponível em: http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/54841
  » http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/54841
• FARIAS, M. G. G.; MAIA, F. C. de A. Proposição de Observatório Científico para Popularização da Ciência. Informação & Sociedade: Estudos, João Pessoa, v. 30, n. 3, p. 1-19, 2020. DOI: 10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2020v30n3.53866. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufpb.br/ojs2/index.php/ies/article/view/53866 Acesso em: 10 jan. 2022.
  » https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2020v30n3.53866.» https://periodicos.ufpb.br/ojs2/index.php/ies/article/view/53866
• JENAL, Sabine et al O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, [S. l.], v. 25, n. 5, p. 802-808, 2012. FapUNIFESP (SciELO). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0103-21002012000500024 Acesso em: 17 ago. 2021.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0103-21002012000500024
• LEITE, Fernando César Lima; COSTA, Sely Maria de Souza. Gestão do conhecimento científico: proposta de um modelo conceitual com base em processos de comunicação científica. Ciência da Informação, Brasília, DF, v. 36, n. 1, 2007. Disponível em: http://revista.ibict.br/ciinf/article/view/1189 Acesso em: 17 ago. 2021.
  » http://revista.ibict.br/ciinf/article/view/1189
• MEADOWS, Arthur Jack. Comunicação Científica Brasília, DF: Briquet de Lemos, 1999. 268 p.
• MORENO, Valter; CAVAZOTTE, Flávia; DUTRA, Janicélio Pereira. Antecedentes Psicossociais e Organizacionais do Compartilhamento de Conhecimento no Ambiente de Trabalho. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, [S. l], v. 24, n. 4, p. 283-299, jul. 2020. FapUNIFESP (SciELO). Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190239 Acesso em 05 jul. 2021.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190239
• MORESI, Eduardo Amadeu Dutra; MENDES, Sérgio Peixoto. Compartilhamento do conhecimento em portais corporativos. Transinformação, Campinas, SP, v. 22, n. 1, p. 19-32, abr. 2010. FapUNIFESP (SciELO). Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0103-37862010000100002 Acesso em: 29 jul. 2021.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0103-37862010000100002
• PRODANOV, Cleber Cristiano; FREITAS, Ernani Cesar de. Metodologia do trabalho científico: métodos e técnicas da pesquisa e do trabalho acadêmico. Novo Hamburgo: Feevale, 2013.
• OSINSKI, Marilei; ROMAN, Darlan José; SELIG, Paulo Mauricio. Compartilhamento de conhecimento: estudo bibliométrico das publicações acadêmicas realizadas de 1994 a 2014. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 4, p. 149-162, dez. 2015. FapUNIFESP (SciELO). Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/2512 Acesso em: 29 jul. 2021.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/2512
• QUEIROZ, Fernanda Cristina Barbosa Pereira; SILVA, Helena de Fátima Nunes; ALMEIDA, Paulo Henrique de. Determinantes do compartilhamento do conhecimento visando a cooperação internacional em ciência e tecnologia no Brasil. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, Belo Horizonte v. 22, n. 1, p. 133-150, mar. 2017. FapUNIFESP (SciELO). Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/2748 Acesso em 15 ago. 2021
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/2748
• ROSS-HELLAUER, Tony. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, [S. l.], v. 6, p. 1-31, 27 abr. 2017. Version 1. F1000 Research Ltd. Disponível em: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-588/v1 Acesso em: 02 ago. 2021
  » https://f1000research.com/articles/6-588/v1
• SEVERINO, Antônio Joaquim. Metodologia do trabalho científico 24. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2016.
• SHINTAKU, Milton et al AVALIAÇÃO ABERTA PELOS PARES NO ÂMBITO DA CIÊNCIA ABERTA: revisão e reflexão. Biblos, Rio Grande, v. 34, n. 1, p. 161-175, 15 set. 2020. Disponível em: https://BRAPCI.inf.br/index.php/res/v/146042 Acesso em: 05 ago. 2021.
  » https://BRAPCI.inf.br/index.php/res/v/146042
• TAKEUCHI, Hirotaka.; NONAKA, Ikujiro. Criação e dialética do conhecimento. In: TAKEUCHI; NONAKA. Gestão do conhecimento. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008. p. 17-38.
• TARGINO, Maria das Graças.; GARCIA, Joana Coeli Ribeiro; SILVA, Kleisson Lainnon Nascimento. da. Avaliadores da área de ciência da informação frente à open peer review. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología, v. 43, n. 1, 2020. Disponível em: http://eprints.rclis.org/39954/ Acesso em: 30 ago. 2021.
  » http://eprints.rclis.org/39954/
• TONET, Helena Correa; PAZ, Maria das Graças Torres da. Um modelo para o compartilhamento de conhecimento no trabalho. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, [S. l.], v. 10, n. 2, p. 75-94, jun. 2006. FapUNIFESP (SciELO). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1415-65552006000200005 Acesso em: 30 ago. 2021.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1415-65552006000200005

Data availability

https://zenodo.org/record/ 5643847 - https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5643846.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  23 Jan 2023
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  04 Nov 2021
• Accepted
  07 Jan 2022
• Published
  16 Jan 2022