OPEN SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE EDUCATIONFIELD: PERSPECTIVES AND DIALOGUES
A CIÊNCIA ABERTA E A ÁREA DE EDUCAÇÃO EMCIÊNCIAS: PERSPECTIVAS E DIÁLOGOS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/Palavras-chave:
editorial, ciência aberta, open reviewResumo
Apresenta as práticas da revista a serem implementadas a partir de 2021 considerando os princípios do movimento Ciência Aberta.
Referências
Bornmann, L., Herich, H., Joos, H., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of scientific community? A content analisys if comments written for atmospheric chemistry and physics. Scientometrics, 93(3), 915-929.
Kelly, G. (2008). Inquiry, actitivity and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 288-291). Rottherdan: Holand: Tapei Sense Publishers
Kelly, G., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In M. Matthews (Ed.), History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: New perspectives Springer International Publishing.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as a social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. New York: Princenton.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princenton: Princenton University Press.
Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experiente amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One, 12(12), e0189311.
Ross-Hellauer, T., & Görögh, E. (2019). Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research integrity and Peer Review, 4(4), 1-12.
SciELO, Scientific Eletronic Library Online.. (2018). Linhas prioritárias de ação 2019-2023. Available [online]: https://www.scielo20.org/redescielo/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/09/L%C3%ADneas-prioritaris-deacci%C3%B3n-2019-2023_pt.pdf
