Research Blogging: Indexing and Registering the Change in Science 2.0

Increasing public interest in science information in a digital and 2.0 science era promotes a dramatically, rapid and deep change in science itself. The emergence and expansion of new technologies and internet-based tools is leading to new means to improve scientific methodology and communication, assessment, promotion and certification. It allows methods of acquisition, manipulation and storage, generating vast quantities of data that can further facilitate the research process. It also improves access to scientific results through information sharing and discussion. Content previously restricted only to specialists is now available to a wider audience. This context requires new management systems to make scientific knowledge more accessible and useable, including new measures to evaluate the reach of scientific information. The new science and research quality measures are strongly related to the new online technologies and services based in social media. Tools such as blogs, social bookmarks and online reference managers, Twitter and others offer alternative, transparent and more comprehensive information about the active interest, usage and reach of scientific publications. Another of these new filters is the Research Blogging platform, which was created in 2007 and now has over 1,230 active blogs, with over 26,960 entries posted about peer-reviewed research on subjects ranging from Anthropology to Zoology. This study takes a closer look at RB, in order to get insights into its contribution to the rapidly changing landscape of scientific communication.

O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura

OBJETIVO: Avaliar as evidências disponíveis na literatura sobre o processo de revisão por pares de artigos científicos na área da saúde. MÉTODOS: Revisão integrativa de literatura, na qual foram realizadas buscas nas bases de dados da Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, National Library of Medicine, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online e Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Um total de 12 estudos foi analisado. RESULTADOS: Foi demonstrado que existem muitas críticas ao processo em razão de sua subjetividade, porém acredita-se na necessidade dos mesmos. CONCLUSÃO: Este processo é imprescindível para a difusão do conhecimento, sendo uma etapa essencial no julgamento de manuscritos científicos, no entanto, considera-se importante que se façam mudanças no sentido de reduzir a subjetividade para garantir credibilidade ao processo.