The Open Science initiative is, in general, a practice with the purpose of facilitating access to scientific data and information so that even those who are not inserted in this niche of society have access to information, that until then, would not be subject to popular knowledge.
It is an international movement, but the organization of the databases is not unanimous. In Europe, for example, 40% of the countries that compose it have national databases covering different areas of science and Google Scholar corresponds to an important source of scientific knowledge, since it has about 88% of combined results from platforms of data of this nature, leaving a great distance from the next placed Microsoft Academic, which has 60% of this type of content.
In Latin America we can cite SciElO, Redalyc and Redib as sources of scientific information. It is even correct to say that, in addition to being widely used in the academic and scientific communities as a source of studies, they also act as a way of assessing the credibility and seriousness of the journal.
In Brazil, Universities involved in research in the most diverse segments of knowledge have already publicly positioned themselves in favor of this movement. The University of São Paulo (USP), for example, makes available the information obtained through its studies in a data repository that provides teachers and researchers with more efficiency in organizing the information obtained and the population in general can perform the access, just make the search that can be filtered according to the author, subject and year. This repository was launched after Open Science gained momentum around the world.
It should be mentioned that this resolution has the main benefit of science itself, since allowing free access to information allows different minds to address the same issues and, through the diversity of experiments and questions, new evidence can be obtained, capable of to refute or confirm something that we consider to be scientific truths or a deepening of this information, and this is the way that evolution gives us, the improvement.
It is paradoxical to note that even with the Open Science initiative, being even an indication of the seriousness of both the researches carried out and the Organizations that publish them, we are experiencing a moment when information without any scientific basis or applied scientific methodology has been gaining more and more space and credibility. But it is encouraging to see that the main actors responsible for the intellectual development of humanity are willing to become more accessible and to collaborate with each other so that we can move towards technological and scientific improvement.
In order to assess the quality of the material submitted for publication, most journals use the anonymous peer review method, which consists of a process of critical analysis of the studies carried out by specialists in order to identify the quality of the studies to be published , a widely adopted practice that divides the authors as to the effectiveness of its use.
There are those who propose the open peer review model, where there would be the identification of authors and reviewers in order to stimulate interaction between these two groups so that there is greater exchange of information and favor the transparency of the entire process and that this practice would be in alignment with the Open Science movement.
We cannot deny that looking at the proposed identification of these identities before the appreciation of studies from the perspective of all the philosophy that involves Open Science, it really makes sense, since it argues that knowledge should be available to those who are interested in obtaining it.
On the other hand, it must be pointed out that the omission of these identities favors impartiality in the opinions issued and provides that the studies are evaluated according to the content presented, avoiding the publication of research with little relevance or the rejection of quality studies.
As a society we have relationship as a foundation and our personal relationships interfere in all aspects of our lives. It is a palpable fact that we tend to refute the ideas or not to hear the statements of those who do not give us pleasure in their company, how could we guarantee that this type of situation would not interfere with the analysis of a study? It is important to note that here we are not conjecturing about a possible lack of ethics by an appraiser, we refer to human nature in one of its most rudimentary aspects.
It is a fact that the scientific world does not have unanimity on this issue and both those who defend and those who refute this idea have supporters willing to expose their arguments and defend their points of view, but as long as there is no effective positioning of bases. prominent data and journals will follow without a consensus on the disclosure of identities in peer review.
What can be assured is that the Open Science movement is becoming increasingly larger and the trend is that there will be no setback, in line with the science that always allows us to move forward.
Eunice Côrtes
Junior Editor
Veiga de Almeida University - Rio de Janeiro / Brazil
Caroliny Guimarães
Chief Editor
Universidad Européa Del Atlántico - Cantabria / Spain