Towards open science: what we know and what we need to know

Sousa, Álvaro Francisco Lopes de; Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida

doi:10.1590/0034-7167.2021740102

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Questions referring to salami science and preprints register correct answers from approximately half of our sample. The first term is old and goes back to the 1980s, referring to the practice of slicing up a single discovery, such as salami, to publish it with as many scientific articles as possible ( 10 , 24 – 25 ) . On the other hand, the term preprint has gained notoriety more recently with the advent of open science as a publishing model in which authors can make their texts available on servers before they are peer-reviewed ( 25 ) , with high adherence of nursing journals in Brazil and worldwide.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in scientific editing and good research practices: what do researchers-nurses know?

Sousa

Marziale

Cárnio

et al. 2022

Rev. esc. enferm. USP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To verify researchers-nurses’ knowledge about trends in scientific publishing and good research practices. Method: A descriptive study carried out through an online survey with 197 nurses holding master’s and/or doctoral degrees from all Brazilian regions. To raise knowledge, a validated, self-administered and anonymous questionnaire with 18 questions on the subject was used. Descriptive and inferential analyzes were performed on researchers’ scores (Mann-Whitney test). Results: Among the specific questions, the mean of correct answers was 7.1: 6.4 for master’s and 7.4 for doctoral degree holders. There was a significant difference in the mean of correct answers between masters and doctors (p = 0.025), and between productivity scholarship holders and non-scholarship holders (p = 0.021), according to mean difference tests. Questions about predatory editorial practices were those in which researchers had the worst knowledge. Conclusion: We identified that, regardless of the education level (master’s or doctoral degree), nurses have little knowledge about the topics studied, which can compromise the quality of production and the scientific vehicles used to disseminate this knowledge.

show abstract