Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:38:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 AnaLFC.pdf: 456581 bytes, checksum: f65ab373e503e63de2629bbf3e41ce90 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-06-23 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico / Recently, Brazilian scientific production has increased greatly, due to demands for productivity from scientific agencies. However, this high increases requires a more qualified production, since it s essential that publications are relevant and original. In the psychological field, the assessment scientific journals of the CAPES/ANPEPP Commission had a strong effect on the scientific community and raised questions about the chosen evaluation method. Considering this impact, the aim of this research is a meta-analysis on the assessment of Psychological journals by CAPES to update the Qualis database. For this research, Psychology scientific editors (38 questionnaires were applied by e-mail) were consulted, also 5 librarians who work with scientific journals assessment (semi-structured interviews) and 8 members who acted as referees in the CAPES/ANPEPP Commission (open questions were sent by e-mail). The results are shown through 3 analysis: general evaluation of the Qualis process (including the Assessment Committee constitution), evaluation criteria used in the process and the effect of the evaluation on the scientific community (changes on the editing scene included). Some important points emerged: disagreement among different actors about the suitability of this evaluation model; the recognition of the improvement of scientific journals, mainly toward normalization and diffusion; the verification that the model does not point the quality of the journal, i.e., the content of the scientific articles published in the journal; the disagreement with the criteria used, seemed necessary and useful but needed to be discussed and cleared between the scientific community. Despite these points, the scientific journals evaluation still is the main method to assure quality for Psychology publications / A produ??o cient?fica brasileira tem passado por intensas mudan?as visando atender ?s demandas por produtividade dos pesquisadores. Entretanto, a multiplica??o de produtos acad?micos explicita a necessidade de qualifica??o dessa produ??o, uma vez que ? imprescind?vel a publica??o de material relevante e inovador. Na Psicologia, a avalia??o de peri?dicos empreendida pela Comiss?o CAPES/ANPEPP gerou grande repercuss?o na comunidade cient?fica e suscita questionamentos em torno do modelo de avalia??o utilizado. Considerando este impacto, o objetivo do trabalho ? fazer uma meta-avalia??o sobre o processo de avalia??o de peri?dicos cient?ficos utilizado nas revistas de Psicologia pela CAPES para alimenta??o da classifica??o Qualis. Para a pesquisa, foram consultados editores de revistas de Psicologia (n=38, question?rio enviado por e-mail), bibliotec?rios envolvidos com avalia??o de peri?dicos (n=5, entrevistas semi-estruturadas) e pesquisadores que participaram/participam da Comiss?o de Avalia??o (n=8, quest?es abertas via e-mail). Os resultados foram agrupados em 3 eixos tem?ticos: avalia??o geral sobre o processo de avalia??o Qualis (incluindo posicionamento sobre constitui??o das Comiss?es de Avalia??o), crit?rios de avalia??o utilizados no modelo adotado e os efeitos decorrentes das avalia??es para a comunidade cient?fica e mudan?as percebidas no quadro editorial. Alguns aspectos centrais ficaram evidenciados: a diverg?ncia entre os atores envolvidos quanto ? adequa??o do modelo em retratar a realidade editorial da ?rea; a discord?ncia em rela??o aos crit?rios adotados, que s?o vistos, simultaneamente, como necess?rios e ?teis; o reconhecimento da melhoria das revistas, principalmente no que se refere ? normaliza??o e difus?o; a indica??o de que esse modelo de avalia??o n?o aprecia a qualidade da revista propriamente dita, ou seja, o conte?do dos peri?dicos por meio dos artigos. Apesar desses pontos, a avalia??o dos peri?dicos em Psicologia continua a ser o principal instrumento para garantir um padr?o m?nimo de qualidade nas publica??es da ?rea

Submitted by SBI Biblioteca Digital (sbi.bibliotecadigital@puc-campinas.edu.br) on 2016-04-06T11:44:18Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria Cristina Matoso.pdf: 2151922 bytes, checksum: 1bcf5b83eba06c89f6a5096d658c6c81 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-06T11:44:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Maria Cristina Matoso.pdf: 2151922 bytes, checksum: 1bcf5b83eba06c89f6a5096d658c6c81 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2004-06-28 / Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica de Campinas ? PUC Campinas / Analysis of the symbolic dimension of the scientific journal, of what it represents to the scientific community, this dissertation emphasizes the importance of the mechanisms that attribute value to the scientific journal. It especially considers the creation of institutions whose objectives are to promote and stimulate the development of scientific and technological research, and whose policies support scientific publications. The corpus of the research is constituted by the scientific periodicals covering the area of Nutrition. The analysis focuses on their indexes, their explicit criteria for manuscripts? evaluation and selection by the scientific referees, and the composition of their Editorial Boards ? taking into account that authors may also perform the roles of editor or board member. The research results show how recent is the area of Nutrition and how the journals in such area need to reevaluate their objectives. It concludes that it?s necessary that journals adopt norms and specific patterns, besides proceeding to the selection and revision of the articles already entrenched in scientific editing, in order to have them indexed in mechanisms of the Nutrition area. Such procedures will assure that Brazilian science articles will be available at the main national and international database. / An?lise da dimens?o simb?lica da revista cient?fica, ou seja, o que ela representa para a comunidade cient?fica. Destaca-se a import?ncia dos mecanismos que atribuem valor ao peri?dico cient?fico, enfatizando-se a relev?ncia da cria??o dos ?rg?os de fomento que, al?m de promoverem e estimularem o desenvolvimento das investiga??es cient?ficas e tecnol?gicas, praticam pol?ticas de apoio ? publica??o cient?fica. Constitui o corpus desta pesquisa os peri?dicos cient?ficos da ?rea da Nutri??o, dos quais se analisar? a indexa??o, os crit?rios expl?citos de sele??o e avalia??o dos manuscritos pelos revisores cient?ficos, al?m da composi??o do Corpo Editorial considerando-se que o pesquisador-autor pode ainda desempenhar o papel de editor ou de membro do conselho editorial. Os resultados desta pesquisa indicam que a ?rea da Nutri??o ? ainda jovem e que os peri?dicos cient?ficos espec?ficos dessa ?rea precisam redimensionar os seus objetivos. ? necess?rio que adotem normas e padr?es espec?ficos, al?m de proceder ? sele??o e revis?o dos artigos j? sedimentados na editora??o cient?fica, almejando a sua indexa??o em mecanismos da ?rea. Tais procedimentos garantir?o a presen?a dos artigos da ci?ncia brasileira nas principais bases de dados nacionais e internacionais.