Open science compliance

Last update: 01/16/2025

The Open Science [OS] movement, as defined in the Unesco report, proposes guidelines for collaborative, shared and public scientific practice. In this report (Unesco, p. 8), there is a synthesis that emphasizes three factors, namely:

• Open science increases collaborations and the sharing of scientific information for the benefit of science and society;
• Makes multilingual scientific knowledge available and accessible and reusable for all;
• Opens the processes of creation, evaluation and communication of scientific knowledge to actors in society, in addition to the traditional scientific community.

In line with the OS guidelines, REGEPE adopts a series of practices, such as:

• The open access policy;
• The code of good practices for editors included in our Ethics Policy;
• The precise indication of the role of each of the authors in articles with multiple authorship, according to the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) taxonomy;
• The use of social networks (LinkedIn and Youtube) to publicize published manuscripts; and
• The publication of audio-summary and video-summary as well as publication in XML.

Additionally, REGEPE also encourages:

• The publication of preprints on public platforms;
• Sharing content underlying research development;
• The opening of manuscript evaluations.

These OS principles, adopted by REGEPE, impact our entire scientific community - readers, reviewers, authors, and editorial board - and society in general. The following paragraphs detail these three topics above, and we inform you that this section is MANDATORY READING for the entire community, but mainly for researchers and authors who wish to submit manuscripts to REGEPE. Each of these actors in the scientific community should pay close attention to the information described below.

With these procedures, we fulfill the objectives of the Open Science policy present in the REGEPE Editorial Development Plan (PDE), especially those focused on promoting, training and compliance with OS.

Below, we list in a didactic way our practices in relation to OS, including preprints, the data underlying the research and the opening of manuscript evaluations.

■ What is it? It is a manuscript not yet published in a scientific journal, but made available in public and open access online repositories.

 

■ What does REGEPE recommend? REGEPE STRONGLY recommends the inclusion of your manuscript in a preprint repository. We recommend using the SciELO Preprints as a repository, although there are others (e.g. EmeRI and Preprints).

 

■ What are the advantages of using preprint? Making the manuscript available in preprint follows the precepts of OS, such as the premise of "Publish first, evaluate later!", making the results of your research available to the whole world immediately, enabling an open discussion, before being published, (e.g. through features such as "leaving comments").

• If the authors choose to use SciELO Preprints, we remind you that the platform provides integration of your preprint with the PREreview and Hypothes.is tools, which are platforms/tools that allow for evaluations/comments on preprints. REGEPE will be able to use these evaluations/comments in its evaluation process.

■ What are the disadvantages of using preprint? Currently, we are not aware of a preprint repository that is fully integrated with any scientific journal submission system and, therefore, this WILL REQUIRE extra effort from the authors to fill in the necessary metadata in the preprint system, and that later, at the time of submission to REGEPE, will have to be filled in again. However, the process is simple, albeit repetitive.

 

■ How to make the deposit in the SciELO Preprint? To deposit your preprint in the SciELO Preprints, simply access the website, create your account, and follow the instructions. Questions can be clarified by the website's FAQ. After depositing your preprint, when submitting your manuscript to REGEPE, the authors must inform the preprint's DOI in the Declaration of Open Science Compliance, which is mandatory at the time of submission. See Figure 1.

■ What is it? It is the opening of the data used by the authors to create their research. The publication of this data helps in the greater transparency of the scientific method, provides the possibility of replicating the study and encourages collaboration between researchers.

• Examples of research data: This is all the data necessary to interpret and eventually replicate the results presented in the article. Examples are: the codes of statistical tests performed in data analysis software; primary or secondary databases; interview scripts; figures/illustrations that support content analysis in qualitative studies, among others. In qualitative studies, the underlying data can also be files related to the pre-registration of the research, such as the Free and Informed Consent Form (FICF), Data Use Commitment Term (DUCT) and Proof of Project Submission on the Plataforma Brasil*, where the project registration number (Certificate of Presentation of Ethical Appreciation - CPEA) is included in the CEP-Conep system.
• * Foreign researchers, check with their respective research ethics bodies.

■ What does REGEPE recommend? REGEPE STRONGLY recommends that all authors proceed with the opening of the data used to prepare the research that culminated in the manuscript accepted for publication to REGEPE. To this end, we recommend using data SciELO REGEPE, although there are others (e.g. Zenodo, Figshare and OSF). However, data SciELO REGEPE is the official data repository where all approved and published articles will have their respective underlying research data record made available.

• REGEPE gives the option, through the mandatory completion of the Declaration of Open Science Compliance, at the time of submission, that the authors indicate that they will upload the subjacent data to the research after the submission of the manuscript, thus awaiting the outcome of the editorial decision. See Figure 2.

■ What are the advantages? Data opening provides for the possibility of recognizing the authors' effort by granting them badges that represent each specific opening effort. The use of badges is an international initiative to promote OS led by the Center for Open Science. It is important to mention that a published article that presents badges not only encourages other authors and researchers to also make the underlying data available, but also increases the visibility of the study itself.

 

■ What are the disadvantages? REGEPE understands that the data opening procedure requires an additional effort with which authors and researchers are not yet familiar. However, it is noteworthy that this is a procedure that is gaining more legitimacy every day. Therefore, REGEPE is positioned as a leading journal in its field of activity.

 

■ How to prepare the data opening? REGEPE was inspired by the Guidelines of the Guide to promoting the opening, transparency and reproducibility of research published by SciELO journals (GuiaTOP), which are in accordance with the Open Science Foundation. In this way, REGEPE will manage the recognition of manuscripts with badges at Level 2 of the SciELO GuiaTOP, including: Data transparency ; Analytic methods (code) transparency ; Research materials transparency , Preregistration of studies and Supplementary data . The procedure for preparing the research underlying data is available in SciELO's Research data preparation guidelines.

• The submission of the research underlying data can be done directly in the journal's own system (OJS) or it can be done at data SciELO REGEPE. In both cases, the submission of this data may be made later than the submission of the article, thus awaiting the outcome of the editorial decision.
• We emphasize that the reviewers are free to demand any underlying research data during the evaluation process, in order to clarify doubts, confer or assist the review procedure.

■ REGEPE adopts Level 2 of openness of the SciELO TOP Guide, according to Figure 3.

• It is acknowledged that, at some point in the future, REGEPE may advance to Level 3 of the SciELO GuiaTOP, of a more demanding nature, which not only requires the availability and opening of data, but also that the publication of the article is conditional on verification of the reproducibility of results.

■ "Data Availability Statement" section: After the manuscript is approved, according to the guidelines of the SciELO Brasil guide, REGEPE will create a section called "Open Science: Data Availability", where all information regarding the availability of research underlying data. If there are restrictions on data sharing for ethical or legal reasons, they must be informed by completing the mandatory, at the time of submission, Declaration of compliance with Open Science, as shown in Figure 4.

• Figure 5 presents some examples of possible categories: data provided, data not provided and data provided upon contact with the author. When sending the Proof of Reading*, the authors will have the opportunity to check and validate the information contained in the "Open Science: Data Availability" section.
• * Proofreading consists of the stage in which REGEPE will send the authors the final files in PDF format for checking and validation before the final online publication.

■ Note on manuscripts originating from qualitative research: REGEPE encourages a plurality of research and analysis methods, including qualitative research. We also know that the sharing and opening of data linked to research of this nature present unique complexity, including ethical and legal dilemmas. Thus, REGEPE strongly suggests that the opening of this data be done parsimoniously, that is, revealing the greatest possible number of data for the maximum possible understanding and replicability of the study, without affecting the ethical and legal restrictions to which the data may be associated. In the case of non-opening of data, due to ethical and legal restrictions, even so, during the peer review process, the reviewers, Associate Editor responsible or even the Editor-in-Chief, may request the data from the authors for the purpose of conference or clarification of doubts. We suggest to the authors of qualitative studies that they appreciate the two articles below, as they deal with the theme of transparency and replicability in this type of study (qualitative).

• Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2019). Editorial Essay: The Tumult over Transparency: Decoupling Transparency from Replication in Establishing Trustworthy Qualitative Research*. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/0001839219887663, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663
• Pratt, M. G., Sonenshein, S., & Feldman, M. S. (2020). Moving Beyond Templates: A Bricolage Approach to Conducting Trustworthy Qualitative Research. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/1094428120927466, 25(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120927466

■ What is it? It is the process, aligned with the precepts of OS, in which the journal implements a system in which the authors and reviewers have the possibility to express themselves about the way in which the evaluation they will carry out will be opened.

 

■ What does REGEPE recommend? REGEPE STRONGLY recommends that all Peer-Review Report be opened*, both its content and the identity of the reviewers. The publication of the Peer-Review Report is only made at the end of the process, when the approved article is published. In short, we suggest that both authors and reviewers agree to the publication of the Manuscript Evaluation Report.

• * Do not confuse with the open evaluation process that, according to our editorial policy, continues to be double-blind evaluation, that is, neither authors nor reviewers know the identity of each other.

■ What are the advantages of opening the evaluations? The entire scientific community benefits from this process, as it increases the transparency of the evaluation process and generates learning for peers, through access to substantiated and high-level evaluations. In addition, REGEPE has defined that its Peer-Review Report is a scientific product designated with a DOI and, therefore, the reviewers related to this evaluation process will be able to publicize it in their curricula, reports, among others.

 

■ What are the disadvantages of opening the evaluations? We understand that the process of opening the evaluations is recent and may be unknown to some authors. Some reviewers, when choosing to disclose their identity, may feel that:

• they will not be able to be as critical as they could, due to embarrassment;
• may suffer future retaliation by the authors of the evaluated manuscript;
• and other situations such as those described here.

■ How to open the evaluations? REGEPE created two procedures for this process, one for the authors and one for the reviewers, being.

• For authors: At the time of manuscript submission, and already described in the journal's submission, section it is mandatory that the authors complete the Declaration on Open Science Compliance and choose one of the options in each block, shown in Figure 6.

• For reviewers: After the reviewers have accepted the evaluation invitation and started this process, they will see at the end of the Evaluation Form* the question regarding the opening process and may choose one of the three options, as shown in Figure 7.

■ Note on evaluator recognition: REGEPE, with a view to recognizing and increasing the visibility of the evaluations carried out by its reviewers, strongly recommends that the reviewers have an active registration on the ReviewerCredits platform. Registration is done simply and quickly and, generating a profile where proof of the reviews carried out by the reviewers can be accessed.

 

* REGEPE Manuscript Evaluation Forms: