Revisiting 2019, setting goals for 2020, and reflecting upon open science

The major objectives of the Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia (JBP, Brazilian Journal of Pulmonology) are to disseminate Brazilian research in the field of respiratory diseases and related areas, to expand the internationalization of the journal, and to act as one of the major sources of updates for the members of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (Brazilian Thoracic Society), increasingly reaching out to our readers. The JBP will celebrate its 45th anniversary in 2020. Since its inception, it has matured in the dissemination of knowledge by monitoring the developments and occasional events occurring in the field of pulmonology, continuing to be the leading Latin American journal in the field. The secondary and indirect objectives that should be highlighted are to increase the interest of recent graduates in the field and to promote the development of new researchers in related areas.

In 2019, various goals proposed by the current board of the JBP were achieved. Of those, we would like to highlight the following¹:

• Adoption of the continuous publication model, maintaining the number of six issues per year, in order to reduce the time between approval and online availability of the articles, followed by discontinuation of publication of the printed version

• Increasing the number of editorials with the participation of international authors, thus enhancing the visibility of the journal

• Continuation of the process of updating guidelines and consensuses on major respiratory diseases, which constitute an important instrument for consultation and assistance in addressing such diseases, especially for pulmonologists in Brazil^2,3

• Broader dissemination of select articles on social networks, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, including comments by the authors

• Updating the instructions to authors and reviewers

• Systematic use of the iThenticate tool to check for plagiarism in all articles to be reviewed

• Creation of the Continuing Education in Respiratory Physiology section, which has been well evaluated in a recent poll (data not shown)

• Strengthening the partnership with the Pulmonology Journal (formerly the Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia) to expand the dissemination of the JBP and its articles

• Publication of thematic issues on tuberculosis and COPD

There are various goals for the JBP in 2020, the year of its 45th anniversary:

• Increasing the impact factor-to be updated in 2020-which is based on the number of articles cited to date

• Management of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) directly by the JBP, dispensing with the need for intermediation by SciELO, in order to streamline the registration of the articles in the CrossRef database

• Updating the JBP website to improve the layout, increase the speed of access, and expand the number of tools available

• Inclusion of links to podcasts on top articles

• Optimization of the time from approval to the online publication of articles, thus increasing their dissemination and the number of potential citations

• Initiating the publication of guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of respiratory diseases based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology,⁴ which will inform decisions regarding the definition of public policies

• Increasing the number of review articles that facilitate daily practice in the field of respiratory diseases, including topics of greater interest to the JBP readers.

In Plan S,⁵ organized by an international coalition, as well as in presentations in various forums and publications by the SciELO Program, it has been suggested that open practices of scientific communication be adopted over the next five years. This scientific model includes open and unrestricted access to all peer-reviewed publications, acceptance of manuscripts previously deposited on a preprint server, adoption of the continuous publication modality, making all research content available in detail, and the possibility of open peer review.^5-8 However, although most of the proposals put forth have been in agreement regarding open communication, which will certainly contribute to the progress of science, establish greater transparency in editorial processes, and democratize access to information, there are still certain questions about the universal adoption of this policy, even within the international scientific community, especially regarding the possibility of opening the peer review process (i.e., disclosing the identity of the reviewers to the authors). Certainly, there are advantages to an open peer review process, because it will increase the importance of the reviewers and promote a trend toward improvement of the quality of the evaluations, because all of the participants are likely to be more careful in carrying out their part in the process and to venture out of their comfort zone. However, there are potential negative aspects of this process, including a higher risk that reviewers will decline to participate in the peer review process (given that it has already been difficult to find reviewers in the various areas of knowledge using the traditional model) and a potential risk of “retaliation” by authors in the event of negative reviews regarding the manuscript in question.

We should recognize that there is still much room for improvement and that the task is not a simple one. However, I would like to emphasize the key roles played by the editors, reviewers, editorial assistants, and board of directors of the Brazilian Thoracic Society, as well as by the authors and the readers, in improving and increasing the international recognition of the JBP, so that the JBP becomes a target journal even for authors in other countries due to the improvement of the quality of the articles. There are various ongoing challenges, including the need to expand the number of reviewers and the number of international collaborations in the articles published, as well as to promote partnerships among Brazilian research groups. In addition, we should seek to shorten the turnaround time for the initial peer review and streamline the online publication process in order to help improve the quality of the submissions received and provide information to the readers in a more reliable manner. We also need to broaden the discussion in order to consolidate the universal adoption of open science communication practices in the coming years, as advocated in Plan S and the SciELO Program.^5-8 We welcome critiques and suggestions for the improvement of JBP.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Baldi BG, Chatkin JM. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia: perspectives for the next four years. J Bras Pneumol. 2019;45(1):e20190028. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20190028
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20190028
• ²
  Sales MPU, Araújo AJ, Chatkin JM, Godoy I, Pereira LFF, Castellano MVCO, et al. Update on the approach to smoking in patients with respiratory diseases. J Bras Pneumol. 2019;45(3):e20180314. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20180314
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20180314
• ³
  Pereira MC, Athanazio RA, Dalcin PTR, Figueiredo MRF, Gomes M, Freitas CG, et al. Brazilian consensus on non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. J Bras Pneumol. 2019;45(4):e20190122. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20190122
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20190122
• ⁴
  Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. Coordenação-Geral de Gestão do Conhecimento. Diretrizes metodológicas: Sistema GRADE - manual de graduação da qualidade da evidência e força de recomendação para tomada de decisão em saúde. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2014.
• ⁵
  Plan S [homepage on the Internet]. Brussels: Science Europe AISBL; c2019 [cited 2019 Dec 29]. cOAlition S--Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications. [Adobe Acrobat document, 9p.]. Available from: https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/PlanS_Principles_and_Implementation_310519.pdf
  » https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/PlanS_Principles_and_Implementation_310519.pdf
• ⁶
  SciELO 20 Anos [homepage on the Internet]. São Paulo: SciELO; c2018 [cited 2019 Dec 29]. SciELO--Linhas prioritárias de ação 2019-2023. [Adobe Acrobat document, 13p.]. Available from: https://www.scielo20.org/redescielo/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/09/Líneas-prioritaris-de-acción-2019-2023_pt.pdf
  » https://www.scielo20.org/redescielo/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/09/Líneas-prioritaris-de-acción-2019-2023_pt.pdf
• ⁷
  Packer AL. O modelo SciELO de publicação como política pública de acesso aberto. SciELO em Perspectiva [serial on the Internet]. 2019 Dec 18 [cited 2019 Dec 29]:[about 5 screens]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2019/12/18/o-modelo-scielo-de-publicacao-como-politica-publica-de-acesso-aberto/
  » https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2019/12/18/o-modelo-scielo-de-publicacao-como-politica-publica-de-acesso-aberto
• ⁸
  Velterop J. É iminente um dramático impulso ao acesso aberto? Acredito que sim!. SciELO em Perspectiva [serial on the Internet]. 2019 Feb 13 [cited 2019 Dec 29]:[about 13 screens]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2019/02/13/e-iminente-um-dramatico-impulso-ao-acesso-aberto-acredito-que-sim/
  » https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2019/02/13/e-iminente-um-dramatico-impulso-ao-acesso-aberto-acredito-que-sim

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  02 Mar 2020
• Date of issue
  2020