Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2020;19(6):434-35
doi: 10.33233/rbfex.v19i6.4525
EDITORIAL
Integrity
and credibility: twin terms of scientific research
Jefferson Petto1,2,3,
Antônio Marcos Andrade2, Marvyn de Santana
do Sacramento1,2
1ACTUS CORDIOS
Reabilitação Cardiovascular, Respiratória e Metabólica, Salvador, BA, Brazil
2Centro Universitário
Social da Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil
3Escola Bahiana de Medicina e saúde Pública, Salvador, BA, Brazil
Corresponding author: Marvyn
de Santana do Sacramento. Av. Anita Garibaldi, 1815 CME Sala 13 Ondina 40170-130
Salvador BA
Jefferson Petto:
gfpecba@bol.com.br
Antônio Marcos Andrade:
antoniomarcoshand@gmail.com
Marvyn de Santana do Sacramento: marvynsantana@gmail.com
With the occurrence of the
COVID-19 pandemic, science
gains a lea-ding role on the world stage. The
scientific community has become even more demanding for
the presentation of
results in a
short time. This
need for per-formance is now used as a justification
by some scientists to neglect some as-sumptions of the scientific method, thus
putting scientific credibility at risk. However, unfortunately
this questioning is
not new. Douglas
Altman in his
editorial published by JAMA [1], already called attention to the low
scientific quality of articles
published in medical
journals. Currently, in the scientific
field, we are
experiencing, beyond an
epidemic of the
virus, an epidemic
of information, where it is
produced on a large scale and at high speed, often wi-thout complying with due
methodological rigor, a fact that compromises the veracity of the information,
and contributes to a deficient scientific ecosystem and, consequently, with low
credibility.
An important part of this complicated ecosystem is scientific journals,
which are the vehicle responsible for legitimizing and disseminating the
results of research. The exponential appearance of new journals, as well as
their practices for evaluating articles, has been criticized, as they reinforce
the spread of low-quality information. To reveal the bad practices that hinder
the scientific process, many researchers in the world have used cunning means
to test the integrity of several journals. Recently, an anonymous group
mimicked the production of a scientific article related to COVID-19 and
submitted it to one of the OMICS Group magazines. The absence of a peer review
resulted in the publication of a scientific satire that united elements of Geek
culture with messages of accusation to the group's predatory practices, in the
body of the article itself [2].
Facts like these foster an environment of mistrust and generate a
negative wave that culminates in the discrediting of what scientists have tried
so hard to tackle in centuries of science - the idea that the scientific
process is reliable. The disrespect for integrity that thrives among authors
and magazines emanates thoughts of discredit in the public that believes in
evidence-based health. It is a blow to one of the main pillars on which the
research is based: scientific honesty.
For such practices to be banned from our spectrum, it is necessary that
authors and journals (this includes all those who directly participate in the
constitution of one - maintaining entities, administrators, editors and
reviewers) are not silent on this reality and are aware of their role.
The researcher's choices have a strong influence on the perpetuation of
predatory magazines. The need for publication, whether due to the status,
remuneration or requirements of graduate programs, often incites this behavior.
However, we must not give in to such pressures. We have a moral duty to excel
in the quality of what we publish, avoiding the ruse that “the more the
better!”. It is true that we can all make this mistake unconsciously, since we
often do not know the diversity of existing magazines. A good way to avoid this
is to evaluate how the article review process occurs.
Considering this spectrum, the strengthening of peer review is one of
the amalgams of the consolidation of integrity in science that must be valued.
However, something that should be fruitful by the authors, as it demonstrates
the necessary respect for a product of such great effort, is sometimes
misinterpreted. The detailed review of each section of the article and the
scientific and intellectual content contained therein, only dignifies the
article produced by the authors. Even the rejection of a work demonstrates an
evaluative screen that protects those who produce and consume science. However,
the policy employed in predatory magazines has tainted what should be viewed
with complete deference. The policy that is based on the money-production dyad
(“Take it from here”) should be extinguished from the scientific community. For
this, it is necessary that editors, reviewers and authors cultivate a science
devoid of vested and personal interests.
We know the need for financial resources for scientific journals to be
maintained. Especially in Brazil, there are few public resources for so many
scientific journals and most of the time it is necessary that the journals
themselves raise these resources through evaluation and publication fees.
However, it is not permissible that this is what guides the publication, but,
rather, the quality of scientific production. In this process, we understand
that the most Herculean work to be done is that of the reviewers, who most of
the time do not receive it and are underrated.
In this line of thought, the Revista
Brasileira de Fisiologia do
Exercício has sought to improve the process of
evaluating the scientific articles received. We know that this process is not
simple as it involves a series of requirements that range from the
qualification of reviewers, editors and administrative staff. In addition, the
time required to conduct an assessment is long, as it involves critical
reading, plagiarism verification, veracity of information, updating on the
corresponding literature and, finally, issuing a qualified opinion. As direct
participants in the maintenance of the Revista
Brasileira de Fisiologia do
Exercício, we know that it is difficult to find
researchers trained and willing to participate as reviewers of scientific
articles, and for that reason, during the year 2020 we had some meetings to
align the evaluation processes and qualification of our editorial board. We
will be in 2021 trying to trim our edges and working on the maintenance of a
magazine that is seen by the scientific community with smoothness and quality.
It is a long and painful path, but we will strive for that. May 2021, reserve
us better days.