<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0120-0976</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Rev. Interam. Bibliot]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0120-0976</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Escuela Interamericana de Bibliotecología]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0120-09762020000100005</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1ei3</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Avaliadores da área de ciência da informação frente à open peer review]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Information Science Reviewers Versus the Open Peer Review]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="es"><![CDATA[Evaluadores del área de la ciencia de la información frente al open peer review]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Targino]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Maria das Graças]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Garcia]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Joana Coeli Ribeiro]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nascimento da Silva]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Kleisson Lainnon]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidade Federal do Paraíba  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Paraíba ]]></addr-line>
<country>Brazil</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af2">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidade Federal da Paraíba  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Paraíba ]]></addr-line>
<country>Brazil</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af3">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidade Federal da Paraíba  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
<country>Brazil</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>04</month>
<year>2020</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>04</month>
<year>2020</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>43</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0120-09762020000100005&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0120-09762020000100005&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0120-09762020000100005&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="pt"><p><![CDATA[Resumo A avaliação de originais pelos pares é o meio mais eficiente de a ciência assegurar sua qualidade. Assim, é imprescindível analisar o sistema avaliativo que se delineia na atualidade: a open peer review. Objetiva-se avaliar a viabilidade de sua adoção dentre avaliadores em ciência da informação. São objetivos específicos: analisar a perspectiva de utilização da open peer review no âmbito das revistas de ciência da informação classificadas pelo sistema Qualis da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; avaliar o conhecimento da revisão aberta sob a ótica dos avaliadores; delinear (des)vantagens que os avaliadores percebem, em especial, quanto ao sistema open peer review. Utiliza-se como método da pesquisa (quali-quantitativa) o survey. A população da pesquisa incorpora os avaliadores dos 34 títulos de periódicos da ciência da informação com conceito A e B atribuídos pela Coordenação, alcançando-se a amostra de 189 dentre o total de 709 avaliadores (26,6%). A coleta de dados se dá via questionários eletrônicos enviados às unidades amostrais em intervalos sistemáticos. Dentre os resultados, chama atenção o fato de a maioria (137 ou 72,4%) dos avaliadores demonstrar disposição em adotar a open peer review, embora reconheçam que, como qualquer outro sistema de arbitragem, possui vantagens e desvantagens.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Abstract The evaluation of originals by peers is the best way of ensuring the science quality. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the evaluative system that is currently outlined: The open peer review. It is the macro objective of the paper to evaluate the feasibility of adopting open evaluation in the sphere of reviewers in the area of information science. The specific objectives are to analyze the perspective of future use of open peer review in the information science journals classified by the Qualis system of the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; to evaluate the knowledge of the open peer review from the viewpoint of the reviewers; to identify the (dis)advantages that scientific journals evaluators perceive regarding the open peer review. The research method (qualitative-quantitative research) is the survey. The research population includes reviewers of all 34 information science journals with concept A and B attributed by this Coordenação, reaching a sample of 189 out of the total of 709 reviewers (26.6%). The data were collected through electronic questionnaires sent to the sample units. Among the results, it is remarkable that most (137 or 72.4%) of the reviewers are willing to adopt open review, although they recognize that, like any other arbitration system, it has its advantages and disadvantages.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="es"><p><![CDATA[Resumen La evaluación de originales por pares ha sido el mejor medio de la ciencia para asegurar su calidad. Por consiguiente, es imprescindible analizar el sistema evaluativo que se perfila en la actualidad: el open peer review. Se pretende evaluar la viabilidad de adoptar la revisión abierta por evaluadores en ciencia de la información. Son objetivos específicos analizar la perspectiva de utilización del open peer review en el ámbito de las revistas de ciencia de la información clasificadas por el sistema Qualis de la Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; evaluar el conocimiento de la revisión abierta bajo la óptica de los evaluadores; esbozar desventajas que los evaluadores perciben en cuanto al sistema open review. Se utiliza como método de investigación (cuali-cuantitativa) la encuesta. La población de la investigación comprende los editores de los 34 títulos de revistas de ciencias de la información con concepto A y B atribuidos por esta entidad, alcanzando una muestra de 189 del total de 709 evaluadores (26,6 %). La recolección de información se dio por medio de cuestionarios electrónicos enviados a las unidades muestrales. Entre los resultados, llama la atención el hecho de que la mayoría (137, 72,4 %) de los evaluadores demuestran disposición para adoptar el open peer review, aunque ellos reconocen que, como cualquier otro sistema de arbitraje, posee ventajas y desventajas.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[avaliação da ciência]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[avaliação por pares]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[avaliação por pares aberta]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[ciência aberta]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[comunicação científica]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[o futuro da avaliação por pares]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Science evaluation]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[peer review]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[open peer review]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[open science]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[scientific communication]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[the future of peer review]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[evaluación de la ciencia]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[evaluación por pares]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[evaluación abierta por pares]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[ciencia abierta]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[comunicación científica]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[el futuro de la evaluación por pares]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Amsen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Eva]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[What is open peer review?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[F1000 Research]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Crawford]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Susan]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Stucki]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Loretta]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Peer review and the changing research record]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Journal of the American Society for Information Science]]></source>
<year>1990</year>
<volume>41</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>223-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Csiszar]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Alex]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Peer review: troubled from the start]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Nature]]></source>
<year>2016</year>
<volume>532</volume>
<page-range>306-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Curty]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Renata]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[eScience: diferentes vieses, fontes e iniciativas]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tomael]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M. I.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Alcará]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A. R.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Fontes de informação digital]]></source>
<year>2016</year>
<page-range>77-118</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Londrina ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[UEL]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[David]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Paul]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Spence]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Michael]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Towardsinstitutional infrastructures for eScience: the scope of the challenge]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Oxford ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[The University of Oxford]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[DeCoursey]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Thomas]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Nature]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ford]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Emily]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Defining and characterizing open peer review: Areview of the literature]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Portland ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Portland State University]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="confpro">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Garcia]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Joana]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Targino]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Maria]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Open peer review sob a ótica de editores das revistas brasileiras da ciência da informação]]></source>
<year>2017</year>
<conf-name><![CDATA[ Anais do Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação]]></conf-name>
<conf-loc>Marília, SP, Brasil </conf-loc>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hey]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Tony]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Trefethen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Anne]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[eScience and its implications]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>361</volume>
<numero>1809</numero>
<issue>1809</issue>
<page-range>1809-25</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hopewell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Sally]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Collins]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Gary]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Boutron]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Isabelle]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Yu]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ly]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cook]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Jonathan]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Shanyinde]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Milensu]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Altman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Douglas]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[The BMJ]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>349</volume>
<numero>4145</numero>
<issue>4145</issue>
<page-range>1-11</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="confpro">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kern]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Vinícius]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Inovações na revisão por pares: o papel do software]]></source>
<year>2017</year>
<conf-name><![CDATA[ Anais do Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciência da Informação]]></conf-name>
<conf-loc>Marília, SP, Brasil </conf-loc>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Le Coadic]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Yves-François]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[A ciência da informação]]></source>
<year>(199</year>
<month>6</month>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Brasília ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Briquet de Lemos Livros]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Marconi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Marina]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lakatos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Eva]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Técnicas de pesquisa]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<edition>7</edition>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[São Paulo ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Atlas]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Merton]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Robert]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[American Sociological Review]]></source>
<year>1957</year>
<volume>22</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>635-59</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mora]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Andrea]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Nuevas formas de revisión por pares en revistas científicas: revisión abierta /open review]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>13</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>1-4</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nassi-Calò]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Lilian.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Avaliação por pares: ruim com ela, pior sem ela. Scielo em Perspectiva]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nassi-Calò]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Lilian]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Aumenta a adoção de avaliação por pares aberta. Scielo em Perspectiva]]></source>
<year>2017</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<label>18</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>OMS</collab>
<source><![CDATA[OMS muda classificação de idade para jovens e idosos]]></source>
<year>2018</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<label>19</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<collab>Nature</collab>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Overview: Nature&#8217;s peer review trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Nature]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<label>20</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ranalli]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Brent]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[A prehistory of peer review: religious blueprints from the Hartlib Circle]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>5</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>12-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<label>21</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ross-Hellauer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Tony]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[What is open peer review? A systematic review]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[F1000 Research]]></source>
<year>2017</year>
<volume>6</volume>
<numero>588</numero>
<issue>588</issue>
<page-range>1-30</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<label>22</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Shanahan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Daniel]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Olsen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Bjorn]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Opening peer-review: the democracy of science]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>13</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>1-2</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<label>23</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Spinak]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ernersto]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Sobre as vinte e duas definições de avaliação aberta... e mais]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Scielo em Perspectiva]]></source>
<year>2018</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<label>24</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Stumpf]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ida]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Avaliação de originais nas revistas científicas: uma trajetória em busca do acerto]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ferreira]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S.M. S. P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Targino]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M. G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Preparação de revistas científicas: teoria e prática]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<page-range>103-22</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[São Paulo ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Reichmann &amp; Autores]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<label>25</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Targino]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Maria]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Garcia]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Joana]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Perspectivas da avaliação por pares aberta: instigante ponto de interrogação]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[SciELO em Perspectiva]]></source>
<year>2018</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<label>26</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tennant]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Jon]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Graziotin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Daniel]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kearns]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Sara]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Nós temos a tecnologia para salvar a avaliação por pares - agora compete às nossas comunidades implementá-las]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Scielo em Perspectiva]]></source>
<year>2017</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<label>27</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Walsh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rooney]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Applely]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wilkinson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[The British Journal of Psychiatry]]></source>
<year>2000</year>
<volume>176</volume>
<page-range>47-51</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B28">
<label>28</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ziman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[John]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Conhecimentopúblico]]></source>
<year>1979</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Belo Horizonte ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Itatiaia]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
