rev bras ortop.2017;52(4):371–372
SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE ORTOPEDIA E TRAUMATOLOGIA
w w w . r b o . o r g . b r
Editorial
Objectivity
in
scientific
publication
A
objetividade
na
publicac¸ão
científica
Withsocial mediaand search engines, the agility and the objectivityofinformationretrievalhasundergonean impor-tantadvance.
Thesenewfeatureshaveledamajortransformationinall mediaandoutreachmechanisms.
Scientificpublicationshavenotyetbeenaffectedbythis evolution,insuchawaythatwearedistancingourselvesfrom thewaysoftransmittingknowledgetoyoungpeople.
Anewfactispublicizedinseconds,whileintheacademic worldwestillfollowanarchaicmethodologythatdelaysthis processbymonths.
Academicstudiesfollowaproductionlinethatisstillbased overaverylongperiod.
Webeginthewritingofourstudieswithanintroduction, along chapter thatjustifies and situates the subjectto be described.Thissection was appropriatewhenthe journals weregeneral,addressingseveralspecializations;forexample, articleswouldexplainthatknee osteoarthrosiswasa com-mondisease,affectingmorewomen,etc.,asthereaderswere generalpractitioners.
Currently, journals address specializations or even restricted areas such as anatomical segments or specific diseases (such as Foot and Ankle, Sports Medicine, Journal of Biophotonics), which makes it unnecessary to provide long informationonthetopictobestudied.
Abibliographicreviewisalsounnecessary,asstudieson thesubjectcanbeeasilyaccessedthroughsearchsites,which arevery wellstructured;perhapsavery specificcitationof worksonthesubjectcouldbemade.
Material,methods,results,andconclusionarethecoreof theworkandmustbeobjectiveanddirect.
Thediscussionshouldonlyaddresscontroversialaspects ofthework,sothereadercaneasilyresearchadubiouspoint. Regardingtheses,inadditiontotheirmoreelaborate pro-duction,publicdefensesareheld,buttheaudienceislimited toafewpeopleinthecandidate’sfamilywhodonot under-stand the subject and are frequently annoyed by a more
inquisitive committeemember. These events endwith the usualapproval,photosofthecandidatewiththecommittee, andforgetfulness.
Theses,which sometimesare very long and have enor-moustitles(discussedandmodifiedseveraltimes)andover 100bibliographicalcitations,aredestinedtoashelftoberarely consulted.
AsurveyconductedattheMedicalSchoolofUSPshowed thatpublicationinscientificjournalsisnotthenorm.
Ithink weshouldabolish thethesisand replace itwith themoremodernandstraightforwardarticle,whichwouldbe readandconsulted,disseminatingtheknowledgegenerated bytheapplicant,asisthegoal.
The examiningcommitteesmimic the meetings of car-dinals; dressed in borrowed,mothball-scented robes(most of which are too small or too large),they seek to demon-strate in their structure (braces, vests, hats) an academic hierarchythatnooneunderstandsorcaresabout.The mem-bers,threeorfive,willanalyzethesamework inthesame way.
The assessment performed in the current system – in which the members ofthe examining committeeevaluate print quality, detailin the useof thePortuguese language, qualityofthephotos,numericaltables,andobjectivity(orlack thereof)–shouldbereplacedbyananalysisofthecandidate’s career, because the study itself,inits formand suitability forpublication, wouldbe analyzedbythe reviewers ofthe journalsinwhichthearticleispublished.Editorialsystems areveryefficientandreliable,andapprovalforpublicationin previouslyselectedjournalswouldbeoneofthecriteriafor obtainingthedesireddegree.
Thestudywouldbemoreefficientlypublicizedandwould reachagreaternumberofreaders.
372
rev bras ortop.2017;52(4):371–372of printing. This already occurs at the beginning of some graduateprograms, whenthe candidatesare given articles madebyotherauthors,sothattheirthesescanbedefended morequickly.
Thecandidateisapprovedasagood“thesiswriter,”rather thanasagoodresearcherorteacher.
Publicityisparamountfortheappreciationoftheworkand theauthor.
Currently,therearetwotypesofreadersofscientific stud-ies:
- thosewhoaredoingbibliographicresearchonthesubject, forwhomthejournalinwhichtheworkwaspublishedisof secondaryimportance;
- andthosewhoarejournalreaders,flippingthroughitasa newspaperandstoppingonthemostimportantarticles.
Nowadays, studies approved by RBO are sent to Sci-enceDirect,whichallowsonlineaccesstothem inashort time, catering to the bibliography researcher. The printed
publicationisalsoavailable;however,duetospaceand peri-odicitylimitations,theaccesstotheinformationisslower.
Ibelievethatthecombinationofthetwosystemsmeets thedemandforinformationanddisseminationofcurrent sci-entificproduction.Wejustneedtotailorthetextstothemore modernpublishingsystems,consideringtheobjectivityofthe subject and the ease of searching in specialized websites. Shorterandmoreobjectiveworkswillbetheresult,facilitating consultationandincreasingthepossibilityofpublication.
GilbertoLuisCamanho RevistaBrasileiradeOrtopedia,SãoPaulo,SP,Brazil
E-mail:[email protected]
2255-4971/©2017PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.on behalfofSociedadeBrasileiradeOrtopediaeTraumatologia. ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2017.07.002
