Propetips:

a formative experience of good practices in scientific production at a public universit

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2024.1144

Keywords:

Scholarly communication, Good practice in scientific publications, Unesp-Propetips

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to analyze the contributions of Propetips, a series of texts available at the Vice-Rectorate of Research at UNESP to promote good practices in scientific production and dissemination among members of its academic community.

Method. This is a exploratory-descriptive research of a theoretical and applied nature, with a qualitative and quantitative approach. The thematic categories for the analysis of the Propetips were developed ex-ante based on an extensive review of the scientific literature on scholarly literacy, a comprehensive concept that encompasses the skills and knowledge necessary for effective participation in academic discourse. In the qualitative analysis, the content of the Propetips was explored to understand how each one contributes to the identified thematic categories, discussing the relevance and practical implications of the guidelines provided. In the quantitative analysis, the frequency of thematic categories and the presence of thematic overlaps were used as indicators to quantify the scope and focus of the Propetips.

Results. Ten thematic categories of current Propetips were identified (collaboration and academic networks, academic career development, publication strategies, research funding and support, research data management, integrity and ethics in science, scientific metrics, scientific recognition, review by peers, scientific visibility). It was found that the categories “publication strategies” and “ethics and integrity” were the most frequent, representing, together, 51.2% (n=21) of the total. The other categories (n=6) covered 34.1% (n=14) of the total, and the remaining six were double categorized, as they reflected the complexity and interconnection of the challenges faced in the contemporary academic environment. For future expansion of Propetips, 12 themes were identified (open access and scientific repositories, open and collaborative science, scientific communication for non-specialized audiences, diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in research, continuing education, multimedia digital tools, scientific communication, innovation and academic entrepreneurship, artificial intelligence and research, editorial process, retraction of scientific articles, sustainability and research, technology and innovation in research). Feedback from the academic community revealed the interest and importance of Propetips in the daily lives of teachers and researchers.

Conclusions. The study highlighted the relevance and impact of Propetips on the academic community at Unesp, highlighting its contribution to promoting scientific integrity and improving good research and publication practices. It also highlighted the importance of initiatives of this nature for the academic and scientific literacy of postgraduate students and young teachers in their academic career.

References

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION (ALA). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Final Report. Chicago: ALA, 1989.

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES (ACRL). Framework for information literacy for higher education. 2016. Disponível em: http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdf. Acesso em 14 março 2024.

BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. Ed. ver. e ampl. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2016.

CALVO, S.; CELINI, L.; MORALES, A.; MARTÍNEZ, J, M. G.; UTRILLA, P. N-C. Academic literacy and student diversity: evaluating a curriculum-integrated inclusive practice intervention in United Kingdon. Sustainability, v.12, n.3, 2020.

CASTILLO-MARTÍNEZ, I. M.; REGALADO, C. P. C.; GLASSERMAN-MORALES, L. D.; RAMÍREZ-MONTOYA, M. S. Academic literacy among the university students in Mexico and Spain: a holistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, v.13, 1055954, 2023.

CHEN, M.; ZHANG, W.; ZHENG, Q. Academic literacy development and professional identity construction in non-native English-speaking novice English Language teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, v.14, 1190312, 2023. CRANE, D .Invisible colleges; diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.

CRESWELL, J. W. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 3. ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2013.

CUMMING, A. Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy development. Language Learning, v.63, n.s1, p.130–152, 2013.

DINIS-OLIVEIRA, R. J. COVID-19 research: pandemic versus “paperdemic”, integrity, values, and risks of the speed science. Forensic Sciences Research, v.5, n.2, p. 174-187, 2020.

FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO (FAPESP). Código de boas práticas científicas. São Paulo: Fapesp, 2014.

GIL, A. C. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 7.ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2019.

GONZÁLEZ-SOLAR, L. La biblioteca universitaria orientada a la investigación: propuesta de un modelo de servicio centrado en el usuario desde la perspectiva del marketing. 2016. Tese (Doctorado em Sociedad del Conocimiento: Nuevas perspectivas en Documentación, Comunicación y Humanidades). Coruña: Universidad da Coruña, 2016.

GRANT, M. J.; BOOTH, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 reviews types and associated methodologies. Healt Information and Libraries Journal, v.26, p. 91-108, 2009.

GUIMARÃES, J. A.; HAYASHI, M. C. P. I. Revistas predatórias: um inimigo a ser combatido na comunicação científica. Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, v.21, e023003, 2023.

HAAS, P. M. 1992. Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, v. 46, n. 1, p. 1-35, 1992.

HJØRLAND, B. Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches-traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, v.58, n.4, p.422-462, 2002.

HJØRLAND, B. Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization: v.44, n.6, p. 436-464, 2017.

KLARARE, A.; RYDEMAN, I-B.; KNECK, A.; SPÁREN, E. B.; WINNBERG, E.; BISHOLT, B. Methods and strategies to promote academic literacies in health profession: a scoping review. BMC Medical Education, v.22, 418, 2022.

KOLTAY, T.; ŠPIRANEC, S.; KARVALICS, L. S. Research 2.0 and the future of information literacy. Cambridge: Chandos, 2016.

LI, D. A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, v.7, n.5, p. 1-22, 2022.

MARINKOVICH, J.; VELÁSQUEZ, M.; CÓRDOVA, A.; CID, C. Academic literacy and genres in university learning communities. Ilha do Desterro v. 69, n.3, p. 095-113, 2016.

MARQUES, F. Dicas contra a má conduta em linguagem simples. Revista Pesquisa FAPESP, v. 301, p.10, mar. 2021.

MARZAL, M. A. A taxonomic proposal for multiliteracies and their competencies. Profesional de la Información, v.29, n.4, e290435, 2020.

MEZA, C. S. R. A bibliometric analysis of academic literacy: a review of the state of the art, from the past to future. Revista de Educación, v.394, p. 63-94, 2021.

MURESAN, L.M., ORNA-MONTESINOS, C. (2021). Academic literacy development: what does it entail for multilingual scholars? In: MURESAN, L.M., ORNA-MONTESINOS, C. (Eds.). Academic Literacy Development. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.

PRÓ-REITORIA DE PESQUISA (PROPe/Unesp). Propetips. 2024. Disponível em: https://www2.unesp.br/portal#!/prope/apoio-ao-pesquisador/propetips/ Acesso em 14 março 2024.

REFERENCIAL da literacia da informação para o ensino superior. Trad. de Tatiana Sanchez, Maria Luz Antunes e Carlos Lopes. Lisboa: BAD, 2022.

SILVA, E. G. O escritório de comunicação científica como perspectiva de atuação para bibliotecas universitárias brasileiras. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência da Informação). Marília: Unesp, 2023.

SUAREZ-BRITO, P.; BAENA-ROJAS, J. LÓPEZ-CAUDANA, O.; GLASSERMAN-MORALES, L. D. Academic literacy as a component of complex thinking in higer education: a scoping review. European Journal of Contemporary Education, v. 11, n.3, p. 931-945, 2022.

SWALES, J. The concept of discourse community. In: SWALES, J. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. p. 21-32.

YOUNG, S.; MALEY, M. Using practitioner-engaged evidence synthesis to teach research and information literacy skills: a model and case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, v. 44, n.2, p. 231-237, 2018).

ZHAO, S. et al. The effect of information literacy training on graduate student’s ability to use library resources. College & Research Libraries, v.84, n.1, p.7-29, 2023.

ZURKOWSKI, P.G. The information service: environment, relationships, and priorities. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1974.

Downloads

Published

2025-02-14

How to Cite

Hayashi, M. C. P. I., & Chaves Guimarães, J. A. (2025). Propetips: : a formative experience of good practices in scientific production at a public universit. Biblios Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, (87), e013. https://doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2024.1144

Issue

No. 87 (2024): Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge: Achievements, Opportunities and Challenges

Section

Original

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Maria Cristina Piumbato Innocentini Hayashi, José Augusto Chaves Guimarães

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.