Comentários sobre avaliação, pressão por publicação, produtivismo acadêmico e ética científica

1Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Following an invitation by the author, our comment on the paper by Moysés Kuhlmann Jr. (2014) aims to qualify a debate. According to the paper structure, we express our points of disagreement and agreement in two parts. First, against the disqualification of the debate, we analyze the arguments and statements presented in the paper, based on philosophical references on the argumentative, rhetorical and illocutionary/perlocutionary language uses. Concerning the term fallacy, used by the author, we discuss a tendency in this debate and postulate a distinction between critical analysis and tactical disqualification. Second, for the qualification of the debate, we reiterate points that the author highlighted, presenting contributions to an open debate.

References Powered by Scopus

Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US states data

511Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Why current publication practices may distort science

354Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The growing competition in Brazilian science: Rites of passage, stress and burnout

80Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The scientific production of nutrition published by the scientific electronic library under the gaze of the evaluation of the coordination for the development of higher education personnel

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vilaça, M. M., & Palma, A. (2015). Comentários sobre avaliação, pressão por publicação, produtivismo acadêmico e ética científica. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 45(158), 794–816. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053142836

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

77%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

15%

Researcher 1

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 7

64%

Business, Management and Accounting 2

18%

Computer Science 1

9%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free