Editorial: Instruments and support practices for the achievement of Open Science goals – For a review of data in Criminal Procedural Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v4i2.165Keywords:
editorial, open science, Criminal Procedural Law, Review of data.Abstract
This article discusses the applicability of open peer review to criminal investigation data. First, it means identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the dataset review and validation process. Second, there will be evidence of practices that facilitate process transparency, data diffusion, reliability and reuse. To achieve these objectives, it will be argued that it is necessary to adopt a methodology on which to base the selection criteria of the scientific community of reference, to identify the types of actors and the relative modalities of analysis, at the moment when the construction of a collaborative and participative context is the first step to delimit a community representative of the criminal process and its different research techniques.Downloads
References
CALLAGHAN, Sarah et. al., Making Data a First Class Scientific Output: Data Citation and Publication by NERC’s Environmental Data Centres. International Journal of Digital Curation, 2012, p. 11 s.
CALLAGHAN, Sarah et al., Processes and Procedures for Data Publication: A Case Study in the Geosciences. International Journal of Digital Curation, 2013, p. 6 s.
CALLAGHAN, Sarah et al., Guidelines on Recommending Data Repositories as Partners in Publishing Research Data. International Journal of Digital Curation, 2014, p. 23 s.
CANDELA, Leonardo et al., Data Journals: A Survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, p. 23 s.
FECHER, Benedikt et al., A Reputation Economy: How Individual Reward Considerations Trump Systemic Arguments for Open Access to Data. Palgrave Communications, Nature Publishing Group, 2017, p. 17051 s.
JENG, Wei et al., Toward a Conceptual Framework for Data Sharing Practices in Social Sciences: A Profile Approach. In the Proceedings of the ASIS, 2016, p. 21 s.
KRATZ, John Ernest; STRASSER, Carly, Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data. PLoS ONE, 2015, p. 35 s.
LAWRENCE, Bryan, Citation and Peer Review of Data: Moving Towards Formal Data Publication, 2011, p. 6 s.
MAYERNIK, Matthew S. et al., Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2015, p. 11 s.
MERTON, Robert K., Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 1957, p. 22 s.
MERTON, Robert K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press, 1973, p. 45 s.
PARSONS, Mark A. et al., Data Citation and Peer Review. Eos, 2013, p. 297-298.
REILLY, Susan et al., Report on Integration of Data and Publications, 2011, p. 33 s.
WANG, Richard; STRONG, Diane, Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 12, n. 4, Spring, 1996, p. 5-33.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
How to Cite
