Boas práticas em pesquisa e editoração científica: o que conhecem os pesquisadores-enfermeiros do Brasil?

Alvaro Francisco de de Sousa; Maria Helena Palucci Marziale; Evelin Capellari Cárnio; Carla Aparecida Arena Ventura; Sara Soares Santos; Isabel Amélia Costa Mendes

doi:10.1590/SciELOPreprints.1781

##article.authors##

Alvaro Francisco de de Sousa Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2710-2122
Maria Helena Palucci Marziale Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
Evelin Capellari Cárnio Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
Carla Aparecida Arena Ventura Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
Sara Soares Santos Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
Isabel Amélia Costa Mendes Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0704-4319

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.1781

Keywords:

Nursing, Research Personnel, Research, Publishing, Scholarly Communication, Knowledge

Abstract

Objective: to verify the knowledge of nurse-researchers on trends in scientific publishing and good research practices, as well as to compare the results according to the degree of training. Method: descriptive study conducted through an online survey with 197 nurses with master's and/or doctorate degrees from all Brazilian regions. To raise knowledge, a validated, self-administered and anonymous questionnaire was used. Descriptive and inferential analyzes were performed on the researchers' score (Mann-Whitney test). Results: Among the 18 specific questions, the average of correct answers was 7.1; being 6.4 for masters and 7.4 for doctors. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean of correct answers between masters and doctors (p=0.025), and between productivity scholarship holders and non-scholarship holders (p=0.021), according to means difference tests. Questions about predatory editorial practices were those in which researchers performed worse. Conclusion: We identified a low level of knowledge among the participants, regardless of their level of education (master's or doctorate). The expansion of dissemination and articulation strategies for this knowledge is necessary for the production of quality scientific knowledge in the area.