Analysis of the scientific production in the last years of the climate change and environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130821331Keywords:
Climate change, Production of knowledge, Scientific productionAbstract
The aim of this paper lies in the analysis of scientific literature on climate change published over the last 06 years, checking approaches and research methodologies in the area. To develop the research, we used the combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. The search for data was performed through the portal of CAPES, using as a parameter to search the following terms: "Climate change" and "Environment". The results show that the national scientific production in recent years can be considered methodologically incipient because the articles are qualitative empirical, conducted without rigorous methodology for validation of the data analyzed.
Downloads
References
ALVES, B. H. Abordagens métricas: análise da produção científica de artigos e rede de colaboração científica dos docentes do programa de pós-graduação em ciência da informação, na linha de pesquisa organização da informação da Unesp/Marília. Revista de Iniciação Científica da FFC. V. 9, Nº 2, 2009. Disponível em: http://www2.marilia.unesp.br/revistas/index.php/ric/article/view/248/208. Acesso em: 13 de jan. 2016.
AMBIEL, Rodolfo Augusto Matteo; POLLI, Mariana Fralleti. Análise da produção científica brasileira sobre avaliação psicológica em orientação profissional. Estudos Interdisciplinares em Psicologia, v. 2, n. 1, 2011. Disponível em: http://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/eip/article/view/10649/9338. Acesso em: 20 de jan. 2016.
ANDRIGHI, F.F.; HOFFMANN, V.E.; ANDRADE, M.A.R. Análise da produção científica no campo de estudo das redes em periódicos nacionais e internacionais. Revista de Administração e Inovação, v. 8, n. 1, p. 29-54, 2011. Disponível em: http://www.revistarai.org/rai/article/view/530/pdf_33. Acesso em: 13 de setembro de 2015.
BRYMAN, A. Research methods and organization studies.London: UnwinHyman, 1989.
CAUCHICK MIGUEL, P. A. (Coord.), FLEURY, Afonso, MELLO, C. E. P., NAKANO, D. N., TURRIONI, J. B., HO, L. L., MORABITO, R., MARTINS, R. A., & PUREZA, V. Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção e gestão de operações. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2010.
GIL, A. C. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 4. ed., 12. Reimp. São Paulo: Atlas, 2009.
HABBERMAS, Jurgen. Mudança estrutural da esfera pública: investigações quanto a uma categoria da sociedade burguesa. Trad. Flá- vio R. Kotche. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 2003.
MANDÚ, Edir Nei Teixeira; PEDUZZI, Marina; SILVA, Ana Maria Nunes. Análise da produção científica nacional sobre o trabalho de enfermagem. Revista Enfermagem UERJ, V. 20, Nº 1, 2012. Disponível em: http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/enfermagemuerj/article/view/4005/2774. Acesso em: 15 de jan. 2016.
MARCELO, J.F.; HAYASHI, M.C.P.I. Estudo bibliométrico sobre a produção científica no campo da sociologia da ciência. Informação & Informação, v. 18, n. 3, p. 138-153, 2013. Disponível em: http://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/informacao/article/view/8413/pdf_2. Acesso em: 15 de outubro de 2015.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
