Proceeding Brapci-Revistas
Vinícius Medina Kern

[erro abnt]

References

  • ALTER, Steven. 18 reasons why IT-reliant work systems should replace “the IT artifact” as the core subject matter of the IS field. Communications of the AIS, v. 12, art. 23, p. 366-395, 2003.
  • ALVAREZ, Gonzalo Rubén., CAREGNATO, Sônia Elisa. Preprints na comunicação científica da Física de Altas Energias: análise das submissões no repositório arXiv (2010-2015). Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, v. 22, n. 2, p. 104-117, 2017.
  • BOSTROM, Robert P.., HEINEN, J. Stephen. MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, v. 1, n. 3, p. 17-32, 1977.
  • CHERNS, Albert. The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, v. 2, n. 9, p. 783792, 1976.
  • DENISCZWICZ, Marta., KERN, Vinícius Medina. Fontes dos problemas na revisão por pares que levam à retratação de artigos divulgados no Retraction Watch. In: ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA EM CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO, 17., 2016, Salvador. Anais… Salvador: UFBA, 2016. p. 3447-3466.
  • ECCLES, D. W.., GROTH, P. T. Agent coordination and communication in sociotechnological systems: Design and measurement issues. Interacting with Computers, v. 18, n. 6, p. 11701185, 2006.
  • FUCHS, Christian. The internet as a self-organizing socio-technological system. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, v. 12, n. 3, p. 57-81, 2005.
  • KILOV, Haim., SACK, Ira. Mechanisms for communication between business and IT experts. Computer Standards and Interfaces, v. 31, n. 1, p. 98-109, 2009.
  • KINCAID, J. Peter., FOSHBURNE, Robert P.., ROGERS, Richard L.., CHISSOM, Brad S. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch, 1975. 40 p. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 13 ago 2017.
  • O´REILLY, Tim. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, n. 1, p. 17-37, 2007.
  • PINHEIRO, Lêna Vania Ribeiro. Free access to open science: concepts and implications for science communication. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação and Inovação em Saúde, v. 8, n. 2, 2014.
  • RENNIE, Drummond. Make peer review scientific: thirty years on from the first congress on peer review, Drummond Rennie reflects on the improvements brought about by research into the process--and calls for more. Nature, v. 535, n. 7610, p. 31-34, 2016.
  • RESEARCH INFORMATION NETWORK. Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK: Report commissioned by the Research Information Network (RIN). 2008. 88 p. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 06 ago 2017.
  • SAWYER, Steve., CROWSTON, Kevin. Information systems in organizations and society: Speculating on the next 25 years of research. In: Information systems research. Boston: Springer, 2004. p. 35-52.
  • SCHREIBER, Guus., AKKERMANS, Hans., ANJEWIERDEN, Anjo., DE HOOG, Robert., SHADBOLT, Nigel., VAN DE WELDE, Walter., WIELINGA, Bob. Knowledge engineering and management: the CommonKADS methodology. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000. 455 p.
  • TENNANT, Jonathan P. et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 1., referees: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research, v. 6, n. 1151, 2017. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 21 jul. 2017.
  • YARKONI, Tal. Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, v. 6, article 72, 2012.
  • ZUCKERMAN, Harriet., MERTON, Robert K. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, v. 9, n. 1, p. 66100, 1971.
NLP0.29
Visto 13 vezes
sem referências