ArticleCadernos de saude publica2026
Opening the review: perceptions and challenges of Open Science at CSP.
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyze the perceptions and challenges related to open peer review (OPR) among contributors to Cadernos de Saúde Pública (CSP), in the context of Open Science practices. Seeking to understand how authors and reviewers perceive the adoption of this model, a cross-sectional survey was conducted between January and April 2025, with 1,280 respondents among nearly 3,000 Brazilian reviewers from the past three years. The questionnaire, developed on REDCap, consisted of 20 open- and closed-ended questions. Most respondents were female (59.4%), had a PhD degree (70.6%), and ties to public institutions (55.9%) by working in Collective Health research and teaching. As for OPR, while 23.1% were in favor of disclosing the names of authors and reviewers, 24.2% were opposed and 32.7% preferred intermediate answers, revealing caution. Respondents pointed out prior knowledge between authors and reviewers (52.7%) as the main source of discomfort, followed by fears about conflicts of interest and professional constraints. Results indicate that the CSP scientific community recognizes the benefits of OPR for transparency, but also underscore the need for clear guidelines, active editorial mediation, and participant protection. Model acceptance depends on its gradual and contextualized implementation, based on dialogue, training and recognition of review work. In conclusion, OPR can strengthen integrity and trust in science if accompanied by institutional responsibility and sensitivity to the specificities of Collective Health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.