Open Access: possibilities and epistemological challenges for scientific publications on the web
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2009.i737.316Keywords:
Open access, scientific publishing, social epistemology, scientific practices, open peer-reviewAbstract
The different proposals for Open Access to scientific publishing on the Internet offer undeniable advantages for the scientific practices of communication, publishing, dissemination and validation of scientific results. However, neither these practical advantages, nor the economical and moral reasons that are usually alleged to justify the Open Access movement, seem to be enough to strengthen and extend this system to the whole scientific community. Those reasons might be supplemented, from a philosophical perspective, by contemplating the epistemological potential of Open Access and its practical possibilities for an Open Peer-Review system. This study will help us consider which possibilities can be explored and exploited within the Open Access Movement in order to unify proposals and methodologies and, by means of these, provide a valuable epistemological alternative to the current commercial toll-access system.
Downloads
References
Dominy, P. y Bhatt, J. (2006): Peer Review in the Google Age. Is technology changing the way science is done and evaluated?, disponible en junio 2006.
Esposito, J. J. (2004): “The devil you don’t know: The unexpected future of Open Access publishing”, First Monday, 9 (8), http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/esposito/index.html.
Feltrero, R. (2006): “Ética de la Computación: Principios de Funcionalidad y Diseño”, Isegoría, 34, pp. 79-109.
Feltrero, R. (2007): “Tecnologías Cognitivas, ¿Metodologías Convergentes?”, Anthropos, 214, pp. 96-106.
Fuller, S. (2002): Knowledge Management Foundations, Boston-Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Glymour, C. (1980): Theory and Evidence, Princeton, Princeton U. Press.
Goldman, A. (1999): Knowledge in a Social World, Oxford, Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198238207.001.0001
Goldman, A. (2002): Pathways to Knowledge, New York, Oxford Univ. Press. doi:10.1093/0195138791.001.0001
Harnad, S. (1995): “Sorting the esoterica from the exoterica: there is plenty of room in Cyberspace: Response to Fuller”, Information Society, 11 (4), pp. 305-324, http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/84/index.html.
Harnad, S. (1996): “Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals”, en R. Peek y G. Newby (eds.), Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier, Cambridge MA, MIT Press, http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/92/index.html.
Harnad, S. (1998): “Learned inquiry and the net: The role of peer review, peer commentary and copyright”, Antiquity, 71, pp. 1042-1048.
Harnad, S. (2001): “The self-archiving initiative”, Nature, 410, pp. 1024-1025, http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/nature4.htm. doi:10.1038/35074210
Harnad, S. y Brody, T. (2004): “Comparing the impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA articles in the same journals”, D-Lib Magazine, 10 (6).
Kurtz, M. y Brody, T. (2006): “The impact loss to authors and research”, en Neil Jacobs (ed.) (2006): Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, Chandos Publishing.
Lipinski, T. A. y Britz, J. J. (2000): “Rethinking the ownership of information in the 21st century: Ethical implications”, Ethics and information technology, 2 (1), pp. 49-71. doi:10.1023/A:1010064313976
Longino, H. (1990): Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press.
Pringle, J. (2004): “Do open access journals have impact?”, Nature (Web Focus) http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/19.html.
Semir, V. y Revuelta, G. (2006): “Dr. Hwang and the clone that never was”, Quark, 37-38, pp. 105-123.
Stallman, R. (2004): Software Libre para una Sociedad Libre, Madrid, Traficantes de Sueños.
Sumner, T. y Buckingham Shum, S. (1998): “From Documents to Discourse: Shifting Conceptions of Scholarly Publishing”, Proc. CHI 98: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Ángeles, CA, ACM Press, NY, pp. 95-102.
Sumner, T.; Buckingham Shum, S.; Wright, M. y Bonnardel, N. et al. (2000): Redesigning the Peer Review Process: A Developmental Theory-in-Action, Ponencia presentada en: COOP’2000: Fourth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Willinsky, J. (2006): The access principle: the case for open access to research and scholarship, Cambridge, Mass., MIT.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2009 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
