Acesso Aberto e Conhecimento Científico: Entre a Res Publica e o Modelo de Negócio. Uma Revisão da Literatura

Tiago Lima Quintanilha; Nataliia Trishchenko

doi:10.17231/comsoc.39(2021).2756

Authors

Tiago Lima Quintanilha Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia, Escola de Sociologia e Políticas Públicas, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-481X
Nataliia Trishchenko Faculty of Journalism, Department of New Media and Communication Theory, Lomonosov University, Moscow, Russia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6834-6206

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.39(2021).2756

Keywords:

Open access, scientific knowledge, public interest, business model

Abstract

The discussion on what open access can give to science has become polarized in recent years. On the one hand, the first decade of the new millennium brought us an enthusiasm that one can consider as quite comprehensive in the scientific community, regarding the great potential of open access in the dissemination of knowledge, its sharing and the mechanisms of citizen participation in the scientific process. On the other hand, the last few years have brought us a new debate that addresses and criticizes the derivation of open access to a new business model. By supporting this article with an extensive review of the literature on a topic that is still residual in studies that intersect the areas of science communication and the field of the economics of science, we propose to summarize the main reasons evoked by a side and the other. Among the positive points, we highlight the potential of open access in the dissemination of knowledge, the increased visibility of this knowledge, the involvement of society and professionals in the scientific process through civic participation logics, greater efficiency and interaction with benefits for the research projects themselves, the retention of publication rights by the authors, the redistribution of resources, and the greater transparency of a more scrutinizing model. Among the negative points, we can essentially highlight the inability to combat a kind of parallel science economy, which takes advantage of open access and the logic of academic overproduction, to establish the so-called “article processing charges” with little transparency and with publication rates often in excess of several thousand euros, which violate the principles of open science and generate inequalities in opportunities within the scientific community itself.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65, 372–382. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.5.372

Antelman, K. (2017). Leveraging the growth of open access in library collection decision making. In D. M. Mueller (Ed.), At the helm: Leading transformation – Conference Proceedings (pp. 411–423). Association of College and Research Libraries. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2017/LeveragingtheGrowthofOpenAccess.pdf

Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638003322757916

Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489, 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, 22 de outubro de 2003, https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration

BMC. (s.d.). Fees and funding. Genome Biology. Retirado a 10 de agosto de 2020 de https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/fees-and-funding

Brüggemann, M., Lörcher, I., & Walter, S. (2020). Post-normal science communication: Exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. JCOM, 19(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19030202

Castells, M. (2004). The power of identity. Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope. Social movements in the internet age. Polity Press.

Chang, C. C. (2006). Business models for open access journals publishing. Online Information Review, 30, 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610716171

Chua S., Qureshi A., Krishnan V., Pai D., Kamal L., Gunasegaran S., Afzal M., Ambawatta, L., & Gan J. (2017). The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article’s citations. F1000Research, 6(208), versão 1. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10892.1

Dahlberg, L. (2007). The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.3.1.47_1

Davis, P. (2010). Does open access lead to increased readership and citations? A randomized controlled trial of articles published in APS journals. Physiologist, 53(6), 197–201. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21473414/

Dennis, S., Garrett, P., Yim, H., Hamm, J., Osth, A. F., Sreekumar, V., & Stone, B. (2019). Privacy versus open science. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1839–1848. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01259-5

Donovan, J., Watson, C., & Osborne, C. (2015). The open access advantage for American law reviews. Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, 1–22. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/989

Econometric Society. (s.d.). Open access. Theoretical Economics. Retirado a 10 de Agosto de 2020 de https://econtheory.org/openaccess.php

Elsevier. (s.d.). Open access journal. Retirado a 10 do Agosto de 2020 de https://www.elsevier.com/journals/climate-risk-management/2212-0963/open-access-journal

Erfanmanesh, M. (2019). Quantitative portrait of open access mega-journals. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 24(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol24no2.7

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 9093. https://doi.org/1001/jama.295.1.90

Garlick, J., & Levine, P. (2017). Where civics meets science: Building science for the public good through civic science. Oral Diseases, 23, 692–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12534

Hajjem C., Harnad, S., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 28, 39–47. https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0606079

Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (oa) vs. non-oa articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html

Hindman, M. (2018). The internet trap: How the digital economy builds monopoliesand undermines democracy. Princeton University Press.

Kiermer, V. (2016, 5 de julho). Measuring up: Impact factors do not reflect article citation rates. The Official Plos Blog. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2016/07/impact-factors-do-not-reflect-citation-rates/

Kousha, K., & Abdoli, M. (2010). The citation impact of open access agricultural research. Online Information Review, 34, 772–785. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011084618

Makeenko, M., & Trishchenko, N. (2018) The impact of open access on citations and alternative metrics of scientific articles in media and communication studies. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 10. Zhurnalistika, 5, 3–26. https://vestnik.journ.msu.ru/upload/iblock/2b9/vest-05-18-3-26.pdf

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116, 2175–2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9

Mary Ann Liebert. (s.d.). Information for authors. Retirado a 10 de Agosto de 2020 de https://home.liebertpub.com/publications/transgender-health/634/for-authors

McCabe, M., & Snyder, C. (2015). Does online availability increase citations? Theory and evidence from a panel of economics and business journals. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97, 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00437

MDPI. (2017, 23 de janeiro). Response to Mr. Jeffrey Beall’s repeated attacks on MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/534

Mirowski, P. (2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science, 48(2), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127187720

Muller, J. Z. (2018, 21 de janeiro). The tiranny of metrics. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-tyranny-of-metrics/

National Foreign Language Resource Center. (s.d.). About LLT. Language Learning & Technology. Retirado a 10 de Agosto de 2020 de https://www.lltjournal.org/about/

Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1963–1972. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20898

Obuhova, O., Zaikin, M., & Soloviev, I. (2011). The preconditions of a new method of complexed science citation indices for researchers of Scientific Institute. In Proceedings of the RCDL 2011 (pp. 104–112). Russian Foundation for Basic Research. http://rcdl.ru/proceedings.php?year=2011&plang=e

OpenAIRE. (s.d.). Guides for OpenAIRE services: Explore - How to report your publication and data to the EC. https://www.openaire.eu/reporting-to-the-ec

Papadopoulos, D. (2014). From publics to practitioners: Invention power and open technoscience. Science as Culture, 24(1), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986322

Patel, D. (2016). Research data management: A conceptual framework. Library Review, 65(4/5), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-01-2016-0001

Pisoschi, A. M., & Pisoschi, C. G. (2016). Is open access the solution to increase the impact of scientific journals? Scientometrics, 109(2), 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2088-x

Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. (2017). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, Artigo e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375

Piwowar, H., & Vision, T. (2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, Artigo e175. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175

Pöyhönen, S. (2017). Value of cognitive diversity in science. Synthese, 194, 4519–4540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1147-4

Quintanilha, T. L. (2019a). Os quatro grandes desafios ao modelo de ciência aberta: (Des)acreditação, informalidade, comodificação e predação. Texto livre, 12(2), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.17851/1983-3652.12.2.202-213

Quintanilha, T. L. (2019b). The internet trap: How the digital economy builds monopolies and undermines democracy, de M. Hindman. Análise Social, 233, 891–894. https://doi.org/10.31447/AS00032573.2019233.11

Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6(588), 1–39, Versão 2. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2

Royal Society of Chemistry. (s.d.). Chemical Science. Retirado a 20 de agosto de 2020 de https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/chemical-science/

Russell, T. W. (2019, 21 de dezembro). Tales from the search committee, Part II: Open science fails. https://russellwarne.com/2019/12/21/tales-from-the-search-committee-part-ii-open-science-fails/

Sage Publishing. (s.d.). Research & politics. Retirado a 20 de agosto de 2020 de https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/research-politics

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, 16 de dezembro, 2012, https://sfdora.org/read/

Scaffidi, M. A., Khan, R., Wang, C., Keren, D., Tsui, C., Garg, A., Brar, S., Valoo, K., Bonert, M., de Wolff, J. F., Heilman, J., & Grover, S. C. (2017). Comparison of the impact of Wikipedia, UpToDate, and a Digital Textbook on short-term knowledge acquisition among medical students: Randomized controlled trial of three web-based resources. JMIR Medical Education, 3(2), Artigo e20. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.8188

Schroter, S., & Tite, L. (2006). Open access publishing and author-pays business models: A survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(3), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.3.141

Schultz, T. (2017). Opening up communication: Assessing open access practices in the communication studies discipline. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 5(1), Artigo eP2131. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2131

SCImago. (s.d.). Journal rankings. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Retirado a 20 de agosto de 2020, de https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?type=j&year=2019

Siler, K., Haustein, S., Smith, E., Larivière, V., & Alperin, J. (2018). Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: The case of global health research. PeerJ, 6, Artigo e4269. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4269

Skarlatidou, A., Hamilton, A., Vitos, M., & Haklay, M. (2019). What do volunteers want from citizen science technologies? A systematic literature review and best practice guidelines. JCOM, 18(01), Artigo a02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18010202

Snijder, R. (2016). Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: Measuring citations and tweets 5 years later. Scientometrics, 109, 1855–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2160-6

Society for Cultural Anthropology. (s.d.). Submission guidelines. Cultural Anthropology. Retirado a 20 de agosto de 2020 de https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/submission-guidelines

Teplitskiy, M., Lu, G., & Duede, E. (2017). Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 2116–2127. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23687

Trishchenko, N. D. (2019). Open access driven transformation of the scientific communication system: Current status, prerequisites for change, effects, and prospects. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 46, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688219020059

Velasquez, R. A. C. (2016). Is it time for open peer-review? Journal of Oral Research, 5(7), 258–259. https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2016.062

Wang, X., Liu, C., & Mao, W. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103, 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0

Whitworth, B., & Friedman, R. (2009). Reinventing academic publishing online. Part I: Rigor, relevance and practice. First Monday, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i8.2609

Wohlrabe K., & Birkmeier D. (2014) Do open access articles in economics have a citation advantage? (MPRA Paper 56842). University Library of Munich. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/56842/1/MPRA_paper_56842.pdf

Xu, L., Liu, J., & Fang, Q. (2011) Analysis on open access citation advantage: An empirical study based on Oxford open journals. In iConference, Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (pp. 426–432). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1940761.1940819

Yeoh, M. P., Cazan, A. M., Zaib, S., Muss, W., & Jacic, L. (2017). Ethical and predatory publishing: Experiences and perceptions of researchers. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 10(1), 1–13. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=616574

Zhang, Y. (2006). The effect of open access on citation impact: A comparison study based on web citation analysis. Libri, 56, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2006.145