Abierto, libre y públicoLos desafíos políticos de la ciencia abierta

  1. García Arístegui, David
  2. Rendueles Menéndez de Llano, César
Revista:
Argumentos de razón técnica: Revista española de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, y filosofía de la tecnología

ISSN: 1139-3327

Ano de publicación: 2014

Número: 17

Páxinas: 45-64

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Argumentos de razón técnica: Revista española de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, y filosofía de la tecnología

Resumo

Liberal economic policies are having a deep im pact on scientific practices. Open science initiatives have become the main forum for defendi ng freedom and scientific independence against its commodification. Nevertheless, open science is of ten described as an essentially apolitical and ecumenical program. In particular, there is a tendency to consider that the use of communication technologies encourages democratization processe s in an automatic and uncontroversial way. In contrast, this article claims that open science programs are moving in a fi eld crossed by political confrontations of a long historical and social path. The coherent and complete development of novel tools that propose the projects of open science requi res, therefore, recover some of the traditional strategies of scientific activism that prioritized these conflicts.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ARCHAMBAULT, E., AMYOT, D. DESCHAMPS, P., NICOL, A., REBOUT, L. y ROBERGE, G. (2013). Proportion of Open Access Peer-Reviewed Papers at the European and World Levels. Bruselas: Science-Metrix.
  • ARECHAGA, J. (2011, 15 de septiembre). Los españoles y las revistas científicas... ¡Que editen ellos! El País. Recuperado de http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2011/09/15/actualidad/1316037621_850215. html
  • BALMER, Andy. (2013, 30 de julio). Can Scientists Engage Critically with Capitalism?. Reasonable Excuse. Recuperado de http://andybalmer.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/can-scientists-engage-criticallywith-capitalism/
  • BELL, A. (2013, 18 de julio). Beneath the White Coat. The Radical Science Movement. Political Science. Recuperado de http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/18/beneathwhite-coat-radical-science-movement
  • BIAGIOLI, M. (2002). From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review. Emergences. Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, 12 (1), pp. 11-45.
  • BOHANNON. J. (2013). Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, Science, 342 (6154), pp. 60-65.
  • BOURDIEU, P. (2000). El campo científico. En Los usos sociales de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión. Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Recuperado de http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
  • BROWN, M. B. (2009). Science in Democracy. Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • BURNHAM, J. C. (1990). The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review. Journal of The American Medical Asociation, 263(10), pp. 1323-1329.
  • CAMPANARIO, J. M. (2002). El sistema de revisión (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25 (3).
  • CHUBIN, D. E. y Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy, Nueva York, SUNY.
  • DAVID, P. A. (2004). Understanding the emergence of ‘open science’ institutions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (4), pp. 571-589.
  • FEHÉR, M. (1996). Science and Liberalism. Michael Polanyi on the Freedom of Science. Polanyiana, 5 (1), pp. 47-62.
  • FITZPATRICK, K. (2011). Planned Obsolescence. Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. Nueva York: NYU Press.
  • GOLDBECK-WOOD, S. (1999). Evidence on peer review. Scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ, 318 (7175), pp. 44-45.
  • HARNAD, S., Brody, T., VALLIERES, F., Carr, L., HITCHCOCK, S., GINGRAS, Y, OPPENHEIM, C., STAMERJOHANNS, H., & HILF, E. (2004). The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review 30 (4).
  • HARVEY, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • HOBSBAWM, E. (2013). Ciencia: función social y cambio mundial (2006). Un tiempo de rupturas. Sociedad y cultura en el siglo XX. Barcelona: Crítica.
  • JEFFERSON, T., ALDERSON, Ph., WAGER, E., & DAVIDOFF, F. (2002). Effects of Editorial Peer Review. A Systematic Review. Journal of The American Medical Asociation, 287(21), pp. 2784-2786.
  • KANSA, E. (2013, 11 de diciembre). It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough. Digging Digitally. Recuperado de http://www.alexandriaarchive.org/blog/?p=931
  • KEALEY, T. (1996). The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. Londres: Macmillan.
  • KLEIN, N. (2013, 29 de octubre) . How science is telling us all to revolt. New Statesman. Recuperado de http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-saysrevolt
  • KRIMSKY, S. (2003). Science in the Private Interest. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • LENIN, V. I. (1961). Tres fuentes y tres partes integrantes del marxismo. En Obras Escogidas I, Moscú: Progreso.
  • MARTIN, B. (1998). Strategies for Dissenting Scientists. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12 (4), pp. 605-616.
  • MARTIN, B. (2006). Strategies for Alternative Science. En Frickel, S. y Moore, K. (eds.), The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Recuperado de http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/06Frickel.html
  • MCMILLAN, G. S., NARIN, F., DEEDS, D. L. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Research Policy 29 (1), 1–8.
  • MIROWSKI, P. (2011). Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
  • MOMBIOT, G. (2011, 29 de agosto). Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist. The Guardian. Recuperado de http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishersmurdoch-socialist
  • MOORE, K.; KLEINMAN, D. L.; HESS, D. y FRICKEL, S. (2011). Science and Neoliberal Globalization: A Political Sociological Approach, Theory and Society 40(5), pp. 505-532.
  • NARIN, F., HAMILTON, K. y OLIVASTRO, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy 26 (3), pp. 317-330 Nature (editorial). 2010. Garage biology. Nature 467, 634, 07 October.
  • NIELSEN, M. (2011). Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton University Press.
  • NOBLE, D. (1988). El diseño de Estados Unidos. La ciencia, la tecnología y la aparición del capitalismo monopolístico. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social.
  • PAASI, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing space. Environment and Planning, 37 (5), pp. 769-789.
  • PERELMAN, M. (2003). The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. Monthly Review, 54 (8), pp. 29-37.
  • POLANYI, M. (1962). The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva, 1, pp. 54-74.
  • SÁNCHEZ TARRAGÓ, N. (2007). La comunicación de la ciencia en los países en vías de desarrollo y el movimiento Open Access. Biblios, 8 (27), enero-marzo.
  • SANTAMARÍA, L., DÍAZ, M. y VALLADARES, F. (2013, 14 de junio). Dark Clouds over Spanish Science. Science, 340 (6138), p. 1292.
  • SCHEKMAN, R. (2013, 12 de diciembre). Por qué revistas como Nature, Science y Cell hacen daño a la ciencia. El País. Recuperado de http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2013/12/11/actualidad/1386798478_265291. html
  • SHIVA, V. (2001). Biopiratería: el saqueo de la naturaleza y del conocimiento. Barcelona: Icaria.
  • SMITH, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), pp. 178-182.
  • SOCIENTIZE PROJECT (2013). Green Paper on Citizen Science: Citizen Science for Europe Towards a better society of empowered citizens and enhanced research. Bruselas: Socientize Consortium.
  • SPIEGEL, M. (2012). Reviewing Less. Progressing More. Review of Financial Studies, 25 (5), pp. 1331-1338.
  • SUBER, P. (2013). Open Access. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • TAYLOR, M. (2012, 21 de noviembre). Elsevier’s new “open access” terms: so near, yet so far. Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week. Recuperado de http://svpow.com/2012/11/21/elseviers-new-open-access-terms-so-near-yet-sofar/
  • VAN NOORDEN, R. (2013, 28 de marzo). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Cheap open-access journals raise questions about the value publishers add for their money. Nature, 495 (7442), pp. 426-429.
  • VAN NOORDEN, R. (2014, 24 de febrero). Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News. Recuperado de http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberishpapers-1.14763
Fonte de datos: Dialnet