El circulo vicioso de las revistas científicas y la progresiva irrelevancia de la ciencia pública

Referencias bibliográficas

• Alonso, A. (2013): “Ética en la innovación y el movimiento Open”, Isegoría, (48), pp. 95- 110.
• Alonso, A., I. Ayestarán y N. Ursúa Lezaun (1996): Para comprender ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, Estella, Navarra, Editorial Verbo Divino.
• Alonso, A. y J. Echeverría (2014): “Lucha de paradigmas: leyes, ciencia y activismo en el mundo”, Argumentos de razón técnica: Revista española de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, y filosofía de la tecnología, 17, pp. 21-38.
• Amber, D. (2000): “Science Historians Address Evolution of Scientific Publishing”, Science Editor, 23, p. 88.
• Apple (2015): Apple Reports Record Fourth Quarter Results. Disponible en: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2015/10/27Apple-Reports-Record-Fourth-Quarter- Results/ [Consulta: 22 de septiembre de 2017]
• Alvarado, R.U. (1996): “Una revisión crítica de la Ley de Bradford”. Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información, 10 (20), pp. 16-26. https://doi.org/10/gddfbw [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• Ben-David, J. y Sullivan, T. A. (1975): “Sociology of Science”, Annual Review of Sociology, 1(1), pp. 203-222. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10/dsgzw5 [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• Bell, K. (2017): “‘Predatory’ Open Access Journals as Parody: Exposing the Limitations of ‘Legitimate’ Academic Publishing”, triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), pp. 651-662.
• Beverungen, A., S. Böhm y C. Land (2012): “The poverty of journal publishing”, Organization, 19(6), pp. 929-938.
• Björk, B. (2015): “Have the 'mega-journals' reached the limits to growth?”, PeerJ, 3, p. e981.
• Bornmann, L. y A. I. Pudovkin (2017): “The Journal Impact Factor Should Not Be Discarded”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(2), pp. 180–182.
• Bourdieu, P. (2003): El oficio de científico: ciencia de la ciencia y reflexividad, Barcelona, Editorial Anagrama.
• Bourdieu, P. (2012): La distinción: criterios y bases sociales del gusto, Madrid, Editorial Taurus.
• Bradford, S. C. (1976): “Sources of Information on Specific Subjects”, Collection Management, 1(3-4), pp. 95-104.
• Brembs, B., K. Button y M. Munafò (2013): “Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. Disponible en: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/abstract [Consulta:16 de septiembre de 2015]
• Brush, S. G. (2015): Making 20th Century Science: How Theories Became Knowledge, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press.
• Buranyi, S. (2017): “Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?”, The Guardian, 27 de junio. Disponible en: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientificpublishing- bad-for-science [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Bush, V. (1945a): “As we may think”, The atlantic monthly, 176(1), pp. 101-108.
• Bush, V. (1945b): Science, the endless frontier: A report to the President, U.S. Govt. print. off.
• Carlisle, J. B. (2017): “Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals”, Anaesthesia, 72(8), pp. 944-952.
• Cole, S. (1992): Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
• Collins, H. M. (1983): “The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary Science”, Annual Review of Sociology, 9, pp. 265-285. Recuperado a partir de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946066 [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• Cookson, R. (2015): “Elsevier leads the business the internet could not kill”, Financial Times. Disponible en: https://www.ft.com/content/93138f3e-87d6-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896 [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Crane, D. (1967): “The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals”, The American Sociologist, 2(4), pp. 195–201.
• Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014): “Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with non expert audiences”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), pp. 13614-13620.
• Deutsche Bank (2005): “Reed Elsevier moving the supertanker”, Company focus: Global Equity Research Report. Berlin.
• Fanelli, D. (2011): “Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries”, Scientometrics, 90(3), pp. 891-904.
• Fanelli, D. (2014): “Publishing: Rise in retractions is a signal of integrity”, Nature, 509(7498), pp. 33-33.
• Fanelli, D., R. Costas y V. Larivière (2015): “Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity”, PLoS ONE, 10(6), p. e0127556.
• FECYT (2007): “Apoyo a las revistas científicas españolas (ARCE)”, Presentación en diapositivas, Madrid. Disponible en: https://calidadrevistas.fecyt.es/sites/default/files/informes/presentacion1conv_1.pdf [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• FECYT (2015): Guía de evaluación de la convocatoria 2016 de renovación del sello FECYT de calidad editorial y científica de las revistas que lo obtuvieron en 2013, Guía, Madrid, FECYT. Disponible en: https://calidadrevistas.fecyt.es/sites/default/files/informes/guiaevalrenov2016.pdf [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Garfield, E. (1997): “A statistically valid definition of bias is needed to determine whether the Science Citation Index discriminates against third world journals”, Current Science, 73(8), pp. 639-641.
• Garfield, E. (1979): “Scientometrics comes of age”, Current Contents, (46), pp. 5-10.
• Garfield, E. (1996): “The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals”, The Scientist, 10(17). Disponible en: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=10620978 [Consulta:31/08/2017]
• Garfield, E. (1983): “This Week’s citation classics - Little science, big science”, Current Contents, (29), p. 18.
• Graeber, D. (2016): The utopia of rules: on technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy, Brooklyn, NY, Melville House.
• Gross, A. G., J. E. Harmon y M. S. Reidy (2002): Communicating science: the scientific article from the 17th century to the present, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press.
• Hayes, J. (1995): “The Internet’s first victim? (academic publisher Reed Elsevier; electronic publishing infringes on traditional publishing services) (Industry Trend or Event) | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared”, Forbes. Disponible en: https://business.highbeam.com/392705/article-1G1-17813154/internet-first-victim [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S. y Rafols, I. (2015): “The Leiden Manifesto for research metric2, Nature, 520(7548), pp. 429-431. Recuperado a partir de: https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.17351!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/ pdf/520429a.pdf?origin=ppub [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• Himmelstein, D. S., A. R. Romero, S. R. McLaughlin, B. Greshake Tzovaras y C. S. Greene (2017): Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature, PeerJ Inc. Disponible en: https://peerj.com/preprints/3100 [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Knorr Cetina, K. (2005): La Fabricación del conocimiento: un ensayo sobre el carácter constructivista y contextual de la ciencia, Buenos Aires, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
• Latour, B. (1995): Pasteur: una ciencia, un estilo, un siglo, México D.F., Siglo XXI.
• Latour, B. (2001): La Esperanza de Pandora: ensayos sobre la realidad de los estudios de la ciencia, Barcelona, Gedisa.
• Lamo, E., J.M. González y C. Torres (1994): “La sociología del conocimiento y de la ciencia”, Madrid, Alianza Editorial.
• Larivière, V., E. Archambault, Y. Gingras y É. Vignola-Gagné (2006): “The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), pp. 997-1004.
• Larivière, V., S. Haustein y P. Mongeon (2015): “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era”, Wolfgang Glanzel (ed.), PLOS ONE, 10(6), p. e0127502.
• van Leeuwen, T. N. y P. F. Wouters (2017): “Analysis of Publications on Journal Impact Factor Over Time”, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2. Disponible en: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frma.2017.00004/full [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Leydesdorff, L., C. Wagner y L. Bornmann (2015): “Replicability and the public/private divide”, arXiv:1509.08798 [cs]. Disponible en: http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08798 [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• MacRoberts, M., MacRoberts, B. (1986) “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Study of the Formal Level”, Social Studies of Science, 16(1), pp. 151-172. Recuperado a partir de: http://www.jstor.org/stable/285292 [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (1996): “Problems of citation analysis”, Scientometrics, 36(3), pp. 435-444. Recuperado a partir de: http://www.akademiai.com/doi/pdf/10.1007/BF02129604 [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• MacRoberts, M. (1997): “Rejoinder”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), p. 963-963a.
• Martin, B. R. (2013): “Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment”, Research Policy, 42(5), pp. 1005-1014.
• Matthews, T. (2017): “LibGuides: Web of Science platform: Introduction”, Clarivate Analytics, Página web corporativa. Disponible en: http://clarivate.libguides.com/webofscienceplatform/introduction [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Medawar, P.B. (1964): “Is The Scientific Paper a Fraud? Experiment: A Series of Scientific Case”, Experiment: A Series of Scientific Case Histories First Broadcast in the BBC Third Programme, British Broadcasting Corporation, London, pp. 7-13.
• Merton, R.K. (1968): “The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered”, Science 159, pp. 56-63.
• Merton, R. K. y N. W. Storer (1985): La sociología de la ciencia: investigaciones teóricas y empíricas, 2a ed. Madrid, Alianza Editorial.
• Morozov, E. (2015): La locura del solucionismo tecnológico, Madrid, Katz.
• Moustafa, K. (2015): “The Disaster of the Impact Factor”, Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), pp. 139-142.
• Pica, N. y F. Bourgeois (2016): “Discontinuation and non publication of randomized clinical trials conducted in children”, Pediatrics, p. e20160223.
• Pinfield, S., J. Salter y P. A. Bath (2016): “The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid openaccess environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), pp. 1751-1766.
• Price, D. J.de Solla (1986): Little Science, Big Science and Beyond, Edición: New York, Columbia University Press.
• Price, D. J.de Solla (1951): “Quantitative measures of the development of science”, Archives intenationales d’ Historie des Sciences, 4(14), pp. 85-93.
• Price, D. J.de Solla (1961): “Science since Babylon”, American Journal of Physics, 29(12), pp. 863-864.
• Rafols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., Chavarro, D. A. y Robinson-Garcia, N. (2016): On the Dominance of Quantitative Evaluation in "Peripheral" Countries: Auditing Research with Technologies of Distance (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2818335). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Recuperado a partir de: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2818335 [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• RELX Group (2018): “Annual Reports and Financial Statements 2017” (Report). RELX, London. Disponible en: https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annualreports/ relx2017-annual-report.pdf [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• Renear, A. H. y C. L. Palmer (2009): “Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing”, Science, 325(5942), pp. 828-832.
• Repiso, R. y D. Torres-Salinas (2016): “[ThinkEPI] Características e implicaciones del índice de citas Emerging Source Citation Index (Thomson Reuters): las revistas en estado transitorio”, IweTel - Foro para profesionales de bibliotecas y documentación, Mensaje a lista de distribución. Disponible en: https://listserv.rediris.es/cgi-bin/wa?A2=IWETEL;18f9508f.1602a [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Ruiz-Pérez, S. y E. Delgado-López-Cózar (2017): “Spanish researchers opinions, attitudes and practices towards open access publishing”, El Profesional de la Información, 26(4), pp. 722-734.
• Sádaba, I. (2014): “El acceso abierto en ciencias sociales: notas sociológicas sobre publicaciones, comunidades y campos”, Argumentos de Razón Técnica, 17, pp. 93-113.
• Sádaba, I. (2008): Propiedad intelectual: ¿bienes públicos o mercancías privadas?, Los libros de la Catarata.
• Sample, I. (2012): “Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices”, The Guardian, 24 de abril. Disponible en: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journalpublishers- prices [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Schiermeier, Q. (2017): “US court grants Elsevier millions in damages from Sci-Hub”, Nature News. Disponible en: http://www.nature.com/news/us-court-grants-elsevier-millions-in-damages-from-scihub- 1.22196 [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Schiermeier, Q. y E. Rodríguez Mega (2017): “Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals”, Nature News, 541(7635), p. 13.
• Schmitt, J. (2015): “Can’t Disrupt This: Elsevier and the 25.2 Billion Dollar a Year Academic Publishing Business”, Medium. Disponible en: https://medium.com/@jasonschmitt/can-t-disrupt-this-elsevier-and-the-25-2-billiondollar- a-year-academic-publishing-business-aa3b9618d40a [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Shen, C. y B. Björk (2015): “‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics”, BMC Medicine, 13(1). Disponible en: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Solomon, D. J. y B. Björk (2016): “Article processing charges for open access publication: the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada”, PeerJ, 4, p. e2264.
• Solomon, David J. y B. Björk (2012): “Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal”, Journal of the association for information science and technology, 63(1), pp. 98-107.
• Song, F., Y. Loke y L. Hooper (2014): “Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators”, PLoS One, 9(10), p. e110418.
• Sugimoto, C. (2015): “'Attention is not impact' and other challenges for altmetrics, blog post, Wiley Exchange”, 24 de junio, p. 2015.
• Tandon, P. N. (2015): “Impact Sans Impact Factor”, National Academy Science Letters, 38(6), pp. 521-527.
• The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006): “The Impact Factor Game”, PLoS Med, 3(6), p. e291.
• Thompson, J. B. (2010): Merchants of Culture, 1 edition. Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA, Polity.
• Thompson, J. B. (2013): Books in the Digital Age. The Transformation of Academic and Higher Education Publishing in Britain and the United States, Oxford, Wiley.
• Tyer, D. (2016): “Nearly half of all clinical trials not published”, PMLiVE, Blog. Disponible en: http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/nearly_half_of_all_clinical_trials_not_published _1175837 [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2017): “Analysis of Publications on Journal Impact Factor Over Time”, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2017.00004 [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• Walker, I. (2017): “RELX 1st Half Pretax Profit Rises 19%; Backs 2017 Guidance”, Fox Bussiness - Dow Jones Newswires, News blog. Disponible en: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/07/27/relx-1st-half-pretax-profit-rises-19- backs-2017-guidance.html [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 207]
• Waltman, L. (2015): “A review of the literature on citation impact indicators”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.02099. Disponible en: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02099 [Consulta: 16 de septiembre de 2017]
• Wilsdon, J. (2016): The metric tide: the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment & management, Los Angeles, SAGE. Recuperado a partir de http://www.myilibrary.com?id=925039 [Consulta: 30 de abril de 2018]
• Wouters, P. y L. Leydesdorff (1994): “Has Price’s dream come true: Is scientometrics a hard science?”, Scientometrics, 31(2), pp. 193-222.
• Zuckerman, H. y R. K. Merton (1971): “Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system”, Minerva, 9(1), pp. 66-100.