A história e as mudanças na publicação científica: resistência ou adaptação?

Abstract

History and changes in scientific publishing: resistance or adaptation? It was with great pleasure that our journal celebrated its 25th anniversary on June 26-28, 2019, at the Casa de Oswaldo Cruz here in Rio de Janeiro, where we held a commemorative workshop entitled "The Present and Future of History Publications," focused on issues related to scientific publishing in the field of history. The workshop was the culmination of a number of academic events that we at História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos have organized over the past few years as a form of self-examination. Science editors from Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, and places around Brazil joined us to discuss various facets of publishing, particularly the profound changes occasioned by such proposals as preprinting and open science, changes that have had the effect of resignifying the roles of editors and journals as "brokers" of knowledge. These innovations have usually been framed to fit the natural and exact sciences, which have their own distinct rhythms, profiles, and requirements in the realms of knowledge production, circulation, and dissemination. Meanwhile, the social and human sciences are left to either embrace or resist these changes. Resistance is generally founded on the argument that the social and human sciences follow different patterns than the natural sciences, meaning that the proposed (or sometimes prescribed) innovations are not applicable in their cases. The workshop made clear the need to reject such dichotomous thinking. Instead, historians and other scholars of the humanities must gain a better grasp of the suggested changes and analyze them critically so they can judge their pertinence to their own fields. If the unique features of any given area should not be automatically flagged as reasons for resisting transformations in how knowledge is disseminated, the debate must still take these features into account. In addition to recognizing differences between fields of knowledge, we should also recognize that each journal has an individual identity, reflecting its audience and its institutional, geographic, and cognitive contexts. Recognizing this diversity is essential to fostering the full spectrum of scientific activity. Our celebration of the silver anniversary of História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos evinced the journal's role in shaping what was only an incipient field of knowledge in many Latin American countries twenty-five years ago. At that time, except for the Revista Brasileira de História da Ciência, founded in 1985, Brazil had no solid publication that primarily featured studies exploring the history of the biomedical sciences and public health. Today we can

Personal Argumention in the Scholarly Publication

“…But what about social sciences? This replication is much more difficult or even impossible to achieve in social sciences (Harremoës, 2019;Romero, 2019;Peels, & Bouter, 2018;Silva, 2019;Castro, 1986), due to their specificities. In an excellent analysis of replication in social sciences by Freese and Peterson (2017), the authors sustain that "First, replication contains a series of unavoidable interpretive ambiguities.…”