In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough

Aspesi, Claudio; Brand, Amy

doi:10.1126/science.aba3763

Cited by 49 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Esto les va a permitir integrar los datos de los diversos servicios y facilitar que las personas usuarias puedan moverse en todas las fases en una única plataforma con las ventajas de gestión que le puede reportar. Ahora bien, estas empresas van a reclamar la utilización de sus datos (consultas, citas, datos compartidos, revisiones) para mejorar sus aplicaciones, para crear dependencia (Aspesi et al, 2020) y poder consolidar su presencia en todas las fases de la investigación, no sólo en la publicación. En este caso, lo opuesto 10 ARBOR Vol.…”

Section: Valoración Finalunclassified

Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar

Abadal

2021

arbor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La ciencia abierta constituye una transformación radical en la manera de llevar a cabo la investigación científica. Se trata de un nuevo modelo de hacer ciencia que se basa en el trabajo colaborativo entre personas de la academia y también en la apertura y la transparencia de todas las fases de la investigación (no solo la publicación final, sino también la recogida de datos, el peer review o los criterios de evaluación, entre otros aspectos). La ciencia abierta tiene sus antecedentes en el uso de las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TIC) por quienes investigan y en la consolidación del acceso abierto a las publicaciones. Por otro lado, en su desarrollo también ha contado con tres elementos facilitadores: su conexión con los valores clásicos de la ciencia, la acción de responsables políticos con capacidad resolutiva en sus organizaciones, y el apoyo institucional, en especial de la Comisión Europea y de diversas agencias de financiación de la investigación. En el artículo se analizan diversas definiciones de ciencia abierta para destacar sus características fundamentales: apertura, transparencia y reutilización de contenidos. Se considera la ciencia abierta como un término «paraguas» que agrupa diversas piezas o elementos como el acceso abierto, los datos abiertos (FAIR, en sus siglas en inglés, findable, accessible, interoperable y reusable), la revisión abierta, el uso de preprints, la ciencia ciudadana y los nuevos modelos de evaluación. A pesar de que existe discrepancia sobre cuáles son esas piezas elementales, el artículo se centra en los seis elementos mencionados, repasa la situación actual de cada uno de ellos, y pone especial énfasis en su grado de desarrollo y en lo que aportan a la ciencia abierta. Se constata una notable diversidad en el desarrollo de cada una de las piezas y también la ausencia de una acción coordinada, lo que podría suponer una ralentización de las prácticas de ciencia abierta. A pesar de los destacados avances en acceso abierto, de la notable compartición de datos de investigación y de un respetable uso de preprints, se ha avanzado muy poco en el establecimiento de nuevas métricas y de nuevos modelos de evaluación, aun cuando estos son un elemento clave para incentivar la expansión de la ciencia abierta en todas las disciplinas.

show abstract

Section: Valoración Finalunclassified

Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar

Abadal

2021

arbor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The narrow disciplinary focus of most university presses and their geographical dispersal around the world has led to an increased interest in the concepts of interdependence and ‘knowledge infrastructures’ within the scholarly communication community (Edwards et al ., 2013). This work exists in the context of major library interest in providing academy‐owned infrastructure in the face of what commentators see as increasing monopolization by commercial interests (Aspesi & Brand, 2020; Lewis, Goetsch, Graves, & Roy, 2018). As Amy Brand, the director of MIT Press, has noted, university presses have been rather absent from the broader movement.…”

Section: Economic Contraction Of Higher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the autumn, a series of podcast interviews with authors focused on political matters around the time of the US presidential election proved less timeconsuming, but finding the right balance between investment and return in a virtual environment remains a work in progress.The narrow disciplinary focus of most university presses and their geographical dispersal around the world has led to an increased interest in the concepts of interdependence and 'knowledge infrastructures' within the scholarly communication community(Edwards et al, 2013). This work exists in the context of major library interest in providing academy-owned infrastructure in the face of what commentators see as increasing monopolization by commercial interests(Aspesi & Brand, 2020;Lewis, Goetsch, Graves, & Roy, 2018…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

University presses and the impact of COVID‐19

Watkinson

2021

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University presses occupy a distinctive field of publishing, heavily tied to the fortunes of the universities and colleges in which they are usually situated. COVID-19 has catalysed their adoption of digital technologies; focused their commitments to social justice; and given new impetus to business models and formats that fully leverage the Internet, especially open access. Economic pressures on higher education that seem set only to increase are also driving university presses to more interdependent approaches and an emphasis on the contributions of the university press network to knowledge infrastructure for the humanities and social sciences. This article explores how university presses have reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular reference to the experiences of the University of Michigan Press. It concludes that the diversity of types of university presses is one of the greatest strengths of this field of publishing and makes it resilient in a time of unprecedented change.

show abstract

“…These established publishers seem important in maintaining journal quality via an established peer review process, well established editorial procedures, support for some professional societies, and a well-established web presence, with archives and data analytics growing in sophistication (e.g. see Aspesi & Brand, 2020). The most important attraction of these journals is the fact that they are already well established as the expected place for academics, in a given field, to publish.…”

Section: Big Publishers Persistmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?

Dudley

2021

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost 50% of scholarly articles are now open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The changing dynamics of open access (OA) threaten this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of substandard and predatory journals. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are used to illustrate these interactions. THE RISE OF OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING The Generation of Academic Knowledge Much scholarly work is built on knowledge discovered or created by previous scholars. The details of that previous work are communicated via scholarly publications. Although the form of these has changed over the years, the most common form now is via journal articles and books. Access to this accumulated knowledge is an issue of vital importance to scholars Volume 9, General Issue JL SC 2 | eP2345 Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication around the world because, until recently, much of it was not available to most of them. Although open access (OA) publishing has made accumulated knowledge more available, scholars must also be able to publish their own findings so that others can benefit (Figure 1). This article examines how the evolving open access movement is changing the dynamics of scholarly publishing in a way that both helps, but also hinders, peripheral scholars. Causal loop diagrams are used to illustrate factors that cause, and reinforce, these trends, sometimes making them difficult to alter. 2 A Note on Reading Causal Loop Diagrams. Causal loop diagrams are diagrammatic representations of links among elements in a system: in this case the system of interlinked factors that affect open access publishing. Typically, elements in a causal loop diagram are connected with unidirectional arrows which link a cause to an effect. These arrows, or causal links, indicate how a change in the causal variable might affect change in the second variable. These causal links are generally thought of as causing either: 1. Change in the same

show abstract

In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough

Abstract: Preventing monopolies in knowledge infrastructure is the next battleground for publishers and research institutions

Cited by 49 publications

References 2 publications

Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar

Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar

University presses and the impact of COVID‐19

The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About