Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note

Debat, Humberto Julio; Babini, Dominique

doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27834v2

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Latin America seeming to have made much stronger progress towards having scholarly research produced there made accessible for the betterment of wider society (Packer 2009;Alperin and Fischman 2015;Ochoa and Uribe-Tirado 2018;Debat and Babini 2019). Current trends in OA and…”

Section: Systems Of Valuation In Openness 31mentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Agrawal¹,

Baždarić²,

Brassard³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

show abstract

Section: Systems Of Valuation In Openness 31mentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Agrawal¹,

Baždarić²,

Brassard³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Identificar estos costos es muy relevante, teniendo en cuenta la comunicación reciente del "Comité directivo sobre cooperación en ciencia y tecnología entre la Unión Europea y Argentina" que anuncia que Argentina se unirá a la cOAlition S, hecho que todavía no se ha plasmado en políticas concretas, y que requiere una respuesta cautelosa a nivel regional. La implementación del Plan S podría alentar un cambio en las revistas académicas a modelos de publicación que cobran cargos por procesamiento de artículos (APC), con el peligro de ocasionar una disminución de recursos en infraestructura pública no comercial de comunicaciones científicas abiertas esenciales para avanzar hacia procesos y prácticas de ciencia abierta en América Latina (Debat y Babini, 2019).…”

Section: Conclusionesunclassified

¿Cuán abierta es la producción científica de los investigadores argentinos de Ciencias Sociales?

Bongiovani

Miguel

2019

Palabra clave

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este estudio exploratorio se propuso conocer la disponibilidad en abierto de la producción científica argentina de Ciencias Sociales incluida en Scopus en 2017, estimar el costo por la publicación en revistas de acceso abierto e híbridas, que cobran cargos de APCs y establecer si existe una correlación entre el precio de APC (article processing charges) de las revistas y su impacto. Los resultados indican que de un total de 1480 documentos el 61 % (907) están disponibles en Acceso Abierto, siendo este porcentaje mucho más alto que el promedio a nivel mundial. De este grupo, el 95 % (864) fue publicado en revistas de acceso abierto que no cobran APCs. Con relación al valor de impacto SJR (Scimago Journal Rank) se obtuvo que las revistas híbridas están mayormente ubicadas en el cuartil Q1 y Q2, mientras que las revistas AA están distribuidas en todos los cuartiles, con mayor concentración en Q2 y Q3. Se concluye que, pese a que es alto el porcentaje de documentos disponibles en abierto sin pago de APCs, lograr el acceso abierto siguiendo los principios del Plan S requeriría a los organismos financiadores argentinos asumir costos importantes con una estimación por año de U$D 897.222, solo para la producción con visibilidad en Scopus del área de Ciencias Sociales.

show abstract

“…It puts a heavy burden of article processing charges (APCs) on scholars (pay to publish model). This new economic reality, with APCs ranging from €300 to €5000, would exacerbate inequalities between global North and global South (Poynder, 2019;Debat & Babini, 2019), as well as between "rich" (i.e., supported by generous grants) and poor authors (PSA Response, 2019). Still, the numbers of OA journals and OA articles continue to grow, although less spectacularly than in the early 2010s (Green, 2019, Fig.…”

Section: Introduction: Academic Publishing In Fluxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Token‐curated registry in a scholarly journal: Can blockchain support journal communities?

Kosmarski¹,

Gordiychuk²

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we propose a novel framework for a scholarly journal – a token‐curated registry (TCR). This model originates in the field of blockchain and cryptoeconomics and is essentially a decentralized system where tokens (digital currency) are used to incentivize quality curation of information. TCR is an automated way to create lists of any kind where decisions (whether to include N or not) are made through voting that brings benefit or loss to voters. In an academic journal, TCR could act as a tool to introduce community‐driven decisions on papers to be published, thus encouraging more active participation of authors/reviewers in editorial policy and elaborating the idea of a journal as a club. TCR could also provide a novel solution to the problems of editorial bias and the lack of rewards/incentives for reviewers. In the paper, we discuss core principles of TCR, its technological and cultural foundations, and finally analyse the risks and challenges it could bring to scholarly publishing.

show abstract

Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

¿Cuán abierta es la producción científica de los investigadores argentinos de Ciencias Sociales?

Token‐curated registry in a scholarly journal: Can blockchain support journal communities?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About