Sociological implications of scientific publishing: Open access, science, society, democracy, and the digital divide

Herb, Ulrich Sociological implications of scientific publishing: Open access, science, society, democracy, and the digital divide. First Monday, 2010, vol. 15, n. 2. [Journal article (On-line/Unpaginated)]

[img]
Preview
PDF
Herb.pdf

Download (123Kb) | Preview

English abstract

Claims for open access are mostly underpinned with 1. science–related arguments (open access accelerates scientific communication); 2. financial arguments (open access relieves the serials crisis); 3. social arguments (open access reduces the digital divide); 4. democracy–related arguments (open access facilitates participation); and, 5. socio–political arguments (open access levels disparities). Using sociological concepts and notions, this article focuses strongly on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of (scientific) capital and its implications for the acceptance of open access, Michel Foucault’s discourse analysis and the implications of open access for the concept of the digital divide. Bourdieu’s theory of capital implies that the acceptance of open access depends on the logic of power and the accumulation of scientific capital. It does not depend on slogans derived from hagiographic self–perceptions of science (e.g., the acceleration of scientific communication) and scientists (e.g., their will to share their information freely). According to Bourdieu’s theory, it is crucial for open access (and associated concepts like alternative impact metrics) to understand how scientists perceive its potential influence on existing processes of capital accumulation and how open access will affect their demand for status. Foucault’s discourse analysis suggests that open access may intensify disparities, scientocentrism and ethnocentrism. Additionally, several concepts from the philosophy of sciences (Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend) and their implicit connection to the concept of open access are described in this paper.

Item type: Journal article (On-line/Unpaginated)
Keywords: Sociology of Information, Open Access, Scientific Publishing, Scientific Communication, Theory of Science, Sociology, Democracy, Digital Divide, Pierre Bourdieu, Social Capital, Scientific Capital, Journal Impact Factor, Michel Foucault, Discourse Analysis
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information. > BC. Information in society.
B. Information use and sociology of information. > BD. Information society.
Depositing user: Ulrich Herb
Date deposited: 20 Dec 2010
Last modified: 17 Dec 2012 15:43
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/15174

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Bo–Christer Björk, 2004. “Open access to scientific publications — an analysis of the barriers to change?“ Information Research, volume 9, number 2, at http://informationr.net/ir/9-2/paper170.html, accessed 12 July 2009.

Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), 2002. “Budapest Open Access Initiative,“ at http://www.soros.org/openaccess/g/read.shtml, accessed 12 July 2009.

Pierre Bourdieu, 2002. Homo academicus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Pierre Bourdieu, 1998. Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft: Für eine klinische Soziologie des Wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Konstanz: UVK Universitätsverlag Konstanz.

Pierre Bourdieu, 1997. Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht. Hamburg: VSA–Verlag.

Tibor Braun and Ildikó Dióspatonyi, 2005. “Counting the gatekeepers of international science journals a worthwhile science indicator,“ Current Science, volume 89, number 9, pp. 1548–1551, and at http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1548.pdf, accessed 12 July 2009.

Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (DFG; German Research Foundation), 2005. “Publication strategies in transformation? Results of a study on publishing habits and information acquisition with regard to open access,” at http://www.dfg.de/en/dfg_profile/statistics_evaluation/programme_evaluation/studies/study_publikationsstrategien/index.html, accessed 7 February 2010.

Peng Dong, Marie Loh and Adrian Mondry, 2005. “The ‘impact factor’ revisited,“ Biomedical Digital Libraries, volume 2, number 7, at http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/2/1/7, accessed 12 July 2009.

Electronic Publishing Services (EPS), Ltd., 2006. Scientific, Technical and Medical (STM) Market Monitor. London: Electronic Publishing Services Ltd.

Paul Feyerabend, 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: NLB.

Michel Foucault, 1972. The archaeology of knowledge; and, the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.

Gerhard Fröhlich, 1998. “Optimale Informationsvorenthaltung als Strategem wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation,” In: Harald H. Zimmermann and Volker Schramm (editors). Knowledge Management und Kommunikationssysteme [Workflow Management, Multimedia, Knowledge Transfer]. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft, volume 34. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, pp. 535–549.

Gerhard Fröhlich, 1996. “Netz Euphorien: Zur Kritik digitaler und sozialer Netz(werk)metaphern,” In: Alfred Schramm (editor). Philosophie in Österreich 1996. Vienna: Hölder–Pichler–Tempsky, pp. 292–306.

Gerhard Fröhlich, 1995. “Demokratisierung durch Datenbanken und Computernetze?” In: Bernard Knoblach and Edgar Fixl (editors). Informationsspezialisten zwischen Technik und gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung. Stuttgart: HBI, pp. 55–60.

Jürgen Habermas, 1984.Theory of communicative action. London: Heinemann.

Jutta Haider, 2007. “Of the rich and the poor and other curious minds: On open access and ‘development’,” ASLIB Proceedings, volume 59, numbers 4/5, pp. 449–461.

Jutta Haider, 2006. “Conceptions of ‘information poverty’ in LIS: An analysis of discourses,” In: Jane Kjertmann Jensen, Kirstine Hagen Thomasen; Marie–Louise Westring Sørensen, Thomas Bjørn Sarp Hansen and Laurits Thomas Rasmussen (editors). Information, innovation, responsibility: Information professional in the network society: Proceedings of the 14th BOBCATSSS Symposium. Copenhagen: Royal School of Library and Information Science, pp. 79–89.

Jutta Haider, 2005. “The geographic distribution of open access journals,” at http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/939/, accessed 12 July 2009.

Jutta Haider and David Bawden, 2006. “Pairing information with poverty: Traces of development discourses in LIS,” New Library World, volume 107, numbers 9/10, pp. 371–385.

Thomas Hess, Rolf T. Wigand, Florian Mann and Benedikt von Walter, 2007. Open access & science publishing: Results of a study on researchers’ acceptance and use of open access publishing. Munich: Ludwig–Maximilians–Universität, Institute for Information Systems and New Media, and at http://openaccess-study.com/Hess_Wigand_Mann_Walter_2007_Open_Access_Management_Report.pdf, accessed 7 February 2010.

U.K. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, 2004. Science and Technology: Tenth Report. London: U.K. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39902.htm, accessed 12 July 2009.

Robert Kiley and Robert Terry, 2006. “Open access to the research literature: A funder’s perspective,” In: Neil Jacobs (editor). Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford: Chandos, pp. 101–109.

Thomas S. Kuhn, 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition, enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Abel L. Packer and Rogerio Meneghini, 2007. “Learning to communicate science in developing countries,” Interciencia, volume 32, number 9, pp. 643–647, and at http://www.interciencia.org/v32_09/643.pdf, accessed 12 July 2009.

Jennifer I. Papin–Ramcharan and Richard A. Dawe, 2006. “Open access publishing: A developing country view,” First Monday, volume 11, number 6, at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1332/1252, accessed 12 July 2009.

Karl R. Popper, 1992. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.

Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, 2005. Open access self–archiving: An author study. Truro: Key Perspectives.


Actions (login required)

View Item View Item