Abstract
Open science refers to produce scientific knowledge collaboratively with actors that do not belong to a research project creating freely available research outcomes. Its benefits range from promoting greater efficiency and quality in the production of scientific knowledge to generating greater democratization of knowledge providing better response to social demands. This study discusses the extent and characteristics of open science practices in Argentina using a survey conducted among 1463 researchers working in the public research organizations. Although there is some misperception among researchers about what open science actually means, many of them showed interest in these practices. Since "interacting with other" is familiar to researchers’ scientific practices, we believe there is good potential for the promotion of open science through public policy schemes.
References
ALBABLI, S. (2015). Open science in question. In M. L. M. S. ALBAGLI, & A. H. Abdo (Ed.), Open Science, Open Issues (pp. 9 - 26 ). Rio de Janeiro IBICT - UNIRIO.
BARTLING, S., y FRIESIKE, S. (2014). Towards another scientific revolution. In S. BARTLING y S. FRIESIKE (Eds.), Opening Science (pp. 3-5): Springer International Publishing.
CATLIN-GROVES, C. L. (2012). The citizen science landscape: from volunteers to citizen sensors and beyond. International Journal of Zoology, 2012, 1–14. doi: 10.1155/2012/349630.
COOPER, C. (2012). Retro Science, Part 1. Scientific American.
COOPER, C. (2012). Victorian-Era Citizen Science: Reports of Its Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated. Scientific American.
CORTASSA, C. (2012). La Ciencia ante el Público. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
DASGUPTA, P., y DAVID, P. (1994). Toward a New Economics of Science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521.
ELLIS, R., y WATERTON, C. (2004). Environmental Citizenship in the Making: Biological Recording and Biodiversity Policy. Science and Public Policy, 31(2), 95 - 105.
EPSTEIN, S. (1996). Impure Science. Aids, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: California University Press.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. (2015). Validation of the results of the public consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition
FECHER, B., y FRIESIKE, S. (2014). Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought Opening Science (pp. 17-47): Springer.
FRANCO-AVELLANEDA, M. (2013). Museos, artefactos y sociedad:¿ Cómo se configura su dimensión educativa? . [http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/unih/n76/n76a06.pdf]. Universitas Humanística, 76(201307), 97 - 123.
FRANZONI, C., y SAUERMANN, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1), 1-20.
GAGLIARDI, D., Cox, D., & Li, Y (2015 ). Institutional Inertia and Barriers To the Adoption of Open Science. In E. R. E. PRIMERI (Ed.), The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries (pp. 107 - 133 ). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
HAGSTROM, W. O. (1974). Competition in Science. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 1-18.
HESS, D. (2007). Alternative Pathways in Science and industry. Activism, innovation and the environment in the era of globalization Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
HESS, D. (2010). Social Movements, Publics, and Scientists Invited plenary lecture. Tokyo: Japanese Society for Science and Technology Studies.
IRWIN, A. (1995). Citizen Science, A study of people, expertice and Sustainable development. London: Routledge.
IRWIN, A., & Wynne, B (1996). Misunderstanding science. The Public Reconstruction of Science: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KREIMER, P. (1998). Ciencia y periferia: una lectura sociológica. In M. M. (ED.) (Ed.), La historia de la ciencia en el siglo XX (pp. 187 - 207). Buenos Aires: Manantial.
LAFUENTE, A., y ESTALELLA, A. (2015). Modos de ciencia: pública, abierta y común
In S. ALBAGLI, M. L. MACIEL y A. H. ABDOM (Eds.), Ciência aberta, questões abertas: IBICT; Rio de Janeiro: UNIRIO.
LEACH, M., y SCOONES, I. (2005). Science and citizenship in a global context. In M. LEACH, I. SCOONES y B. WYNNE (Eds.), Science and citizens. Globablization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.
MARTIN, B. (2005). Strategies for alternative science. In S. FRICKLEL y K. MOORE (Eds.), (pp. 272-298). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
MASUM, H., y HARRIS, R. (2011 ). Open source for negleted diseases: challenges and opportunities: Center for global health R&D Policy Assessment.
MAZZOLENI, R., y NELSON, R. R. (2007). Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Research Policy, 36(10), 1512-1528.
MERTON, R. (1977). La sociología de la ciencia. Madrid: Alianza.
MERTON, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery. A chapter in sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635 - 659.
MILLER-RUSHING, P. y. B. (2012). The History of Public Participation in Ecological Research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 285 - 290.
MOLLOY, J. C. (2011). The open knowledge foundation: open data means better science. PLoS Biology, 9(12), p.e1001195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195.
MOORE, K. (2006). Powered by the people: scientific authority in participatory science. In S. F. K. M. (EDS.) (Ed.), The new political sociology of science. Institutions, networs and powers (pp. 299 - 325). Madison: The Universty of Winsconsin Press.
MOWERY, D. C. (1995). The Practice of Technology Policy. In P. STONEMAN (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change (pp. 513-557). Oxford: Blackwell.
NELSON, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455-471.
NIELSEN, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
OROZCO, A., Chavarro, D. A (2010 ). Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) La ciencia como institución [https://res.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/667/index.php?id=667]. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 37, 143 - 162.
PEARCE, J. M. (2012 ). Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware. [ http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228183]. Science and Public Policy, 337(6100), 1303 - 1304
RIN/NESTA. (2010). Open to All? Case studies of openness in research. London: Research Information Network (RIN) and National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).
SONNENWALD, D. H. (2007). Introduction Scientific Collaboration: A Synthesis of Challenges and Strategies. [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=?doi=10.1.1.128.5805]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643 - 681.
STEPHAN, P. (2010). The economics of science. In E. B. H. HALL & N. ROSENBERG (Ed.), E Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (1 ed., Vol. 1): Elsevier B.V.
VARSAVSKY, O. (1969). Ciencia, Política y Cientificismo. Buenos Aires: CEAL.
WAGNER, C. S. (2009). The new invisible college: Science for development: Brookings Institution Press.
WIGGINS, A., y CROWSTON, K. (2011). From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. Paper presented at the Paper presented at System Sciences (HICSS), , Hawai.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2017 Valeria Arza, Mariano Fressoli, Emanuel Lopez