Доступность, прозрачность, инклюзивность? Ценности Open Science и парадокс демократизации
Аннотация
В данной статье анализируется парадокс демократизации Open Science: с одной стороны, открытая наука способствует доступности и прозрачности научного процесса, а с другой — усиливает существующие академические неравенства. Рассматриваются ключевые вызовы Open Science, в том числе финансовые барьеры для ученых из стран Глобального Юга, доминирование количественных методов над качественными, языковые и цифровые барьеры, а также угрозы, связанные с открытыми данными и рецензированием. Особое внимание уделяется проблеме геймификации академической среды, в результате которой Open Science становится инструментом не демократизации, а капитализации науки.
Скачивания
Литература
Amano T., González-Varo J. P., Sutherland W. J. (2016) “Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science”, PLOS Biology, vol. 14, no. 12, art. e2000933.
“Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities” (2003), Max Planck Society (https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration, accessed on 14.01.2025).
Bohannon J. (2013) “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?”, Science, vol. 342, no. 6154, pp. 60–65.
“Budapest Open Access Initiative” (2002), Open Society Institute (https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read, accessed on 14.01.2025).
Camerer C. F. et al. (2018) “Evaluating the Replicability of Social Science Experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015”, Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 637–644.
Canessa E. et al. (2003) “Monitoring the Digital Divide” (arXiv preprint) (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0305016, accessed on 02.02.2025.
Center for Open Science (2024a) “Brief History of COS (2013–2017)”, Center for Open Science (https://www.cos.io/about/brief-history-cos-2013-2017, accessed on 02.02.2025).
Center for Open Science (2024b) “Anniversary Timeline of Open Science Initiatives”, Center for Open Science (https://www.cos.io/timeline, accessed on 02.02.2025).
“Common Crawl Foundation” (2024), Common Crawl (https://commoncrawl.org, accessed on 30.01.2025).
Contreras J. L. (2011) “Bermuda’s Legacy: Policy, Patents and the Design of the Genome Commons”, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, vol. 12, p. 61.
Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) (2024) “Climate Data Store”, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) (https://climate.copernicus.eu, accessed on 30.01.2025).
Dienlin T. et al. (2021) “An Agenda for Open Science in Communication”, Journal of Communication, vol. 71, iss. 1, pp. 1–26.
European Commission (2018) “Open Science Policy Platform Recommendations”, European Commission Report (https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science/open-science-policy-platform_en, accessed on 14.01.2025).
European Commission (2021) “Horizon Europe: The EU Research & Innovation Programme (2021–2027)”, European Union (https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en, accessed on 01.02.2025).
“European Social Survey (ESS)” (2024), European Research Infrastructure (https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org, accessed on 30.01.2025).
Fanelli D. (2020) “Pressures to Publish: What Effects Do We See?”, Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research (ed by M. Biagioli, A. Lippman), Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, pp. 191–208.
Fecher B., Friesike S. (2014) “Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought”, Opening Science, Springer Intern. Publ., pp. 17–47.
Fox J. et al. (2021) “Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication”, Journal of Communication, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 764–784.
Franco A., Malhotra N., Simonovits G. (2014) “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer”, Science, vol. 345, no. 6203, pp. 1502–1505.
González-Alcaide G., Valderrama-Zurián J. C., Aleixandre-Benavent R. (2012) “The Impact Factor in Non-English-Speaking Countries”, Scientometrics, vol. 92, pp. 297–311.
Grudniewicz A. et al. (2019) “Predatory Journals: No Definition, No Defence”, Nature, vol. 576, pp. 210–212.
Hanson M. A. et al. (2023) “The Strain on Scientific Publishing” (arXiv Preprint), arXiv: 2309.15884 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15884, accessed on 16.02.2025).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (2024) “Article Processing Charges”, IEEE Open (https://open.ieee.org/for-authors/article-processing-charges/, accessed on 01.02.2025).
International Science Council (2020) “Open Science: Making Science Global”, International Science Council Report (https://council.science/publications/open-science-making-science-global/, accessed on 14.01.2025).
International Science Council (2025) “Freedom and Responsibilities in Science”, International Science Council (https://council.science/our-work/freedom-and-responsibility-in-science/, accessed on 14.01.2025).
John L. K., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. (2012) “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling”, Psychological Science, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 524–532.
Kerr N. L. (1998) “HARKing: Hypothesizing after the Results Are Known”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 196–217.
Klimenko I. M., Gan O. I. (2024) “The Ambivalent Influence of Digitalization Factor on the Problem of Harassment in Education”, Electronic Archive of UrFU (https://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/95222/1/978-5-7996-3110-9_2020-15.pdf, accessed on 02.02.2025).
Konno S., Amano T. (2022) “The Loss of Non-English-Language Science: Patterns of Growth and Decline in Non-English Documents Indexed in Scopus and Web of Science”, Scientometrics, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 1383–1405.
Konyisheva K. V., Struk N. M. (2014) “Theoretical Approaches to the Analysis of New Marginal Groups”, iPolytech Journal (https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teoreticheskie-podhody-k-analizu-novyh-marginalnyh-grupp, accessed on 02.02.2025).
Laakso M. et al. (2011) “The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009”, PLOS ONE, vol. 6, no. 6.
“Languages Still a Major Barrier to Global Science, New Research Finds” (2016), University of Cambridge (https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/languages-still-a-major-barrier-to-global-science, accessed on 14.01.2025).
LeBel E. P. (2024) “Transparency Leaderboard”, Curate Science (https://etiennelebel.com/cs/t-leaderboard/t-leaderboard.html, accessed on 02.02.2025).
Moher D. et al. (2017) “Predatory Journals: What Can We Do to Protect Their Prey?”, JAMA Network, vol. 317, no. 5, pp. 567–568.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2024) “Public Access Policy Overview”, NIH (https://sharing.nih.gov/public-access-policy/public-access-policy-overview, accessed on 01.02.2025).
Nosek B. A. et al. (2018) “The Preregistration Revolution”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 11, pp. 2600–2606.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2021) “Open Science: Enabling Discovery in the Digital Age”, OECD Publishing (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/open-science-enabling-discovery-in-the-digitalage_81a9dcf0-en.html, accessed on 30.01.2025).
Open Science Collaboration (2015) “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science”, Science, vol. 349, no. 6251, art. aac4716.
OpenStreetMap Foundation (2024) “OpenStreetMap”, OSM (https://www.openstreetmap.org, accessed on 30.01.2025).
Rocher L., Hendrickx J. M., Montjoye Y.-A., de (2019) “Estimating the Success of Re-Identifications in Incomplete Datasets Using Generative Models”, Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, art. 3069.
“San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment” (2020), Scientific Editor and Publisher, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 51–53.
Schmitz K. M. et al. (2023) “Open-Science Guidance for Qualitative Research: An Empirically Based, Stakeholder-Driven Framework for Qualitative Data Sharing”, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, vol. 6, no. 3 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/25152459231205832, accessed on 02.02.2025).
Shearer K. (2024) “Bridging the Digital Divide: How Repository Networks Are Shaping the Future of Open Science”, Scientia (https://www.scientia.global/wp-content/uploads/Kathleen-Shearer-COAR.pdf, accessed on 02.02.2025).
Simmons J. P., Nelson L. D., Simonsohn U. (2011) “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant”, Psychological Science, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1359–1366.
“Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)” (2024), The SDSS Collaboration (https://www.sdss.org, accessed on 30.01.2025).
Solomon D., Björk B. (2017) “The Cost of Article Processing Charges (APC) for Open Access: Experience of Research Universities in the USA and Canada”, Scientific Editor and Publisher, vol. 2, no. 2–4, pp. 89–106.
Solovyova T. O., Solovyov D. N. (2017) “On the Implementation of the Principle of Academic Freedom in Modern University Education”, Bulletin of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 281–304.
SpringerOpen (2024) “Article Processing Charges (APCs) and Open Access Publishing”, Springer Nature (https://www.springeropen.com/get-published/article-processing-charges, accessed on 01.02.2025).
Suber P. (2012) Open Access, MIT Press.
Tennant J. et al. (2016) “The Academic, Economic, and Societal Impacts of Open Access: An Evidence-Based Review”, F1000Research, vol. 5, no. 632 (https://f1000research.com/articles/5-632/v3, accessed on 18.02.2025).
UNESCO (2021) “Recommendation on Open Science”, UNESCO General Conference (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949, accessed on 14.01.2025).
Wicherts J. M., Bakker M., Molenaar D. (2011) “Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results”, PLOS ONE, vol. 6, no. 11, art. e26828.
Wiley (2024) “Article Publication Charges (APCs) for Open Access Journals”, Wiley Author Services (https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/article-publication-charges/index.html, accessed on 01.02.2025).
