=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2486/icaiw_edusynergies_3
|storemode=property
|title=Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2486/icaiw_edusynergies_3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2486
|authors=Simone Belli,Ronald Cardenas,Martin Velez,Ariana Rivera,Valeria Santoro
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icai2/BelliCVRS19
}}
==Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2486/icaiw_edusynergies_3.pdf
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific
Practice for Sharing Knowledge
Simone Belli1 , Ronald Cardenas2 , Martin Velez2 , Ariana Rivera2 , and
Valeria Santoro3
1
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Polticas y Sociologa,
Madrid, Spain sbelli@ucm.es
2
Yachay Tech University, Urcuqui, Ecuador {ronadcardenas, martin.velez,
ariana.riverah}@yachaytech.edu.ec
3
Barcelona Institute for Global Health Hospital Clnic Universitat de Barcelona.
Carrer Rossell 132. 08036 Barcelona, Spain vsantorol@ub.edu
Abstract. Digital transformation is changing communication in the
academic community, breaking geographic barriers with facilities of com-
munication between collaborators. However, countries and institutions
are not in the same context about resources to build an open path for
research production. For this reason, Open Access and Science are strate-
gies of relevance that enable collaboration among researchers around the
world and institutional areas. We do a systematic review with the aim
of exploring the potentials, and limitations of Open Science (OS) and
Open Access (OA) to scientific collaboration and production. We did an
initial screening of an abstract of 1664 publications in Scopus to select
144 documents related. Finally, a detailed review of the articles presents
17 documents that deal specifically with the functionalities and barriers
of OS and OA. The given arguments highlight the efficiency, and abilities
to democratize the production of knowledge and to generate ideas and
innovative solutions to current problems. Likewise, this article addresses
the barriers found in the academic level. The purpose of this paper is to
analyze the arguments treated by scientists in the dispute over whether
to use it or not. Specifically, our objectives are to: (a) analyze the role
of open science and open access in scientific production, (b) identify the
barriers that authors experiment when opting for open access and open
science. At last, we discuss the potential of OS to overcome the territo-
rial, economic, and infrastructure barriers that certain researchers may
experience in their production of scientific research collaboratively and
equitably.
Keywords: Scientific Collaboration · Open Access (OA) · Open Sci-
ence (OS) · Knowledge democratization · Literature Review
1 Introduction
The evolution of disciplinary scholarly practices has transformed knowledge pro-
duction, with the introduction of technology in research being one of the major
Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
2019 ICAI Workshops, pp. 156–167, 2019.
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge 157
drivers of changes [18, 41]. Digital transformation can change communication in
the academic community, break geographic barriers and facilitate the communi-
cation between collaborators [21]. Works as [33, 34] and Budapest Open Access
Initiative, (2002) propose that these changes must be related to the transforma-
tion of scientific publications. These changes must consider some aspects. The
first one is the transformation from physical to digital journals, and the second is
the promotion of Open Access to breaking social barriers such as legal, economic,
or technological.
Open Access has been redefined in many occasions. In Budapest (1993), Open
Access was defined as the cost-less access to the Internet for the distribution
and use of material for any legal purpose to break economic and technological
barriers [3,24]. Another declaration of Open Access was in Berlin emphasizing the
contributions of scientific investigation; it refers to data, photos, or graphics [7].
Moreover, the Salvador Declaration (2005) is focused on the development, access,
and use of science information [31].
Open Access gives freedom to use scientific publications under some condi-
tions [10]. This tool allows to use, publish, edit, and produce derivative research
of the original work with the agreement of the original authors. In this sense,
Open Access contributes to building knowledge society by promoting informa-
tion and communication [39]. However, each region needs to create politics to
promote, develop and limit Open Access [27]. For example, in Latin America,
Copyright results in a barrier which obstructs the uses of data and limits the use
of the publication. A lot of Open Access journals in Latin America keep restric-
tive copyright policies, which is inconsistent with the values of Open Access [37].
Open Access is an essential instrument by which Open Science is based on
the new strategies to diffuse knowledge and cooperative work using digital tech-
nologies [25]. Open Science encompasses some instruments for openness as Open
Data that focuses on fomenting the open publication of raw data and Open
source that foments the openness of research prototypes and software [26].
Open Science development is showing the world that investigators are achiev-
ing attempts that otherwise would not be possible without collaborative net-
works and technological tools combined together. Some of the remarkable exam-
ples are significant in biology and medicine, such as drug development strategies
getting better thanks to the addition of open strategies. These changes are re-
shaping the industry [36]. The relevant studies include drug development in
malaria and tropical disease. Despite the risks that open science can have, this
process is working better than traditional ways of co-working and at least, for
now, it’s a more efficient and fair way to make real science with global impacts.
Through time, a lot of advantages have been shown taking into account the
powerful effects of Open Science and Open Access in the ways individuals tend
to form collaborative teams, sharing profiles and creating a diversity of knowl-
edge. This process changes local realities with the promotion of collaborations,
including providing low-resource groups access to global resources and informa-
tion In consequence, it’s important to learn about these wide strategies to deal
with persistent challenges. As Hillyer et al (2017) suggest, its necessary to know
158 S. Belli
the local dynamics and strong structures that influence the collaborative teams
formation [23].
Since Open Science and Open Access are seen as a strategy of knowledge
production and dissemination that opposes the traditional closed strategies of
knowledge production and dissemination, the purpose of this paper4 is to analyze
the arguments treated by scientists in the dispute over whether to use it or not.
Specifically, the objectives of the article are: (a) to analyze the role of open
science and open access in scientific production, (b) to identify the barriers that
authors experiment when opting for Open Access and Open Science.
2 Methodology
One of the most relevant arguments when defending Open Science and Open
Access is the ability of these tools to favor scientific collaboration. Because of
that, the paper aims to analyze the research publications that describe and
analyze the capacities and limitations of Open Access and Open Science with
regards to scientific collaboration.
We used Scopus as the source to collect the data. Two keyword searches were
made. The first one used the terms open science and collaboration with 1 949
results. The second used the of open access and collaboration with 715.
We limited the results to only articles, reviews and conference papers. From
this point, in order to filter the documents that were related to our research we
analyzed their abstracts. Since we made keywords searches, most of the doc-
uments obtained did not address the problems we aimed to analyze. After a
content analysis of their abstracts, we ended up with 94 documents for the
terms open access and collaboration and 60 documents for the terms open sci-
ence and collaboration. One hundred and fifty-four documents were included for
the complete review. Duplicate articles and those that in spite of citing the use of
open science, addressed other topics were excluded. After the complete review,
we present 17 selected documents (Table 1) that analyze specifically the use of
open science and open access in research, its advantages, and disadvantages.
The internal quality of the articles was not evaluated since the objective
was to collect the diversity and multiplicity of arguments about the use of open
science for scientific practice. However, the quality of the publications was guar-
anteed by the a description of publications to journals indexed in Scopus.
3 Results
We present the results of our review, where we could differentiate two main sec-
tions. 3.1 The role of Open Science and Open Access in scientific production and
3.2 Barriers that authors have when choosing Open Science and Open Access.
4
This project has been developed within the framework of the research and innovation
project. Horizon 2020 of the European Union under a grant agreement no 693781 -
Giving focus to the Cultural, Scientific and Social Dimension of EU CELAC Rela-
tions
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge 159
Table 1. Authorship list presented in results
The role of Open Barriers that
Science and Open authors have to
Autorship
Access in scientific choose Open Access
production and Open Science
Adams and Bullard, 2014 X
Arza, Fressoli, Sebastian, 2017 X
Bubnicki, Churski and Kuijper, X
2016
Chataway J., Parks S. and Smith E. X
2017
Choi and Tausczik, 2017 X X
Coro, Panichi, Scarponi and X
Pagano , 2017
Das, et al., 2017 X X
Ferpozzi, 2017 X
Laine, 2017 X
Lin, Wiebe and Zhou, 2017 X
Shaw, 2017 X X
Tsou and Hsu, 2016 X
Vesnic-Alujevic, 2014 X
Weitzel, et al., 2017 X
Wilbanks and Wilbanks, 2010 X
Wooldridge, Taylor and Sullivan, X
2009
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, et al., 2016 X
Fig. 1. Search and paper selection process (Papers from Scopus
160 S. Belli
3.1 The role of Open Science and Open Access in scientific
production
The results of the review suggest that Open Science and Open Access are valu-
able tools to share information and collaborate in different social spheres. They
allow to produce scientific knowledge involving science-related professionals and
non-science related professionals by their collaborative work [4].
In this sense, open science is conceptualized as a strategy that allows, in the
first place, to make the production of knowledge more efficient in the sense that
it reduces the time and financial expense of the scientific output. Secondly, it is
conceived as a strategy that allows to make more honest the production of knowl-
edge, since it facilitates access to data by a wide range of people (researchers,
policymakers, companies, and the general population) Third, given the ability
to converge knowledge technologies widely and make them accessible to a higher
number of people, open science becomes an essential element for innovation.
More efficient knowledge production Firstly, we have found arguments that
refer to Open Science as a strategy that allows to reduce the costs of scientific
production and favor the efficient construction of knowledge. In this sense, Shaw
[36] discusses that traditional models of research are inefficient and expensive.
For this reason, he argues that it’s necessary to consider Open Science to produce
scientific knowledge. From this point of view, Open Science is an indispensable
tool that can increase the efficiency of researchers by including diverse strategies
that search for public and external inputs. The benefits of openness can be seen
in other areas such as firms. Openness allows firms to change strategies and
increase their opportunities boosting their development [38].
Efficiency is a recurrently referenced theme, especially, in the area of data
accumulation and management [29, 42]. On one hand, the openness of data
from different sources such as scientific research, industrial experiments and the
web has created a vast amount of data (big data). On the other hand, this
diversity and quantity of data must be properly managed in order to obtain new
knowledge to ensure its longevity, reuse and openness [14].
Das, et al. (2017) expose that Open Science is a potential solution to problems
related to the limitation of doing science in institution based contexts where the
amount of statistical power and resources are limited. On one hand, the Open
Science initiative could prevent data loss, increasing sample sizes and statistical
capacity. On the other, it would expand the reach and impact of research and
reduce acquisition costs by reducing data [15].
Equitable knowledge access and production The most outstanding ele-
ment of Open Science is its potential for an equitable production and access
to knowledge. Open Science is conceptualized as an indispensable tool for the
democratization of knowledge through the opening of resources, infrastructures,
raw data and publications to a wide range of agents. The strength of Open Sci-
ence lies in the fact that it supports the open publication and democratization of
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge 161
methodologies, processes, results, and documents related to scientific research.
The availability of this kind of data allows for the transparency, reproducibility,
repeatability, and reusability of scientific results. In this perspective, authors
such as Bubnicki, Churski, and Kuijper (2016) consider that the benefit from
Open Science approaches can be seen in the community of users of this open
data since using it can contribute with their own findings [9]. Professionals from
the same and other areas can infer new knowledge from these data. In this sense,
Choi and Tausczik (2017) consider that scientific progress can be accelerated,
which allows to create new applications of these findings in other fields while
promoting innovation [13].
In this framework, Open Access plays a prominent role, given that it is con-
sidered as the research dissemination strategy that allows to break the economic
limits of access to knowledge of certain countries and institutions [1].
In consonance with this point of view, Arza, Fressoli, and Sebastian (2017)
argue that the birth of OA breaks with a closed and split corporative state-
ment about scientific knowledge diffusion [5]. They state that, opposed to closed
publications [5], Open Access has become an essential element for the massive
collaborative scientific teams and the information which they generate, avoiding
unnecessary efforts and stimulating efficacy.
The ability to break with the elitist limits of closed publications is also evi-
dent in the growing presence and diffusion of Open Access around the world. In
this line, Chataway J., Parks S. y Smith E. (2017) highlight a notorious incre-
ment of the relative presence of Open Access in the amount of the total world
publications, which utter that in 10 years, the relative heaviness of Open Access
has been rising about 6% (38% in 2004 and 44% in 2014) [12]. This fact bene-
fits the supporters ascription and institutional commitments to promote Open
Access as a standard mechanism in scientific publications. Similarly, Chataway
J., Parks S. y Smith E. (2017) remark the effectiveness of Open Access in the
efficient treatment of problems and the increase in collaborative teams that form
looking for the same answers related to society complexity [12]. An example is
the global Ebola crisis, in which different specialists were able to freely exchange
information and discoveries about the virus, which in turn contributed to focus
studies and generate team work around the world fighting to control the epi-
demic. Setting off the effective and efficient distribution of information to tackle
emergent problems, Chataway, Parks & Smith (2017) argue that there is a limit
imposed by the copyright because its influence often slows down the research
process. For instance, the case of Saudi Arabia, where the quarrel about copy-
right and poor information has created big barriers to come against a respiratory
syndrome Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) [12].
A key element for innovation Likewise, and as a result of the potential in
the openness of knowledge and technologies that makes open science possible, it
is conceptualized as a relevant tool for innovation, given that it allows for the
convergence of disciplines, research groups and diverse agents in the construction
of technologies and problem solving. Professionals from the same and other areas
162 S. Belli
can infer new knowledge from Open data, which could accelerate the processes
of scientific production and promote innovative process in problem-solving [13].
In this term, Wilbanks Wilbanks (2010) compares how innovation was con-
sidered before and after the creation of the internet. The major change is related
to the creation and management of products, data, processes and intellectual
properties. They concluded that it is necessary to open the use of this informa-
tion in order to find its complete potential in other fields. Among other benefits,
the access to this knowledge, especially intellectual property, allows users to
avoid repeating past failures and to receive feedback, advice and criticism [43].
In this sense, Wooldridge, Taylor, and Sullivan (2009) present a clear exam-
ple of the potentialities of innovation of Open Sciences by showing the results
obtained in Open Science Prize initiative, an initiative that aims to encourage
open science in biomedical contexts and that has encouraged international col-
laboration by promoting open digital content and data [44].
3.2 Barriers that authors have when choosing Open Science and
Open Access
Despite the benefits that Open Science can have to enhance science, some aspects
can limit its implementation. Das, et al., (2017) discuss that Open Science at
institutions has not reach completely the scientific community due to ethical,
conceptual, and technical challenges involving researchers and the subjects of
the research [15]. It suggests that the authorship and autonomy of the data
they created can limit the openness of researchers to Open Science. This is due
to the unknown potential of the data created. Another aspect that can limit
Open Science is related to the ethical dimension considering privacy, consent,
and security of the subject’s information from which data is obtained.
Despite these two possible limitations, Das, et al., (2017) also highlight the
possible benefits from Open Science initiatives, from the increase of the num-
ber of citations and recognition attributed to shared data to the increase of
return of scientific funding and research investment [15]. The latter is thanks
to the increase of sample sizes and variability that improves reproducibility and
reliability of results, also increasing publication quality and impact. Another
problem that Open Science must face is the quality of the data created. Due to
the amount of information created from different sources, it is necessary to sort
this data since misleading results can be obtained from noisy data. Choi and
Tausczik (2017) highlight that professionals that want to use another data face
the challenge of figuring out how relevant, understandable and reliable said data
is since it usually lacks enough context and documentation to understand its
relevance, format, and meaning [13]. For this reason, Choi and Tausczik (2017)
show that collaboration with the data creators is necessary and suggest that
as openness increases, norms for sharing data will become more homogenous,
facilitating data created by different professionals [13].
Lastly, a fear that researchers can have related to Open Science is Scooping.
Laine (2017) works focuses on this problem [28]. Scooping is a term used
when someone claims priority or claims to be the first one doing a research that
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge 163
is also done by other researchers at the same time. In the same way, Shaw (2017)
presents Open Science as a valid option improving the efficient development of
technologies and pharmaceutical products, but he admits that this tool can be
a potential risk because of the author’s exposition to potential theft [36]. This
fear to be stolen is a limitation for researchers to get involved in open science
and open data sharing. Laine (2017) discusses that it is a major stress factor
among researchers. Nonetheless, this work also discusses that openness can help
to reduce scooping since the open publication of data online can be used as
evidence to prove priority [28].
Finally, two concrete arguments emerge when establishing
Open Access Limitations: The fear of disseminating publications of question-
able quality and the economic interests of publishers. In other words, on one
hand, there is a debate about the fact that open access should consider the
crowd-sourcing data which may contain defects either in redaction or in orthog-
raphy. These aspects could generate concerns about the quality of articles [45].
However, Vesnic-Alujevic (2014) rebuts that although the quality and reliabil-
ity of information can be jeopardized on the internet, Internet could be a good
way to improve research control and improvement [40]. If a researcher publishes
his or her work online, there is a broader community that can comment and
criticize it. Thanks to this and the speed, efficiency, and flexibility of communi-
cation through the internet, researchers work quality and dissemination can be
improved [40].
On the other hand, Ferpozzi (2017) exposes the existence of discussions about
open access around the business competition of publishers, whose main goal is
achieving economic resources. In this margin, the author expresses that knowl-
edge production cannot be self-sponsored, by then, and organizations or compa-
nies will always be necessary to sponsor these researches [19].
4 Discussion
Open Science aims to democratize the access to knowledge, data, prototypes,
and software for all the potential community [26, 35].
Although there is certain reluctance to use Open Science for the creation and
communication of knowledge (mainly the fear of research data being “stolen” and
the inadequate use of publications or doubts about the quality of the publica-
tions), Open Science strategies have multiple potential when it is thought of as
a relevant tool to shortening barriers between researchers and institutions with
limited resources and to respond to existing social problems from the complexity
paradigm. The access to information related to science faces obstacles that limit
the amount of people with access. Alperin et al. (2008) consider the dominance of
English in science an obstacle to be part of international academic networks and
to have articles published in prestigious international journals [3]. In the same
way, Ahmed (2007), Grimshaw and Talyarkhan, (2005), Gaiza (2016) argue that
the publications with more impact factor are from European or American Jour-
nals and not Open Access, making it difficult for low-income countries (such
164 S. Belli
as Latin America) to access the knowledge produced in their own territory or
relevant for it [2, 20, 21]. It supposes a form of knowledge colonialism [22] and
increases the divide between those who have resources and those who don’t to
access and produce knowledge. As consequence, knowledge becomes accessible
to those well-off spheres (usually researchers and institutions of developed coun-
tries) and in turn, promotes the reproduction of social and research inequalities
at a global scale [11]. These problems are approached by digital transformation,
which represents a new strategy to share knowledge.
Open Access and Open Science can allow researchers to access, produce, and
publish their findings for the society, replacing researchers from low income coun-
tries in the center of knowledge creation and dissemination, thus making access
to research and knowledge more equitable concurring with De Jong, J.P.J., W.
Vanhaverbeke, T. Kalvet H. Chesbrough (2008); who affirm that openness could
enhance networking, collaboration, and knowledge exchange through different
organizations (which allows innovation in knowledge production and problem-
solving) [16], and with Melero and Hernandez San Miguel (2014), who point out
that Openness is a key element to understand the distribution and production of
scientific knowledge in a collaborative and coordinated way between academics
and institutions, our findings show that Open Access and Open Science allow
researchers to open the debate of their findings and analysis towards a more
creative and holistic way and enhance the construction of effective solutions to
social problems in a collaborative work [30]. In addition, it enables the promotion
of the authors career to bring their results to a broader population range [35].
Nonetheless, we evidence some reluctance in the use of Open Science. This
includes the fear of investigators of being victims of scooping and crowdsourcing
as a factor that can affect the quality of the research productions. The use of
open strategies (open science, and access) are key elements to enhance knowledge
democratization if some key elements are taken into account. In OA there are two
of special relevance: the tax payments to publish in open access that could limit
the capacity of low resource researchers to publish in OA and the reluctance
to publish in open access due to the doubt of quality in OA, fostered by the
so-called ”predatory journals” [17].
5 Conclusion
Open Science and Open Access have a special potential to be more efficient,
innovative and to democratize knowledge, and its production, management and
dissemination towards the community. In the case of science-related knowledge
and data, there are some aspects that are limiting the acceptance of this idea
among scientists. These problems include: (1) a lack of information that can
help to use and understand the open data published, (2) the quality of the data
available due to the easy access for anyone to publish it and (3) the fear of
scooping or using ones data without addressing its original creator. Nonetheless,
if these problems are solved, Open Science can benefit the scientific community.
It can allow researchers to publish their research and get feedback from a wider
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge 165
audience that can include professionals from areas not related to science. It can
help to infer and obtain more knowledge from research results increasing the
efficiency and the return of investment.
Finally, it can help to preserve data that would otherwise be forgotten. The
paper analysis shows evidence of the notorious increase of Open Access at a
global scale. The main elements that boost its development have been a positive
experience at an international level in the solution of complex social problems
and the breach of some barriers such as exclusive associations and author re-
strictions. These barriers turn out to be an impediment for the investigation
because they place knowledge production towards privileged institutions and
researchers. Nonetheless, a wide variety of policies that favor the implementa-
tion of Open Access have been implemented. Some relevant initiatives are: the
Open Access Initiative in Budapest (2002) Bethesd (2003) and Berlin (2003) The
UNESCO strategy to promote Open access to scientific production (2013) and
The Latin American Federated Network of institutional repositories of scientific
documentation in Latin America [6–8, 24, 32, 39].
References
1. Adams, T.M., Bullard, K.A.: A case study of librarian outreach to scientists: Col-
laborative research and scholarly communication in conservation biology. College
& Undergraduate Libraries 21(3-4), 377–395 (2014)
2. Ahmed, A.: Open access towards bridging the digital divide–policies and strategies
for developing countries. Information Technology for Development 13(4), 337–361
(2007)
3. Alperín, J.P., Fischman, G., Willinsky, J.: Open access and scholarly publishing
in latin america: ten flavours and a few reflections— acesso livre e publica¸c~ao
acad^emica na am´erica latina: dez sabores e algumas reflex~oes. Liinc em Revista
4(2) (2008)
4. Arza, V., Fressoli, M., Sebastian, S.: Towards open science in Argentina: From
experiences to public policies. First Monday 22(7) (2017)
5. Arza, V., Fressoli, M., Sebastian, S.: Towards open science in Argentina: From
experiences to public policies. First Monday 22(7) (2017)
6. Babini, D.: Acceso abierto a la producción científica de américa latina y el caribe:
Identificación de principales instituciones para estrategias de integración regional
(open access to scientific output from Latin America and the caribbean: Identifi-
cation of main institutions for regional integration strategies). Revista Iberoamer-
icana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad CTS 6(17) (2011)
7. Berlin-Declaration: Berlin declaration. https://openaccess.mpg.de/BerlinDeclaration
(2003), last accessed 2018-02-24
8. Brown, P.O., Cabell, D., Chakravarti, A., Cohen, B., Delamothe, T., Eisen, M.,
Grivell, L., Gu´edon, J.C., Hawley, R.S., Johnson, R.K., et al.: Bethesda statement
on open access publishing (2003)
9. Bubnicki, J.W., Churski, M., Kuijper, D.P.: trapper: an open source web-based ap-
plication to manage camera trapping projects. Methods in Ecology and Evolution
7(10), 1209–1216 (2016)
10. Carroll, M.W.: Creative commons and the openness of open access. New England
Journal of Medicine 368(9), 789–791 (2013)
166 S. Belli
11. Castells, M.: Challenges of Globalisation: South African Debates with Manuel
Castells, vol. 4. Pearson South Africa (2001)
12. Chataway, J., Parks, S., Smith, E.: How will open science impact on university–
industry collaboration? 11(2 (eng)) (2017)
13. Choi, J., Tausczik, Y.: Characteristics of collaboration in the emerging practice
of open data analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. pp. 835–846. ACM (2017)
14. Coro, G., Panichi, G., Scarponi, P., Pagano, P.: Cloud computing in a distributed
e-infrastructure using the web processing service standard. Concurrency and Com-
putation: Practice and Experience 29(18), e4219 (2017)
15. Das, S., Glatard, T., Rogers, C., Saigle, J., Paiva, S., MacIntyre, L., Safi-Harab,
M., Rousseau, M.E., Stirling, J., Khalili-Mahani, N., et al.: Cyberinfrastructure for
open science at the montreal neurological institute. Frontiers in neuroinformatics
10, 53 (2017)
16. De Jong, J.P., Vanhaverbeke, W., Kalvet, T., Chesbrough, H.: Policies for open
innovation: Theory, framework and cases. Tarmo Kalvet (2008)
17. Díaz-Noci, J.: Abadal, ernest (ed., 2017):” revistas científicas. Situación actual y
retos de futuro”, barcelona, universitat de barcelona edicions, 273 páginas. Estudios
sobre el mensaje periodístico (24), 975–976 (2018)
18. For Educational Research, O.C., (CERI), I.: Education at a glance: Oecd indicators
1998 (1998)
19. Ferpozzi, H.: What is at stake? public participation and the co-production of open
scientific knowledge. In: ELPUB. pp. 257–268 (2017)
20. Gainza, C.: Prácticas académicas de producción y distribución del conocimiento
en la era digital.(y una reflexión sobre
21. Grimshaw, D.J., Talyarkhan, S.: A best process approach for using icts in devel-
opment. In: IRFD World Forum on Information Society, Tunis. Citeseer (2005)
22. Harnad, S.: Six proposals for freeing the refereed literature online: A comparison.
Ariadne (2001)
23. Hillyer, R., Posada, A., Albornoz, D., Chan, L., Okune, A.: Framing a situated and
inclusive open science: emerging lessons from the open and collaborative science
in development network. Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities,
Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices p. 18 (2017)
24. Initiative, B.O.A., et al.: Read the budapest open access initiative. Budapest Open
Access Initiative (2002)
25. Innovation, O.: Open science, open to the world–a vision for europe. European
Comission (2016)
26. Kraker, P., Leony, D., Reinhardt, W., Beham, G.: The case for an open science
in technology enhanced learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced
Learning 3(6), 643–654 (2011)
27. Kroes, N.: Opening science through e-infrastructures. Available at: europa.
eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do (2012)
28. Laine, H.: Afraid of scooping–case study on researcher strategies against fear of
scooping in the context of open science. Data Science Journal 16 (2017)
29. Lin, J., Milligan, I., Wiebe, J., Zhou, A.: Warcbase: Scalable analytics infrastruc-
ture for exploring web archives. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
(JOCCH) 10(4), 22 (2017)
30. Melero, R., San Miguel, H., Javier, F.: Acceso abierto a los datos de investigación,
una vía hacia la colaboración científica. Revista española de documentación cien-
tífica 37(4) (2014)
Open Science and Open Access, a Scientific Practice for Sharing Knowledge 167
31. OMS: Activities international seminar on open access for developing countries sal-
vador, bahia brazil. Icml9.org (2005), last accessed 2018-02-24-
32. Red-Clara, BID: America latina pasa la primera página en acceso abierto.
red federada de repositorios institucionales de publicaciones cientficas.
http://lareferencia.redclara.net/rfr/sites/default/files/edicion-especial- refer-
encia.pdf (2013), last accessed 2010-09-30
33. Sánchez Tarrago, N., Caballero-Rivero, A., Trzesniak, P., Deroy Domínguez, D.,
Nonato Macedo dos Santos, R., Fernández-Molina, J.C., et al.: Las revistas cien-
tíficas en am´erica latina hacia el camino del acceso abierto: un diagnóstico de
políticas y estrategias editoriales (2016)
34. Sanchez-Tarrago, N., Caballero-Rivero, A., Trzesniak, P., Dominguez, D.D., San-
tos, R.N.M.d., Fernandez-Molina, J.C.: Scientific journals in latinamerica on
their way towards open access: A diagnosis on policies and editorial strategies.
Transinforma¸cao 28(2), 159–172 (2016)
35. Serrano-Muñoz, J., Prats-Prat, J.: Repertorios abiertos: el libre acceso a con-
tenidos. Revista de universidad y sociedad del conocimiento (2005)
36. Shaw, D.L.: Focus: Drug development: Is open science the future of drug develop-
ment? The Yale journal of biology and medicine 90(1), 147 (2017)
37. Silva, A.C., LARA, C.: Políticas editoriales de publicaciones acad´emicas en línea
en latinoam´erica. Santiago: Derechos Digitales (2011)
38. Tsou, H.T., Hsu, S.H.Y.: Performance effects of technology–organization– envi-
ronment openness, service co-production, and digital-resource readiness: The case
of the it industry. International Journal of Information Management 35(1), 1–14
(2015)
39. UNESCO: Informe de la consulta latinoamericana y del caribe sobre acceso abierto
a información e investigación científica concepto y políticas. División sociedades del
conocimiento, sector comunicación e información (2013)
40. Vesnic-Alujevic, L.: Peer review and scientific publishing in times of web 2.0. Pub-
lishing research quarterly 30(1), 39–49 (2014)
41. Walsh, R.: Asian contemplative disciplines: Common practices, clinical applica-
tions, and research findings. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 31(2), 83–108
(1999)
42. Weitzel, D., Bockelman, B., Brown, D.A., Couvares, P., Würthwein, F., Hernandez,
E.F.: Data access for ligo on the osg. In: Proceedings of the Practice and Experience
in Advanced Research Computing 2017 on Sustainability, Success and Impact. p.
24 (2017)
43. Wilbanks, J.T., Wilbanks, T.J.: Science, open communication and sustainable de-
velopment. Sustainability 2(4), 993–1015 (2010)
44. Wooldridge, B., Taylor, L., Sullivan, M.: Managing an open access, multiinstitu-
tional, international digital library: The digital library of the caribbean. Resource
Sharing & Information Networks 20(1-2), 35–44 (2009)
45. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., Hajibayova, L., Kwa snik, B.H., Hamari, J., Bullard,
J., Bowman, T.: Crowdsourcing approaches for knowledge organization systems:
Crowd collaboration or crowd work? In: Proceedings of the 79th ASIS & T Annual
Meeting: Creating Knowledge, Enhancing Lives through Information & Technol-
ogy. p. 13. American Society for Information Science (2016)