Abstract
This chapter examines the framing of the science system as in a series of crises and argues that the source of most, if not all, of them are governed by what can be described as the normativity crisis. This crisis is characterized by the researcher’s quest for high-ranking journals, a quest that shifts the goalposts from solid and rigour science to mere publishing in the right journals. This development is due to both formal and informal research evaluation, which is the basis for tenure, promotion and grants. It is further argued that the remedy in the form of Open Science and Open Access in particular, comes with limitations: even if all academic outlets flipped to Open Access, the current use of journals as a proxy for quality would still skew science. In addition, the current scheme of evaluation is blocking the transition to Open Access. For Open Access to become the norm in academic publishing and in alignment with the Mertonian norms, the evaluation scheme must change and incentivize Open Science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Even if there are differences, replicability and reproducibility are commonly used interchangeably. For a discussion of this theme, see ‘Replicability is not Reproducibility: Nor is it Good Science’, 2009.
- 2.
The criteria for which journals are eligible by the Plan S policy are still not finally settled by the time of writing. Following criticism against Plan S, both hybrid and green open access may comply as a result of the hearing in 2019, then under strict conditions.
- 3.
References
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244019829575. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature News, 533(7604), 452. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Björk, B.-C. (2017a). Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing, 30(2), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1096
Björk, B.-C. (2017b). Scholarly journal publishing in transition- from restricted to open access. Electronic Markets, 27(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0249-2
Bjork, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10, 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-73
Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018, October 18). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Retrieved October 28, 2018, from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
Brinkmann, S. (2019). Normativity in psychology and the social sciences: Questions of universality. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Brito, R., & Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2019). Evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor: Is it better than coin flipping? Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.009
Brock, J. (2018). ‘Bronze’ open access supersedes green and gold. Retrieved from https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/bronze-open-access-supersedes-green-and-gold
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
Chan, L., Cuplinskas, D., Eisen, M., Friend, F., Genova, Y., Guédon, J.-C., … Kupryte, R. (2002). Budapest Open Access Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/
Chen, X., Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Dasler, R., Feger, S., Fokianos, P., Gonzalez, J. B., … Neubert, S. (2019). Open is not enough. Nature Physics, 15(2), 113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0342-2
cOAlition S. (2018). Plan S. Retrieved from https://khrono.no/files/2018/11/27/veileder%20Plan%20S.pdf
Collins, F. S., & Tabak, L. A. (2014). NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612–613.
DORA. (2012). DORA – San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Retrieved May 11, 2018, from https://sfdora.org/
Else, H. (2018). Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions. Nature, 561, 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06178-7
EU Commission. (2017). Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging open science practices. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2777/75255
EU Commission. (2019). Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. (Website). Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1
European Commission (Ed.). (2016). Open innovation, open science, open to the world: A vision for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 5(4), e10068. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010068
Fanelli, D. (2014, April 30). Publishing: Rise in retractions is a signal of integrity. Nature, 509, 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/509033a
Fecher, B., & Wagner, G. G. (2016). Open access, innovation, and research infrastructure. Publications, 4, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4020017
Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2017). Public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades. Retrieved November 16, 2018, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.
Garfield, E. (1996). When to cite. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 66(4), 449–458.
Green, T. (2017). We’ve failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1116
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature News, 520(7548), 429. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Higginson, A. D., & Munafò, M. R. (2016). Current incentives for scientists Lead to underpowered studies with erroneous conclusions. PLoS Biology, 14(11), e2000995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000995
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature, 561(7722), 167. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8
Kam, J., & Macdonald, S. (2008). Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Management Research News, 31(8), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170810892154
Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Bjork, B. C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One, 6, e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2013). Delayed open access: An overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22856
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). The journal impact factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. ArXiv:1801.08992 [Physics]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08992
Lundh, L. G. (2019). The crisis in psychological science, and the need for a person-oriented approach. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies∗. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 640–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00704.x
Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848
Migheli, M., & Ramello, G. B. (2013). Open access, social norms and publication choice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 35, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-013-9388-x
Mulligan, A., & Mabe, M. (2006). Journal futures: Researcher behaviour at early internet maturity. Presentation held at UKSG. Downloaded from https://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/imported/presentations8/mulligan.pdf
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., … Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nature Publishing Group. (2015). Author Insights 2015 survey. Retrieved from https://figshare.com/articles/Author_Insights_2015_survey/1425362
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over Publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058
Pells. (2018, October 19). Plan S ‘could prove fatal’ for learned societies. Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/plan-s-could-prove-fatal-learned-societies
Peplow, M. (2014). Social sciences suffer from severe publication bias. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.15787
Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., … Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
Plan S Open Letter. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2019, from https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/home
Rodrigues, R. S., Taga, V., & dos Passos, M. F. (2016). Research articles about open access indexed by Scopus: A content analysis. Publications, 4, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4040031
Sage. (2014). Retraction notice. Journal of Vibration and Control, 20(10), 1601–1604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546314541924
Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving science. The New Atlantis. Number 49, Spring/Summer 2016, pp. 4–40.
Schimmer, R., & Geshunhn, K. (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access: A Max Planck Digital Library Open Access Policy White Paper. Retrieved from https://www.scienceopen.com/document?id=b2341b73-1e0e-4b6f-8ef0-15620638e1ba
Schneider, L. (2018, September 11). Response to Plan S from Academic Researchers: Unethical, Too Risky! Retrieved November 16, 2018, from https://forbetterscience.com/2018/09/11/response-to-plan-s-from-academic-researchers-unethical-too-risky/
Schwartz, B. (2009). Incentives are not enough. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=608
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Malighetti, P. (2019). Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions. Research Policy, 48(2), 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.004
Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
Simkin, M. V. (2003). Read before You cite! Complex Systems, 14, 269–274.
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Open Science, 3(9), 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384
Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., & Sorrell, S. (2018). Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Research & Social Science, 45, 12–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007
SPARC Europe. (n.d.). The Open Access Citation Advantage Service (OACA). Retrieved May 12, 2018, from https://sparceurope.org/what-we-do/open-access/sparc-europe-open-access-resources/open-access-citation-advantage-service-oaca/
Steele, C., Butler, L., & Kingsley, D. (2006). The publishing imperative: The pervasive influence of publication metrics. Learned Publishing, 19(4), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315106778690751
Stoye, E. (2017). Public trust in scientists at record high. Chemistry World. Retrieved from https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/public-trust-in-scientists-at-record-high/3008394.article
Sveriges Unge Akademi. (2018). Plan S – open letter to decision makers – Sveriges Unga Akademi [text]. Retrieved November 15, 2018, from https://www.sverigesungaakademi.se/1447.html
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: An evidence-based review. F1000Res, 5, 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
Tenopir, C., Levine, K., Allard, S., Christian, L., Volentine, R., Boehm, R., … Watkinson, A. (2016). Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: Results of an international questionnaire. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(10), 2344–2361. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23598
Times Higher Education. (2018, February 20). Elsevier’s profits swell to more than £900 million. Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elseviers-profits-swell-more-ps900-million
Tregoning, J. (2018, June 19). How will you judge me if not by impact factor? Nature, 558(7710), 345. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05467-5
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature News, 478(7367), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a
Vera-Badillo, F. E., Napoleone, M., Krzyzanowska, M. K., Alibhai, S. M. H., Chan, A.-W., Ocana, A., … Tannock, I. F. (2016). Honorary and ghost authorship in reports of randomised clinical trials in oncology. European Journal of Cancer, 66, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.06.023
Vinkers, C. H., Tijdink, J. K., & Otte, W. M. (2015). Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective analysis. BMJ, 351, h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467
Willinsky, J. (2009). The stratified economics of open access. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(09)50043-4
Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Sivertsen, G. (2017). Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen’s work on journal impact and research evaluation. PLoS One, 12(3), e0174205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174205
Zickefeld, J., & Schubert, T. (2019). How to identify and how to conduct research that is informative and reproducible. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wenaas, L. (2019). Open Access: A Remedy to the Crisis in Scientific Inquiry?. In: Valsiner, J. (eds) Social Philosophy of Science for the Social Sciences. Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33099-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33099-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33098-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33099-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)