Vol. 2 Núm. 2 (2024):
Artículos

El singular deterioro de la publicación científica

PDF HTML PDF (English) HTML (English)
  • Enrique Sahagún Alonso
Enrique Sahagún Alonso
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51896/easc.v2i2.708

Publicado 2024-12-17

Palabras clave

  • Alienación social,
  • ciencia de la ciencia,
  • corrupción,
  • difusión selectiva de información,
  • edición de textos,
  • pensamiento crítico,
  • publicación científica
    • ...Más
    Menos

Cómo citar

Sahagún Alonso, E. (2024). El singular deterioro de la publicación científica. Revista Internacional De Educación Y Análisis Social Crítico Mañé, Ferrer & Swartz, 2(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.51896/easc.v2i2.708
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

Resumen

Las ideas deben ser públicas. No se construye conocimiento si no se comparten ideas. No se avanza si no es posible trepar a hombros de otros. La publicación científica no es conveniente o aconsejable: es un imperativo. Y, sin embargo, llevar a cabo esta labor entraña un problema complejo para el que no parece haber soluciones sencillas. Hoy, la comunidad científica está compuesta por millones de individuos. Gestionar la labor de comunicación de ideas en este escenario de forma correcta, justa y funcional, no resulta una tarea fácil. El texto que sigue es un análisis somero, tal vez sesgado y seguramente vehemente, sobre el estado actual de la publicación científica. Se discutirá cómo ésta ha secuestrado la actividad científica tanto por el esfuerzo y recursos que se deben invertir en ella, como por su influencia a la hora de decidir qué se debe investigar. Y cómo, en connivencia con los investigadores, las revistas han participado del deterioro y banalización de la comunicación científica y la transformación de la ocupación científica en un negocio.

PDF HTML PDF (English) HTML (English)

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

  1. ArXiv. (2024). ArXiv. Cornell University, New York. https://arxiv.org/
  2. Baek, K., Isaac, B. & Writers, S. (2024, April 11). Harvard Business School Prof. Gino Accused of Plagiarism Following Data Fraud Allegation. The Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/11/harvard-business-gino-plagarism-allegations/
  3. Baker, M. (2015, April 30). First results from psychology’s largest reproducibility test. Nature, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17433
  4. Baker, M. (2016). Biotech giant publishes failures to confirm high-profile science. Nature, 530, 141. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19269
  5. Ball, P. (2023, September 2). There's no room-temperature superconductor yet, but the quest continues. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/02/room-temperature-superconductor-south-korea-lk-99-nuclear-fusion-maglev
  6. Ball, P. (2004, October 8). The memory of water. Nature. The Guardian. https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/news041004-19.html
  7. Bik, E. (2024). Science Integrity Digest. https://scienceintegritydigest.com/
  8. Bogost, I. (2008). Write-Only Publication. IGI Global and Other Vampire Presses. https://bogost.com/writing/blog/writeonly_publication/
  9. Boyajian, T. S., LaCourse, D. M., Rappaport, S. A., … Szewczyk, A. (2016). Planet Hunters X. KIC 8462852 - Where's the Flux? ArXiv, 1509.03622v2, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1509.03622
  10. Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
  11. Delgado-López-Cózar, E. & Martín-Martín, A. (2019). El Factor de Impacto de las revistas cientí¬ficas sigue siendo ese número que devora la ciencia española: ¿hasta cuándo? Anuario ThinkEPI, 13, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2019.e13e09
  12. Elmore, S. A., & Weston, E. H. (2020). Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them. Toxicologic Pathology, 48(4), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623320920209
  13. European Comission. (2012). Commission Recommendation of 17 July 2012 on access to and preservation of scientific information. European Comission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012H0417&rid=1
  14. Ghasemi, A., Mirmiran, P., Kashfi, K. & Bahadoran, Z. (2022). Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals. International Jounal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 21(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem-131812
  15. Haider, J., Söderström, K. R. & Ekström, B. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 5(5), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156
  16. Hanson, M. A., Gómez, P., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The strain on scientific publishing. ArXiv, 2309.15884v2, 1-66. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.15884
  17. Hossenfelder, S. (2017). Science needs reason to be trusted. Nature Physics, 13, 316-317 https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4079
  18. Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271
  19. Kwon, D. (2021). Nature's 10: ten people who helped shape science in 2021. Nature, 600(7890), 591-605. https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-021-03621-0/index.html
  20. Lewis, G. (2023, September 30). They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie? The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie
  21. Mehta, A. (2019, November 6). 75% of European spending on scientific journals goes to 'big five' publishers. Chemistry World. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/75-of-european-spending-on-scientific-journals-goes-to-big-five-publishers/4010616.article
  22. Morrison, H. (2021, June 24). Open access article processing charges 2011-2021. University of Ottawa. https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-26549
  23. Newton, I. (2022). Principia Mathematica. Hansebooks.
  24. Reich, E. S. (2009). Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World. St. Martin's Press.
  25. Richardson, R. (2024, July 18). Engineering the world's highest cited cat, Larry. Reese Richardson. https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/07/18/engineering-the-worlds-highest-cited-cat-larry/comment-page-1/
  26. Russell, M. (2012). The Piltdown Man Hoax: Case Closed. History Press.
  27. Simkin, M. V. & Roychowdhury, V. P. (2002). Read before you cite! ArXiv, 0212043v1, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0212043
  28. Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. & Simmons, J. (2013). Data Colada. Thinking about evidence and vice versa. https://datacolada.org/
  29. Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L., & Simmons, J. (2021, August 17). [98] Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty. Data Colada. https://datacolada.org/98
  30. Singh, S. (2024, May 21). Paper mills and the erosion of research credibility: Researchers beware. Editage. https://www.editage.com/insights/paper-mills-and-the-erosion-of-research-credibility-researchers-beware
  31. Solomon, D. J. & Björk, B.-C. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1485-1495. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673
  32. Suber, P. (2015). Open Access Overview. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
  33. Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring Research: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
  34. Suiter, A. M., & Sarly, C. C. (2019). Selecting a Journal for Publication: Criteria to Consider. Missouri Medicine, 116(6), 461–465. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913840/
  35. The Predatory Journals Team. (2024). What is a predatory journal? https://predatoryjournals.org/home
  36. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Science Report: The race against time for smarter development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377433
  37. Van Noorden, R. (2023, December 12). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8
  38. Villatoro, F. R. (2023, March 24). Clarivate anuncia las revistas expulsadas del Web of Science y las que perderán su índice de impacto en el JCR de 2023. La Ciencia de la Mula Francis. https://francis.naukas.com/2023/03/24/clarivate-anuncia-las-revistas-expulsadas-del-web-of-science-y-las-que-perderan-su-indice-de-impacto-en-el-jcr-de-2023/
  39. Woolston, C. (2021, June 25). Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01759-5