IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04092676.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vers un modèle éthique de publication scientifique : comment atteindre cet horizon ?

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Guillemaud

    (ISA - Institut Sophia Agrobiotech - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

Abstract

Le modèle actuel de publication scientifique génère d'importants questionnements éthiques. Aujourd'hui, quelques grands conglomérats de maisons d'édition à but lucratif contrôlent plus de 50 % de tous les articles en sciences naturelles et en sciences sociales. Cette domination leur permet d'augmenter les frais d'abonnement et de publication en libre accès à des niveaux difficilement soutenables par les universités, bibliothèques et institutions de recherche financées par des fonds publics dans le monde entier. Les bénéfices des actionnaires de ces maisons d'édition atteignent environ un tiers de leur chiffre d'affaire. Par ailleurs, environ la moitié des frais de publications sont simplement destinés au fonctionnement du système-lobbying, marketing, et gestion des systèmes de "paywall" qui restreignent l'accès des résultats scientifiques au public et aux autres chercheur•es. Ainsi, les fonds publics destinés à la science sont en fait détournés de celle-ci et même utilisés pour en limiter l'accès. Des alternatives à ce modèle existent et ont gagné en popularité ces dernières années, notamment les revues scientifiques en accès libre diamant ("diamond open access journals") et les plateformes gérées collectivement et dédiées à l'évaluation, la validation et la recommandation d'articles par les communautés de chercheur•es. Ces alternatives sont gratuites pour les auteur•es et minimisent les coûts de publication pour les institutions et les agences de financement, tout en mettant à disposition du public les résultats scientifiques évalués par les pairs. Cependant, le modèle de publication axé sur les revues de type commercial a rendu le changement difficile. Les pratiques de paiement de redevances par les chercheur•es pour publier leurs articles en libre accès ont contribué à établir des échelles de valeur basées sur le nom et le prestige des revues qui empêchent une transition collective, efficace et exempte d'une logique de profit. Nous donnons ici un bref aperçu de l'état actuel du système de publication scientifique, y compris ses problèmes systémiques les plus importants. Nous présentons ensuite des systèmes alternatifs. Nous expliquons les raisons pour lesquelles la transition vers ces systèmes peut être perçue comme coûteuse pour les chercheur•es et nous démystifions un certain nombre d'obstacles au changement fréquemment mis en avant. Enfin, au vu de ce qui précède, nous fournissons un ensemble de recommandations et de lignes directrices que les chercheur•es de tous niveaux peuvent mettre en oeuvre afin de permettre une transition plus rapide et plus efficace vers un modèle de publication scientifique éthique.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Guillemaud, 2023. "Vers un modèle éthique de publication scientifique : comment atteindre cet horizon ?," Post-Print hal-04092676, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04092676
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04092676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04092676/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin A. Wood & Julia L. Newth & Geoff M. Hilton, 2021. "For NGOs, article-processing charges sap conservation funds," Nature, Nature, vol. 599(7883), pages 32-32, November.
    2. Diego Ponte & Bozena I. Mierzejewska & Stefan Klein, 2017. "The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 97-100, May.
    3. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Courant, Paul N & McAfee, R Preston & Williams, Michael A, 2014. "Evaluating big deal journal bundles," University of California at Santa Barbara, Recent Works in Economics qt4xf9h43j, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    4. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    5. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    6. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Eger & Marc Scheufen, 2021. "Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing: Introduction to the special issue," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1922-1932, December.
    2. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    3. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    4. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    5. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    6. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    7. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Brice Corgnet & Cary Deck & Mark Desantis & Kyle Hampton & Erik O Kimbrough, 2019. "Reconsidering Rational Expectations and the Aggregation of Diverse Information in Laboratory Security Markets," Working Papers halshs-02146611, HAL.
    9. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    10. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Amanda Kvarven & Eirik Strømland & Conny Wollbrant & David Andersson & Magnus Johannesson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, 2020. "The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: a meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 26-42, June.
    12. Gregorio González-Alcaide, 2021. "Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6837-6870, August.
    13. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    14. Joost Kosten, 2016. "A classification of the use of research indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 457-464, July.
    15. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Lin Hu & Qinghai Chen & Tingting Yang & Chuanjian Yi & Jing Chen, 2024. "Visualization and Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Seafood Cold Chain Logistics Based on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and RStudio Bibliometrix," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, July.
    17. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    18. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.
    19. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    20. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    academic publishing; journal; open-access; peer-review; ethics; collective action; recommendation model;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04092676. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.