The transformations of sciences under the digital regime
Keywords:
digital, knowledge production, knowledge circulation, open accessAbstract
Knowledge production is intimately related to the elaboration and circulation of written texts. The passage from print to electronic format, from papers to digital files in a network, has notably transformed scientific researchers practices. But what has changed fundamentally in the digital age? This article addresses important transformations that have been consolidated in the digitalization of scientific production, it also discusses the emergence of alternative practices to access and share knowledge in this new context.
References
Berthelot, Jean-Michel (dir) (2001). Épistémologie des sciences sociales. Paris, PUF.
Borgman, Christine; Wallis, Jillian; Enyedy, Noel (2007). “Little Science Confronts the Data Deluge: Habitat Ecology, Embedded Sensor Networks, and Digital Libraries”, International Journal of Digital Libraries, Vol. 7, N° 1-2, pp. 17-30.
Boure, Robert (1993). “Sociologie des revues de sciences sociales et humaines, Réseaux, N° 58, pp. 93-105.
Brown, Cecelia (2003). “The Role of Electronic Pre-prints in Chemical Communication : Analysis of Citation, Usage, and Acceptance in the Journal Literature”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 54, N° 5, pp. 362-371.
Eisenstein, Elizabeth (1991). La Révolution de l ’imprimé à l ’aube de l ’Europe moderne. Paris, La Découverte.
Garfield, Eugene (1979). “Has Scientific Communication Changed in 300 Years?”, Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 4, pp. 394-400.
Garvey, William; Lin, Nan y Nelson, Carno (1970). “Some Comparisons of Communication Activities in the Physical and Social Sciences”, en Nelson, Carnot y Pollock, Donald (dir.), Communication among Scientists and Engi-neers, Lexington, Heath Lexington Books, pp. 61-84.
Gunnarsdóttir, Kristrún (2005). “Scientific Journal Publications: On the Role of Electronic Preprint Exchange in the Distribution of Scientific Literature”, Social Studies of Science, N° 35, pp. 549-579.
Hagstrom, Warren (1970). “Factors Related to the Use of Different Modes of Publishing Research in Four Scientific Fields”, en Nelson, Carnot y Pollock, Donald (dir.), Communication among scientists and engineers, Lexington, Heath Lexington Books, pp. 85-124.
Hilgartner, Stephen y Brandt-Rauf, Sherry (1994). “Data Access, Ownership, and Control. Toward Empirical Studies of Access Practices”, Science Communication, Vol. 15, N° 4, pp. 355-372.
Hurd, Julie; Brown, Cecelia; Bartlett, Joan; Krietz, Pat y Paris, Greg (2002). “The role of unpublished research in the scholarly communication of scientists: Digital preprints and bioinformation databases”, Proceedings of the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,Vol. 39, N° 1, pp. 452-453.
Latour, Bruno y Woolgar, Steve (1998). La Vie de laboratoire. La Production des faits scientifiques. Paris, La Découverte.
Lécaille, Pascal (2003). La trace habilitée. Une ethnographie des espaces de conception dans un bureau d ’études de mécanique: l ’échange et l ’équipement des objets graphonumériques, entre outils et acteurs de la conception. Tesis de doctorado no publicada. Universidad de Grenoble.
Lefebvre, Muriel (2007). “Images et pratiques d’écriture en mathématiques”, en Hert, Phillipe; Paul-Cavaillier, Marcel Paul (dir.), Sciences et frontières. Délimitations du savoir, objets et passages, Éditions Modulaires Européennes, pp. 211-228.
Lüthy, Christoph (2000). “Caught in the Electronic Revolution. Observations and Analyses By Some Historians of Science, Medicine, Technology, and Philosophy”, Early Science and Medicine, Vol. 5, N° 1, pp. 64-92.
Pignard-Cheynel, Nathalie (2004). La Communication des sciences sur Internet. Stratégies et pratiques. Tesis de doctorado en Ciencias de la información y de la comunicación, Universidad Stendhal, Grenoble.
Price, Derek John de Solla (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York, Columbia University Press.
Walsh, John y Bayma, Todd (1996). “Computer Networks and Scientific Work”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26, N° 3, pp. 661-703.
