Simulating and Contrasting the Game of Open Access in Diverse Cultural Contexts: A Social Simulation Model

IF 4.6 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Publications Pub Date : 2023-08-04 DOI:10.3390/publications11030040
Oswaldo Terán, Jacinto A. Dávila
{"title":"Simulating and Contrasting the Game of Open Access in Diverse Cultural Contexts: A Social Simulation Model","authors":"Oswaldo Terán, Jacinto A. Dávila","doi":"10.3390/publications11030040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Open Access is a global cause with the aim of allowing unrestricted access to all scientific research output in electronic formats. This paper presents a model for simulating the game of interests behind this cause in order to investigate ways of promoting the practice of open access. The model represents the following actors: Academics, Administrators, Funders, Publishers and Politicians. Five scenarios were developed to represent both realistic and ideal, interesting, situations. The model was developed using the SocLab platform—a formalization of the sociology of organizational action. It is based on previous descriptions of the game and expert knowledge. A structural analysis permits us to examine the properties of the sub-model behind each scenario. The results corroborate certain intuitions about the scenarios representing realistic cases, e.g., they indicate that publishers, being isolated in their interests, are subject to strong pressures from other actors, who have a circumstantial alliance. Administrators take an intermediate stance in all scenarios. The best scenarios for open access are those in which Politicians and Funders clearly support the cause by expressing mandates in that direction, backing academics. Surprisingly, the model shows that it is in the Publishers’ interest not to take an extremist position against open access.","PeriodicalId":37551,"journal":{"name":"Publications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Publications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11030040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Open Access is a global cause with the aim of allowing unrestricted access to all scientific research output in electronic formats. This paper presents a model for simulating the game of interests behind this cause in order to investigate ways of promoting the practice of open access. The model represents the following actors: Academics, Administrators, Funders, Publishers and Politicians. Five scenarios were developed to represent both realistic and ideal, interesting, situations. The model was developed using the SocLab platform—a formalization of the sociology of organizational action. It is based on previous descriptions of the game and expert knowledge. A structural analysis permits us to examine the properties of the sub-model behind each scenario. The results corroborate certain intuitions about the scenarios representing realistic cases, e.g., they indicate that publishers, being isolated in their interests, are subject to strong pressures from other actors, who have a circumstantial alliance. Administrators take an intermediate stance in all scenarios. The best scenarios for open access are those in which Politicians and Funders clearly support the cause by expressing mandates in that direction, backing academics. Surprisingly, the model shows that it is in the Publishers’ interest not to take an extremist position against open access.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同文化背景下开放获取游戏的模拟与对比:一个社会模拟模型
开放获取是一项全球性的事业,其目的是允许不受限制地获取所有电子格式的科学研究成果。本文提出了一个模拟这一事业背后的利益博弈的模型,以期探讨促进开放获取实践的途径。该模型代表了以下角色:学者、管理者、资助者、出版商和政治家。设计了五个场景来代表现实的和理想的、有趣的情况。该模型是使用SocLab平台开发的,这是组织行动社会学的形式化。它是基于之前的游戏描述和专家知识。结构分析允许我们检查每个场景背后的子模型的属性。研究结果证实了关于代表现实情况的情景的某些直觉,例如,它们表明,出版商的利益被孤立,受到来自其他行为者的强大压力,这些行为者有间接的联盟。管理员在所有场景中都处于中间位置。开放获取的最佳方案是政治家和资助者明确支持这一事业,向这一方向表达授权,支持学术界。令人惊讶的是,该模型表明,不采取极端立场反对开放获取符合出版商的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Publications
Publications Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
1.90%
发文量
40
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: The scope of Publications includes: Theory and practice of scholarly communication Digitisation and innovations in scholarly publishing technologies Metadata, infrastructure, and linking the scholarly record Publishing policies and editorial/peer-review workflows Financial models for scholarly publishing Copyright, licensing and legal issues in publishing Research integrity and publication ethics Issues and best practices in the publication of non-traditional research outputs (e.g., data, software/code, protocols, data management plans, grant proposals, etc.) Issues in the transition to open access and open science Inclusion and participation of traditionally excluded actors Language issues in publication processes and products Traditional and alternative models of peer review Traditional and alternative means of assessment and evaluation of research and its impact, including bibliometrics and scientometrics The place of research libraries, scholarly societies, funders and others in scholarly communication.
期刊最新文献
Bibliometric Analysis of Papers Dealing with Dental Videos on YouTube An Exploratory Comparative Analysis of Librarians’ Views on AI Support for Learning Experiences, Lifelong Learning, and Digital Literacy in Malaysia and Indonesia Practices and Attitudes of the Research and Teaching Staff at the University of Split about the Online Encyclopedia Wikipedia GFsa (GF “Scientific Age”) Index Application for Assessment of 1020 Highly Cited Researchers in Dentistry: A Pilot Study Comparing GFsa Index and H-Index Book Reviews in Medical History Journals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1