One of the peculiarities of the time we live in is the sheer speed with which changes take place. They are of different orders, directly affecting the living conditions and opportunities of people, all basically caused by the very rapid scientific and technological progress. Obviously, then, in this dizzying speed that concepts, cus toms and behaviors are often changed, even radically, should not surprise the fact that science itself suffered transformations in their actions and how they are transmitted. There is turbulence in the field of dissemination of scholarly work, in which the community that produces them, generally not accustomed to be protagonists, seems determined to react. In fact, one scientist must pay to publish their work? Must one pay to gain access to knowledge generated by their peers? It can be assumed how the authors conducted the first discoveries and how they spread, initially, the knowledge then acquired (slowly labored, or casually found). It is likely that some have sought to invidiously guard it, enjoying the advantages of its possession; while others chose to share it immediately, representing the thinking of scientists. In any case, what permitted the progress to the following generations, both in im provements of such knowledge, or how to get new evidence from them, was, unequivocally, having received them. In short, the dissemination of knowledge is necessary for its evolution, is the logic of science itself that it is multiplied by its diffusion. Today, science still has these types of acquisition, accumulation and use of knowledge (invidiously or shared), known as characteristic of human nature. But science professionalized itself, it is organized, institu tionalized in industries and universities, both investing in research. Industries invest to earn profits from their research and distribute them to their investors (shareholders). The social gears allow that the “profit”, the re sults of their research (patents) remains privately maintained (at least for a certain period of time), although the “secret” of them (the science itself ) becomes almost immediately known. Universities, aim to learn more (emphasizing the “research” as one of its pillars of support), for more and better disseminate knowledge (ie, “teach”). This mission, clearly social, must be supported by government. It’s a researcher’s duty the publishing of his/her labors in broad and unrestricted dissemination, in an open and honest manner. Modern “Scientists” amuse themselves (not with the meaning of mirth because the methodical scientific research requires discipline and hard work but in order to follow different strands) in the production of prac tical knowledge (applied) or theoretical (basic), which ultimately converge to the same point (hence the ‘Top’ companies, although ‘pragmatic’, invest so much in “pure” research). Once known actors and the scenery, here comes the narrative (a word that aptly describes the situation “in chains”, attached to circumstances), to possible answers to questions contained in the beginning. It is debatable whether the principle of disclosure of knowledge is universal, or should prevail in any situation. It is not essentially violated in the case of patents (the science about products deriving from them and which are marketed is automatically spread, although the “profit” is legally protected). The questions now pending do not refer to this context, but to the commerce of scientific publications. That is, their purchases and sales. The traditional academic approach has always been that scientific knowledge has so much value that is “priceless”. Of course, as labor, both the production and dissemination of knowledge should be paid, that is, both the scientist (the element of “research”) and the teacher (element of “teaching”) should be paid and not pay to perform their functions. So strange is collecting from an invited speaker to give his lecture, as it is to collect from a scientist to publish your work. Although, it can be explained. Indeed, the growing number of researchers and the pressure for their products (papers) to be distributed (published) inspecific media (scientific journals), that is, with good impact factors, resulted in such journals putting themselves in a privileged situation, requiring not only higher quality publications, but higher pay ment. A simple law of marketing: supply (conditional and restricted) and demand (broad, competitive). Such media increased their value (in monetary sense of the word) by the generated market. The possibility that scientific development agencies (as in Brazil, CNPq, FAPESP and others) pay for the publication of a work does not eliminate the moral concerns of this payment.
Read full abstract
Jul 18, 2024
Jose M Pizana + 3
Open Access