Maria Helena Cruz Pistori, Associate Editor of Bakhtiniana, Post-doctorate student at Pontificate Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Paulo Rogério Stella, Foreign Languages Executive Editor of Bakhtiniana, Universidade Federal de Alagoas – UFAL; Post-Doctorate – Pontificate University of São Paulo (PUC-SP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
The procedure known as “open science” – a cultural change in the way of doing science – is something that has been spreading little by little in Brazil and in the world. In the Editorial (17.1), Bakhtiniana Adheres to Open Science, the authors (BRAIT et al), members of the journal’s Editorial Board, map most of these changes in the human sciences, more especially in the language sciences.
At the beginning of the text, one of the epigraphs already offers the reader a very thought-provoking definition of what “open science” is: “Open science is science with a human face.” These are the words of Frank Miedema, enthusiast of the procedure and president of the Open Science Program at Utrecht University, a Dutch university founded in 1636, an institution that espouses and highlights the concept on the homepage of its web presentation: “With open minds, open attitudes and science open, we join forces to create tomorrow’s solutions.”
Such words clearly imply a criticism of the possible hermeticism of scientific work, at least in the eyes of the non-specialist. And, in this respect, open science is really intended to be more democratic. But it is Abel Packer and Solange Santos (2019) who better explain the objectives and constitution of open science: “Open Science aims at a significant transformation essentially enriching the traditional modus operandi to sponsor, project, conduct and, particularly, communicate research. The goal is to privilege the collaborative nature of research and democratize the access and the use of scientific knowledge.”
In order to reach the definitions and characteristics of open science, the Editorial – practically an article – highlights specific aspects of the Letters field, which has long prioritized scientific production expressed in books, but which, in recent times, has been actively mobilized towards greater acceptance and appreciation of scientific journals. In this sense, the text begins with a brief retrospective of the paths followed by the area in the dissemination of its scientific production; then, it resumes the concept of open science, highlighting its main dimensions: open data, open research and innovation, open access and citizen science. The reader understands better, then, how the new procedure has the potential to strengthen research collaboration and sharing and increase the effectiveness and productivity of knowledge in a transparent and democratic way beyond academia.
The text is careful to clarify new aspects and editorial procedures required by the journal’s adherence to open science, such as the issue of open access, open data, open sources, preprints, preprint repositories (its difference from ahead of print), among others. One of the aspects that can most impact the reader (or perhaps the author) is the publication of opinions received by approved articles, when author and referee(s) agree to do so.
Thus, assuming open science as an experience in progress, the journal lists all the elements that have undergone changes in the journal, both in terms of submission and in the submission and evaluation of articles by the referees. In a final balance in this first part, the editorial shows the tension that still exists in the reception of the modus operandi of open science among us: comments of only three out of the eight articles in the issue had been given authorization by the referees for publication. Those comments were published at the end of the articles.
Finally, by opening research, data, opinions, Bakhtiniana bets on open science as an opportunity to enhance the dialogue between science and society. “At any moment in the development of the dialogue there are immense, boundless masses of forgotten contextual meanings…,” stated Mikhail Bakhtin (2017, p. 79), when dealing with the methodology for the human sciences. In this sense, the new procedures can really provide and facilitate sharing and collaboration among researchers, with a view to a better understanding of the meanings that permeate our lives and our time.
PISTORI, M.H.C. and Paulo Rogério STELLA, P.R. Open Science: Sharing and transparency in research popularization [online]. SciELO in Perspective: Humanities, 2022 [viewed ]. Available from: https://humanas.blog.scielo.org/en/2022/02/11/open-science-sharing-and-transparency-in-research-popularization/
The procedure known as “open science” – a cultural change in the way of doing science – is something that has been spreading little by little in Brazil and in the world. In the Editorial (17.1), Bakhtiniana Adheres to Open Science, the authors (BRAIT et al), members of the journal’s Editorial Board, map most of these changes in the human sciences, more especially in the language sciences.
Recent Comments