Towards an Inclusive Agenda of Open Science for Communication Research: A Latin American approach

Abstract

There is growing consensus among the scientific community members about the urgency of debating ways to promote Open Science (OS). However, the notion of OS itself has been highly controversial, encompassing different meanings and values. Two distinct conceptions have emerged: the first highlights principles such as acceleration, efficiency, and reproducibility; the second perspective is grounded in participation, social justice, and democratization of knowledge. Both models accomplish distinct goals while facing specific limits and challenges to improve scientific production. Even though the first conception has become more celebrated among some top-ranked journals, we question approaches that standardize scientific practices, neglect global diversity, and undermine the importance of local contexts. By discussing the pioneering role that researchers and journals in Latin America have played toward a pluralistic interpretation of OS, this article contributes to a more nuanced understanding of scientific production in the Global South.

Academic Production and Collaboration Among BRICS-Based Researchers: How Far Can the “De-Westernization” of Communication and Media Studies Go?

“…As a result, studies from developed regions may gain more visibility not from the merit of the research per se but due to hegemonic self-feeding circuits that become influential to the detriment of peripheral knowledge communities ) Albuquerque, 2021;Albuquerque et al, 2020;Ekdale et al, 2022;Goyanes & Demeter, 2020;Paasi, 2005(. To illustrate, the field of Communication remains heavily influenced by American administrative research ) Smythe & Van Dinh, 1983;Wiedemann & Meyen, 2016(, on top of theoretical and epistemological traditions rooted in the Western European media environment ) Ganter & Ortega, 2019;Hanusch & Vos, 2020;Waisbord & Mellado, 2014(. These dominant perspectives are seldom concerned with justifying the applicability of their theoretical constructions beyond their immediate realities, neglecting sound divergences from the viewpoint of Global South societies ) Albuquerque et al, 2020;Demeter, 2019aDemeter, , 2020Lauf, 2005(. In other words, professedly universal definitions are sometimes unsuitable for explaining contexts as diverse as Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia ) Cheruiyot & Ferrer-Conill, 2021;Ekdale et al, 2022;Mitchelstein & Boczkowski, 2021(. Rather than acknowledging the heuristic limitations of their categories, researchers from the Global North often resort to the simplistic notion that "peripheral" contexts would be unstable, hybrid, or deviant ) Alatas, 2000;Mutsvairo et al, 2021;Voltmer, 2011;Waisbord & Mellado, 2014(. Among the challenges faced by Global South scholars to publish and question such logic of domination are the predominance of American and European researchers on the editorial boards of top-ranked journals ) Albuquerque et al, 2020;Goyanes & Demeter, 2020(, the need to master the English language to access prestigious intellectual environments ) Ganter & Ortega, 2019;Suzina, 2021(, the commercial nature of the repositories where "mainstream" knowledge circulates ) Oliveira et al, 2021;…”

“…Despite the growing calls to de-Westernize Communication research ) Dutta & Pal, 2020;Goyanes & Demeter, 2020;Mitchelstein & Boczkowski, 2021;Mohammed, 2022;Waisbord & Mellado, 2014(, the scholarly literature holds that only a few authors based in Global South countries have been successful in publishing in highimpact international journals ) Albuquerque, 2021;Demeter, 2019b;Ekdale et al, 2022(. Among the explanatory factors behind this phenomenon are limitations in English language proficiency ) Livingstone, 2007;Suzina, 2021(, the hegemony of academics working for American and European institutions on editorial boards ) Albuquerque et al, 2020(, and scarce funding available in developing countries ) Oliveira et al, 2021(. If geographic diversity is crucial to fostering a true sense of international academic community ) Ganter & Ortega, 2019;Waisbord, 2022(, what has been done to dismantle the Western canon in Communication and Media studies ) Mohammed, 2022(? In this article, we aim to understand how scholars based in a set of countries claiming to challenge the centrality of Europe and the United States circulate in "elite" journals.…”

Transitions to nowhere: Western teleology and regime-type classification

“…If one does not circulate in the "prestige" vehicles and institutions, it does not matter. As Latin American voices lost international prestige, the same occurred to the "cultural imperialism" criticism (Oliveira et al, 2021). From the perspective of the agents ahead of the academic neoliberal globalization, this was not bad news at all.…”

Defending democracy or amplifying populism? Journalistic coverage, Twitter, and users’ engagement in Bolsonaro’s Brazil

“…Second, since Brazil is the largest Latin American country in terms of territory, economy, and population, this case helps us understand the new manifestations of populism in a region historically wounded by authoritarianism (Doyle 2011; Waisbord 2020), besides reinforcing the importance of Global South’s cases (Marques and Miola, 2021; Oliveira et al, 2021; Waisbord and Mellado, 2014). That is, the Brazilian case allows us to comprehend the relationship between populism and news organizations in a media system characterized by a mix of clientelism, commercialism, and political instability (Matos 2008; Marques and Miola, 2021).…”