139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Digital technologies are reshaping every field of social and economic lives, so do they in the world of scientific knowledge. "The New Challenges of Knowledge" aims at understanding how the new digital technologies alter the production, diffusion and valorization of knowledge. We propose to give an insight into the economical, geopolitical and political stakes of numeric in knowledge in different countries. Law is at the center of this evolution, especially in the case of national and international confusion about Internet, Science and knowledge.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 250
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Introduction
Part 1: Production: Global Knowledge and Science in the Digital Era
1 Current Knowledge Dynamics
1.1. Transparency of scientific data
1.2. Transparency of experimental protocol
1.3. A necessary form of research engineering
1.4. Confusion between data and scientific results: avoiding manipulation of research results
2 Digital Conditions for Knowledge Production
2.1. An economic system oriented toward innovation
2.2. What of knowledge and indeed the concept of the commons?
2.3. From analog to digital
2.4. User–producer: civil society enters the knowledge production system
2.5. The interactions between the various spheres of knowledge production
2.6. Collaboration between society and knowledge: producing authorities should be put into perspective
3 The Dual Relationship between the User and the Developer
3.1. Legal arrangements for knowledge-sharing using development platforms
3.2. The user contributes to the creation and development of content process
4 Researchers’ Uses and Needs for Scientific and Technical Information
4.1. The CNRS survey
4.2. Diverse uses and dual needs
4.3. An explanation through differentiated scientific analysis
5 New Tools for Knowledge Capture
5.1. The growth of metadata exploitation
5.2. Are we moving toward a semantic Web?
5.3. Tools and limits for metadata processing
5.4. The challenges of the semantic Web
6 Modes of Knowledge Sharing and Technologies
6.1. Data storage technologies and access allowing knowledge sharing
6.2. Exchange platforms and catalogs
6.3. Knowledge-processing and digital editions
Part 2: Sharing Mechanisms: Knowledge Sharing and the Knowledge-based Economy
7 Business Model for Scientific Publication
7.1. The current economic model is changing so as to adapt to new conditions for knowledge sharing
7.2. Creation of a new model
7.3. The issues raised by the creation of a new economic model
7.4. A new economic model struggling to fine its niche
8 Actor Strategy: International Scientific Publishing, Services with High Added Value and Research Communities
8.1. Publishing, editing and existing: live issues within the publication of Scientific and Technical Information (STI)
8.2. Who is subject to it? The other players in scientific publishing
8.3. The characteristics of SMS (Science of Man and Society)
8.4. Existing without publishing? New STI directions
8.5. Alternatives to scientific publishing
9 New Approaches to Scientific Production
9.1. New means of access to scientific production: innovative models
9.2. Two main objectives: accelerating knowledge sharing and promoting scientific collaboration
9.3. The need for new analytical tools and the risk of reprivatization of scientific knowledge
9.4. The absence of the usage doctrine and the risk of reprivatization of science: the case of social networks
10 The Geopolitics of Science
10.1. National convergent research models
10.2. Science is a source of international cooperation
10.3. International scientific cooperation is accelerating
11 Copyright Serving the Market
Part 3: Enhancement Knowledge Rights and Public Policies in the Wake of Digital Technology
12 Legal Protection of Scientific Research Results in the Humanities and Social Sciences
12.1. Different legal protections for different kinds of science
12.2. Why protect?
12.3. How to protect
12.4. Protect against whom?
12.5. Changing the challenges of Internet protection
12.6. Legal obstacles related to the author’s right
13 Development of Knowledge and Public Policies
13.1. Knowledge enhancement concerns everyone
13.2. What are the public policies for enhancing knowledge?
13.3. State establishment of connections between actors: a key tool in knowledge enhancement
13.4. Comparing the United States and the European Union
14 From Author to Enhancer
14.1. Enhancing scientific research is a complex process
14.2. Scientific research enhancement follows a legislative framework intended to promote innovation
15 The Right to Knowledge: Moving Toward a Universal Law?
15.1. Unclear regulatory frameworks
15.2. Developing legal frameworks related to the Internet is complicated
15.3. Proposals for developing legal frameworks for the Internet
16 Governing by Algorithm
16.1. Statistics that foreshadow algorithms
16.2. Algorithmic governance and democratic opportunities
17 Public Data and Science in e-Government
17.1. Disseminating data and disseminating science: a new requirement
17.2. Public data in the e-government
17.3. Science within e-government
18 Surveillance,
Sousveillance
, Improper Capturing
18.1. The traditional legal framework for information capture
18.2. The clear need for a specific law
19 Public Knowledge Policies in the Digital Age
19.1. GAFA domination and the oligopolization of the market
19.2. Isolated digital ecosystems
19.3. Regulation through competition law
19.4. Data protection: moving toward a law for the digital community
20 The Politics of Creating Artificial Intelligence
20.1. History
20.2. Artificial intelligence has become a priority for public and private actors
20.4. The appearance of legal problems
21 Security Policies in Artificial Intelligence
21.1. Security as a comment on machines and data
21.2. From the security of machines to the security of humans
Conclusion
Postscript
Glossary
Bibliography
Index
End User Licence Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
List of Illustrations
Introduction
Figure I.1. Heuristic map for evidence-based policies
2 Digital Conditions for Knowledge Production
Figure 2.1. Percentage of GDP invested in Research and Development within the EU, China, the United States and throughout the world between 2005 and 2013 (World Bank Data)
Figure 2.2. Calling into question economic and legal models for knowledge production in the digital era
Figure 2.3. Royalties for the use of intellectual property, recovered (in $US) from the EU, the United States, China and the world between 2006 and 2013 (World Bank Data)
3 The Dual Relationship between the User and the Developer
Figure 3.1. Growth of Gold Open Access between 1996 and 2014 (per Archambault – 2014)
5 New Tools for Knowledge Capture
Figure 5.1. From Web 1.0. to Web 3.0
8 Actor Strategy: International Scientific Publishing, Services with High Added Value and Research Communities
Figure 8.1. HAL (Hyper Articles en Ligne) open archive; CNRS, dépasser les frontières (“push the boundaries”)
9 New Approaches to Scientific Production
Figure 9.1. Traditional post-evaluation publication model
Figure 9.2. Pre–review (pre-print) publication model
Figure 9.3. Overlay journal model: an alternative to the traditional model
10 The Geopolitics of Science
Figure 10.1. The US and inter-penetration of sectors
11 Copyright Serving the Market
Figure 11.1. Total commissions for the use of intellectual property, returned (in $US) from the EU, the United States, China and the world between 2006 and 2013
17 Public Data and Science in e-Government
Figure 17.1. The use of data (according to Daniel Kaplan: http://www.internetactu.net/2010/11/09/louverture-des-donneespubliques-et-apres/)
19 Public Knowledge Policies in the Digital Age
Figure 19.1. The most used search engines in the world (2014)
Figure 19.2. Digital platforms are central to three economic relationships
20 The Politics of Creating Artificial Intelligence
Figure 20.1 Link between human intelligence and artificial intelligence
21 Security Policies in Artificial Intelligence
Figure 21.1. Legal Process for data and artificial intelligence
List of Tables
4 Researchers’ Uses and Needs for Scientific and Technical Information
Table 4.1. Researchers from the given unit are linked to digitization projects
Table 4.2. Support requirements for the unit’s provision through digital services used for publishing assistance
Table 4.3. The department databases are accessible online
Table 4.4. Extent to which institutes have been previously faced with legal questions concerning digitization and placing department content online
12 Legal Protection of Scientific Research Results in the Humanities and Social Sciences
Table 12.1. Comparison of author’s rights and English copyright
18 Surveillance, Sousveillance, Improper Capturing
Table 18.1. Types of moral dimension of the author’s rights as codified in the Intellectual Property Code
Table 18.2. Types of patrimonial dimension of the author’s rights as codified in the Intellectual Property Code
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
175
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
G1
G2
G3
New Challenges for Knowledge
Digital Dynamics to Access and Sharing
Renaud Fabre
In collaboration with
Quentin Messerschmidt-MarietMargot Holvoet
First published 2016 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2016
The rights of Renaud Fabre, Quentin Messerschmidt-Mariet and Margot Holvoet to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016953240
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-090-4
Introduction
Nowadays, as in previous times, knowledge is born of out of curiosity, doubt and trial-and-error. However, the process of knowledge management has itself changed profoundly. Due to the Internet, the progress of artificial intelligence, information and communication sciences, information is now more widely shared. Hardly do we start to understand what is happening in this very small community of 2.5 million science publishers, when their results then become both more accessible and better shared by all.
Global sharing, which is a new frontier for knowledge, emerges onto decompartmentalizations never before seen. These involve new ways of doing and seeing things, new logics for “in-depth learning”, which are the crosscutting annual theme of Yann Le Cun’s course. The latter is this year being held at the Collège de France1, taking the theme What is the future position for “intelligent machines”…?
We may observe that “modern knowledge management issues” are nowadays still partially hidden. However, we can already detect that individual and collective scientific projects are faced with the huge challenges of conception, structure and use. The responses in reaction to these challenges, condition our understanding of the world. Are we actually moving toward a position of greater sharing of knowledge? What are the current conditions for such sharing? How is it developing? What is its dynamic?
Regarding these highly evolutionary issues, we have no other ambition than to enable you to share both the fulfillment and interest that we have achieved together as co-authors. As advanced students and lecturers at SciencesPo2, we have “produced meaning” together, owing to the rich and well-known approach of a “Conference” which has taken place over a period of several months. This is very much due to the collective work, which we have compiled from this organic sharing of experiences and knowledge.
Our exploration finds its meaning in a trial of global intelligence of developments taking place. Hence, the deliberate choice of three large spheres to define the “current knowledge-based issues”; production issues, sharing issues and issues regarding the increase in value of knowledge.
In becoming “digital”, knowledge production has completely changed over the space of a few years. Everyone has an idea of what this change means for their own use of knowledge. We wished to take a step back when thinking about the conditions for digital knowledge production and review all elements of the so-called production “chain”. This involves consideration of what has changed: new stages, new players and new rules. These are therefore as much an opportunity to embark upon a “systemic” analysis of these new value chains. This first stage is obviously necessary for the understanding of the subsequent stage, since it clearly describes “for a given condition of the technology” the various actor organizational models. It is indeed from these constraints and their particular interpretation, that the stakes for both sharing and increased value may be created.
The stakes for knowledge-sharing are vast, complex and dynamic. Their common point is knowledge accessibility. A mirage or a reality? Knowledge-sharing is instantaneous and may take place at a highly reduced variable cost and on a very large scale. In the digital era, it is possible to share the conditions for knowledge production, through vast international scientific real-time collaborations, hosted by given platforms. We may also share results, provided that the issues of the sharing economy models and the fair division of value are resolved. Of particular interest is the issue of editorial models, the very old encyclopedic scientific issue, which has been posed, at least since Diderot and his Lettre sur le commerce des livres3. It is also from there that we may attribute to it the rules and data-sharing arrangements and the multiple profit analyses, indeed also those which we obtain, and even conceal. In addition, there are of course the global and European development of the rules upon this sharing, in the era of “digital laws”, and the basis of the new “knowledge economy”, which also shapes the modern geopolitics of scientific production.
It is only from there that we can approach the issue of increased value which depends upon the upstream element, and solutions found so as to both produce and share knowledge. Increased value increases our awareness in several directions, in favor of all players. There is increased value of knowledge to the advantage of all users and all beneficiaries of science, through new approaches to open science. This occurs through the organization of controlled innovation capture, in aid of both the economy and industry, through both the broadening and combination of scientific results to meet the needs of society, education, health and social life. These questions make sense in view of the experimentation with new rules, and the law around open science, which is currently in the process of development.
We are obviously aware of the limits of this exercise, which only involved the under-mentioned authors. However, we thought that an overview of these often dispersed issues might make sense. Our justification for producing this collective work is our desire that you might also be persuaded by our arguments.
Astrid ALBERT-ROULHAC
Gautier AMIEL
Jeanne AUSTRY
Hakim BENARBIA
Alain BENSOUSSAN
Louis BERTHELOT
Maxime BUGEAUD
Renaud FABRE
Coline FERRANT
Camille GIRARD-CHANUDET
Arthur GOURVEST
Germain GRAMAIZE
Paul HATTE
Margot HOLVOET
Thibault JOUANNIC
Jean-Samuel LECRIVAIN
Alix MARAVAL
Quentin MESSERSCHMIDT-MARIET
Alix PORNON
Camille ROUSSEAU-LEMARCHAND
Louis SAVATIER
Julie SCHWARTZ
Guillaume THIBAULT
Florence VAIRA
Figure I.1. Heuristic map for evidence-based policies
1
http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/yann-lecun/
.
2
SciencesPo
is a
grand école
higher education institution in Paris, whose specialisms include political science.
3
This translates as “Letter upon the trading of books”.
PART 1Production: Global Knowledge and Science in the Digital Era
1Current Knowledge Dynamics
In his work L’imaginaire d’Internet (2001)1, Patrice Flichy creates the utopian concept of the so-called Republic of Computer Scientists, which is one of the founding myths of the Internet: an organized scientific community which is based upon the wider possibilities for distance knowledge-sharing. This community is structured around four main principles based upon the same ideal of a new scientific community:
– the exchange of ideas and cooperation, first and foremost, which take place between specialists;
– this community is one of equality where everyone is judged by his peers and not within a hierarchical relationship, which excludes authoritative argument;
– cooperation is a central theme;
– it is a world apart, which is separated from the rest of society.
In her statement on 24 January 20132, Geneviève Fioraso, then French Minister for Higher Education and Research, stated a second facet of the current dynamics based around sharing and she then declared, “Scientific information is a common resource which should be available for all”, thus affirming its will to unlock the circulation of research produced for the benefit of all citizens.
Thus, scientific production is currently in total turmoil. With new information and communication technologies (NICTs), data are able to be shared by the largest number of individuals, without any time storage limit (at least on the face of it). The scientific environment is fundamentally changing with respect to data availability.
In short, knowledge is subject to more general digital developments. It benefits not only from new tools, but is also subject to the same risks.
New knowledge dynamics are structured around three major issues:
– enabling the deepening of individual disciplines and broadening perspectives by creating a synergy of researchers, with national and international projects (and making transdisciplinarity possible);
– providing scientific evidence and also popularizing sciences, which are increasingly now open to “laymen” and other casual observers;
– the research environment is based upon the sharing of scientific data (which allows the comparison and reuse of results). The environment is also based around competition (not only between states, but also at a practical level). In this context, it is incumbent upon national authorities to develop the competitiveness of the research sector.
1.1. Transparency of scientific data
New digital tools make it possible for a larger number of people to access scientific information. Knowledge changes dynamics from two angles. It may be produced by a larger number of individuals, who get involved in its elaboration through the widespread use of digital tools (participative science). However, the knowledge produced becomes more accessible, with scientific data being considered public property, and therefore subject to new knowledge-sharing tools and pooling.
1.1.1.Transparency of access
Access to research has for a long time remained both the reality and the privilege of academically recognized scientists. Yet, the Berlin Declaration of 12 July 20043 upon Open Access has tended to change this order, by assimilating scientific research into “a universal source of human knowledge and cultural heritage having gained the approval of the scientific Community”.
Open Access therefore seems to be the logical continuation of this new principal. It consists of making digital content available, either free from copyright, or subject to the intellectual property law regime. The Internet has made the emergence of such a perception of science possible, through its collaborative concept. The Declaration promotes “an Internet which is a functional tool in the service of global knowledge and human thought base”.
The idea is largely to spread science to the entire population, in a democratic manner, and to favor the largest possible sharing of scientific vocations. Knowledge (its production and the consequent access to it) currently exists within a dynamic of democracy in respect of data access.
For example, this ambition occurs by the creation of open archive digital information platforms, responding to very different needs and ideals. Web of Science4, which is a subscription-based private information service around online university publication for the university community, has unveiled a system of online sharing, while maintaining a traditional subscription system intended for an informed audience.
Other platforms display the willingness to provide free services. There is, for example, the Public Library of Science5, an American project with a non-lucrative purpose of providing English-speaking scientific publication with open access, operating upon the basis of free licensing, thereby abandoning the concept of paid access. Finally, these projects often draw support from public authorities as is the case with PERSEE6 in France, which is a free scientific web portal for French human and social sciences reviews, created by the Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche (the Ministry for National Education, Higher Education and Research – MENESR).
1.2. Transparency of experimental protocol
1.2.1.For scientists…
The experiments previously cited all have the common factor of relying upon Internet technologies to offer research interfaces between the various university environments, by sharing results and publications. However, this notion of interface takes on real meaning in the second widespread transparency movement within scientific domains. This is the transparency of the experimental protocol, which enriches scientific contributions from different disciplines, as well as citizens for whom their involvement is no longer conditioned simply by academic acknowledgment.
We then speak of open science, the aim of which is to produce and share hypotheses, methods and protocols, which are subject to discussion within a given wider scientific community. The results are freely available on the Internet.
Science therefore relies upon expert collaboration in the domain concerned, but also upon less directly linked disciplines. This type of scientific work allows for greater transdisciplinarity, which turns out to be particularly invaluable in diagnosing new pathologies in, for example, the medical sphere. It also offers greater increased value in research results by increasing the scope of such results considerably.
1.2.2.And as for citizens
The idea of participatory science is not strictly confined to scientists, but tends to extend toward citizens who wish to contribute. The concept of so-called “Citizen Science” goes back to Alan Irwin in 1995 (with the publication Citizen Science)7. The idea is that we accumulate knowledge with the help of a large number of individual experiences, especially as far as the environment is concerned. These new data provide a substantial contribution to scientific research by increasing the scope of the experimental territory.
Moreover, in 2013, the European Union produced a report on environmental citizen sciences8. This report stated four levels of scientific analysis. These were observation (or so-called “distributed science”), interpretation of data, project design and finally “extreme citizen science”, or data collection accompanied by theoretical contributions.
There are thus two major movements that may be observed within this new participatory science: data collection (for example astronomical observations and plant collection) and co-creation (discoveries of new celestial bodies or even PolyMath9, a website for the demonstration of Mathematical theorems). Michael Nilsen speaks in favor of this latter movement of “networked research”10, since it not only mobilizes data collection, but also participation in the development of theorems. We may add in this perspective the role played by so-called Fab Labs, or “manufacturing” laboratories, which may equally be the breeding ground for scientific experiments carried out by amateurs.
1.3. A necessary form of research engineering
This new opening of scientific data transparency, as well as the broadening of participation, imposes an engineering of systems for the collection and publication of scientific results, which allows data to be used and increased in value.
Thus, Scientific and Technical Information (STI) brings together information which professionals working in research, teaching or industry may need. This concept, which first appeared in the 1960s, is linked to the development of information technologies and communication. It emanates from the idea that the marked increase in university and scientific output, as well as the profusion of data, necessitates precise organization to optimize such data dissemination. This is, to some extent, a form of knowledge management.
The STI indiscriminately covers all scientific and technical sectors and assumes various aspects. These include scientific articles, journals, copyright notices, bibliographical databases, open archives and accessible Internet data storage warehouses and particular portals.
It chiefly sets three tasks. These are to increase the value of French scientific output in both the European and international arena and strengthen its notoriety, equipping French research with the means for efficient information to develop scientific output and access to it, and favoring information control.
Despite all of the progress and enthusiasm aroused by these new research practices, the persistence of the former publishing practices and the risks of a poorly controlled science transparency confirms a transition situation, in which new dynamics are gradually asserted.
1.4. Confusion between data and scientific results: avoiding manipulation of research results
Within the co-construction of the scientific protocols movement, a single question crops up. Does science strictly coincide with data production? Even if everyone was in a position to produce data, and had the tools available to process it, would its interpretation be accessible to everyone? The resurgence of the split between those initiated in the domain and laymen is at stake. Especially since the transparency of the scientific protocol increases the risk of fraud (for example counterfeits, forgery and plagiarism). Such a risk imposes quality control regimes upon the knowledge produced. In addition, we are witnessing a risk of the spread of pseudo-scientific politically orientated theories. These arise from studies which have not got the necessary scientific guarantees but which, however, crop up as a result of academically acknowledged research.
Moreover, the algorithms of integrated data may insert a form of reasoning bias within digital archives, by offering content which turns out to be pertinent to criteria for word repetition or content similarity. Human intelligence should therefore remain at the center of the scientific process, which is no longer systematically guaranteed.
Finally, the overabundance of data may put the brakes on the creation of pertinent resources. Only 10% of research data are actually used at the time of publication, while the rest are stored for potential future use. Yet, a marked increase in data collected imposes wide-ranging technical administration. We are speaking here of knowledge engineering. However, this engineering may of course apply, first and foremost, to the excesses of data production.
Scientists are therefore concerned to ensure a rigorous framework for methods employed, to confirm contributions or at least institute validation procedures. Although citizens may increasingly be workers producing scientific output, the role of the global architecture must remain fundamentally devolved to scientists.
To conclude, current knowledge dynamics are characterized by:
– pooling and centralizing scientific data with a view to better dissemination, with the latter remaining dependent upon the system of contracts and the scientific publication markets;
– the marked, indeed exponential, increase in data used for research, which are not, for all that, systematically sources of knowledge;
– the transparency of scientific protocol which outlines the contours of collaborative or citizen science but which does not evade the need for scientific expertise, and in fact poses the issue of intellectual property.
11
to reconsider the pertinence of enunciated authority. In short, should science “become anonymised”? Should it give up authoritative argument and academically acknowledged expertise in favor of stepping over a new threshold?
It might be pertinent to carry out the same introspection which was conducted by literary theorists as to the pertinence of keeping the author of a work as a form of unshakable institution, summarizing the words of Samuel Beckett, and Michel Foucault thus wondering, “What matter who’s speaking?” (Dits et Ecrits)11 to reconsider the pertinence of enunciated authority. In short, should science “become anonymised”? Should it give up authoritative argument and academically acknowledged expertise in favor of stepping over a new threshold?
1
Patrice Flichy,
L’imaginaire d’Internet
, published by La Découverte 2001 – this translates as “
The Internet Imaginaire
”.
2
Speech by Geneviève Fioraso,
5
e
journées de l
’
Open Access,
24 January 2013 (a week of Open Access) available at:
http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid66992/discours-de-genevieve-fioraso-lors-des-5e-journees-open-access.html
.
3
Berlin Declaration upon Free Access to Knowledge within the exact sciences, life sciences and human and social sciences. It is available at:
http://openaccess.inist.fr/?Declaration-de-Berlin-sur-le-Libre
.
4
www.webofknowledge.com
.
5
www.plos.org
.
6
www.persee.fr
.
7
Alan Irwin,
Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development
, Psychology Press, 1995.
8
Report by the “science and governance” group of experts to the European Commission,
Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously
, 2007.
9
www.polymathprojects.org
10
Michael Nielsen,
Reinventing Discovery: the Era of Networked Science
, Princeton University Press, 2011.
11
This translates as “The spoken and written word”.
