Open Digital Repositories - The Movement of Open Access in Opposition to the Oligopoly of Scientific Publishers

Ligia E. Setenareski, Walter Shima, Marcos Sunye, Leticia Peres


This paper shows how the market structure of scientific publications works and how the free-software movement and the open source code have expanded and generated new developments in a period of approximately twenty years, in opposition to an oligopolistic structure. The free-software movement did not happen by chance, and neither did its subsequent developments. Researchers, tired of contributing towards the production of scientific articles for private publishers, and also working as reviewers or taking part in editorial boards, launched many alternatives within the editorial market in clear opposition to the publishing industry, which has been making handsome profits on packaged periodicals sold to academic libraries. Some of these alternatives are: the Copyleft and the Creative Commons in opposition to the Copyright; the Open Access and the Open Digital Repositories of educational and research institutions, freely available on the internet, opposing to the closed repositories of commercial publishers that offer their database at high prices; and the creation of h-index, g-index, Google Scholar Citations (GSC) and other impact measurements that come up against the impact factor controlled by private publishers. In the editorial process, while educational and research institutions, through their researchers, provide all workforce necessary for the production, arbitration and editorial board, publishers are in charge of organizing services, providing reliable browsing on their closed database, and keeping high levels of impact for their publications. Nowadays, search providers like Google also offer reliable search engines to browse open digital repositories. Therefore, Google and the Open Digital Repositories, in a symbiotic relationship, can be in charge of the whole process of scientific publication, as an alternative to oppose the oligopoly of scientific publishers.


  1. Shapiro C, Varian HR (1999) A economia da informação: como os princípios econômicos se aplicam à era da internet. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier. 397 p.
  2. Possas ML (1990) As estruturas de mercado: primeira aproximação (2nd.ed.). São Paulo: Hucitec. pp.87-191.
  3. Bain JS (1956) Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University. 329 p.
  4. McGuigan GS, Russell RD (2008). The business of academic publishing: a strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. E-JASL: Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 9: 1- 11.Available: tent/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html. Accessed 2 May 2013.
  5. European Commission (2006) Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. Final Report. European Commission, Bruxelles.
  6. Morgan Stanley (2002) Scientific publishing: knowledge is power. Available: Journals/morganstanley.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2013.
  7. Monbiot G (29 Aug. 2011) How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?The Guardian. Available: Accessed 8 september 2013.
  8. Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?Journal of Documentation 25: 348-349.
  9. Web of Science (2013). Available: http://thomsonreuters. com/web-of-science/. Accessed 8 september 2013.
  10. Thomson Reuters (2013). Available: http://thomson Accessed 6 July 2013.
  11. Gowers's Weblog (2012) Available: http://gowers. Accessed 2 September 2013.
  12. The Economist (4 Febr. 2012) The prince of information: academics are starting to boycott a big publisher of journals.Available: 545974. Accessed 7 September 2013.
  13. The Cost of Knowledge (2013). Available: http:// Accessed9september 2013.
  14. Carvalho MMGR (2009) O repositório aberto: recuperar, preservar e difundir o conhecimento “em qualquer lugar do mundo”. Dissertation, Universidade Autônoma de Lisboa.
  15. Luce RE (2001) E-printsintersectthe digital library: insidethelos Alamos arXiv. Issues in Science and technology Librarianship, 29. Available: winter/article3.html. Accessed 31 May 2013.
  16. Garfield E (2006) The history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. JAMA:The Journal of the American Medical Association 295: 90-93. Available: http:// eID=5006&direction=P. Accessed6January 2013.
  17. Mugnaini R, Strehl L (2008) Recuperação e impacto da produção científica na era Google: uma análise comparativa entre o Google Acadêmico e a Web of Science. Encontros Bibli: n. esp.: 92105. Available: article/view/1518-2924.2008v13nesp1p92. Accessed 30 May 2013.
  18. Brody T (2003) Citebase search: autonomous citation database for e-print archives. Available: http://eprints. Accessed 7 September 2013.
  19. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102: 16569-16572. Available: Accessed 30 May 2013.
  20. Egghe L (2006) Theory and practice of the gindex.Scientometrics 69: 131-152.
  21. Google Scholar (2013) Available: Accessed 8 September 2013.
  22. Publish or Perish (2013). Available: http://www.harzing. com/pop.htm. Accessed 7 September 2013.
  23. Butler D (2008) Free journal-ranking tool enters citation market data base offers on-the-fly results. Nature 451:6.Available: 0102/full/451006a.html. Accessed 9 September 2013.
  24. Butler D (2011) Computing giants launch free science metrics. Nature 476:18.
  25. Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E (2007) Show me the data. J. Cell Biol., 179: 1091-1092.
  26. Thomson Reuters (2014) The citation impact centre.Available: impactforum. Accessed 8 September 2014.
  27. Harnad S, Brody T (2004) Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. Non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine10: 1-3. DOI: 10.1045/june2004- harnad.
  28. Pringle J (19 Sept. 2004) Do open access journals have impact? Nature Publishing Group. Available: tml. Accesssed 5 September 2013.
  29. Brody T, Stamerjohanns H, Vallières F, Harnad S, Gingras Y, Oppenheim C (2004) The effect of open access on citation impact. Available: 259941/1/OATAnew.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2013.
  30. DORA.Declaration on Research Assessment (2012). Available: Accessed 8 September 2013.
  31. Van Noorden R (2013) Tensions grow as data-mining discussions fall apart. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science 498: 7452. Available: Accessed 22 September 2013.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Setenareski L., Shima W., Sunye M. and Peres L. (2016). Open Digital Repositories - The Movement of Open Access in Opposition to the Oligopoly of Scientific Publishers . In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-187-8, pages 583-593. DOI: 10.5220/0005835805830593

in Bibtex Style

author={Ligia E. Setenareski and Walter Shima and Marcos Sunye and Leticia Peres},
title={Open Digital Repositories - The Movement of Open Access in Opposition to the Oligopoly of Scientific Publishers},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
TI - Open Digital Repositories - The Movement of Open Access in Opposition to the Oligopoly of Scientific Publishers
SN - 978-989-758-187-8
AU - Setenareski L.
AU - Shima W.
AU - Sunye M.
AU - Peres L.
PY - 2016
SP - 583
EP - 593
DO - 10.5220/0005835805830593