Open science: human emancipation or bureaucratic serfdom?


Since the Italian research evaluation system is based on an administrative agency that is in control of all the facets of academic life, it would be easy to add an OS mandate to the researchers’ duties. But, if we conceive OS as a philosophical ideal of human emancipation through the opening of scholarly conversation rather than a management model, we have to ask: why does open science, today, need to be mandated? But, above all, can it be mandated? A Kantian thought experiment will help us to show that: (1) OS needs to be mandated because, against the spirit of the modern science revolution, it is not open any longer; (2) the very submission of research to blueprints dictated by an administrative authority reduces it to a bureaucratic, commodified enterprise whose horizon is not the advancement of learning - or discoveries and revolutions yet to do - but the production of information and data whose goal is determined by economic and political powers rather than by the will to knowledge.


open science; open access; research management; research assessment; academic freedom; Kant

Full Text:




Adendorff, L. (2010). Italy: University reform bill passes amid protests. University World News. Retrieved from

Anderson, R. (2010). European Universities from the Enlightenment to 1914. Retrieved from

Baccini, A., & De Nicolao, G. (2018). How pseudoscientific rankings are distorting research. Institute for New Economic Thinking. Retrieved from

Baccini, A., Nicolao, G. D., & Petrovich, E. (2019). Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLOS ONE, 14(9). Retrieved from.

Belluz, J. (2018). 20 years ago, research fraud catalyzed the anti-vaccination movement. Let’s not repeat history. Retrieved from Vox website:

Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature. Retrieved from

Biagioli, M. (2018). Quality to Impact, Text to Metadata: Publication and Evaluation in the Age of Metrics. KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge, 2(2), 249–275. Retrieved from

Bonaccorsi, A. (2015). La valutazione possibile. Teoria e pratica nel mondo della ricerca. (Bologna): Il Mulino.

Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.). (2018a). The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities: Lessons from the Italian Experience. Cham: Springer.

Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.). (2018b). Towards an Epistemic Approach to Evaluation in SSH. In The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the italian experience. Cham: Springer.

Briggs, W. M. (2011). The sorites paradox isn’t. Retrieved from

Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Retrieved from

Buranyi, S. (2017). Is the Staggeringly Profitable Business of Scientific Publishing Bad for Science? The Guardian. Retrieved from

Caso, R. (2017a). Perché l’ANVUR è ancora in vita? Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica. Retrieved from

Caso, R. (2017b). Una valutazione (della ricerca) dal volto umano: La missione impossibile di Andrea Bonaccorsi. Retrieved from

Chan, L., Okune, A., Hill, R., Albornoz, D., & Posada, A. (Eds.). (2019). Contextualizing Openness: Situating Open Science. University of Ottawa Press IDRC - International Development Research Centre.

Chomsky-Foucault : « Justice contre pouvoir ». (2007). Le Monde Diplomatique. Retrieved from

Cole, S. (1992). Making science : Between nature and society. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard U.P.

Creagh, S. (2011). Journal rankings ditched: The experts respond. The Conversation.

Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. Retrieved from

David, P. (2007). The historical origins of ’open science’. Retrieved from

Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2016). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science.

European Universities Association. (2009). Europe’s responses to economic crisis. University World News. Retrieved from

Feynman, R. (1966). What is science? Retrieved from

Figà-Talamanca, A. (2002). The "impact factor" in the evaluation of research. Bulletin Du Groupement International Pour La Recherche Scientifique En Stomatologie & Odontologie, 44(1). Retrieved from

Finley, M. (1982). La democrazia antichi e dei moderni. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019). Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: Observing Goodhart’s Law in action. GigaScience, 8(6).

Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology and the future of academia. Retrieved from

Flaherty, C. (2015). The Costs of Publish or Perish. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from

Galilei, G. (1610). Lettera a Belisario Vinta. Retrieved from

Guédon, J.-C. (2001). In Oldenburg’s Long Shadow. Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing. Retrieved from

Guédon, J.-C. (2017). Open access - toward the internet of the mind. Retrieved from

Hagner, M. (2018). Open access, data capitalism and academic publishing. Swiss Medical Weekly, 148(14600).

Harnad, S. (2003). Back to the oral tradition through skywriting at the speed of thought (Ranimer la tradition orale par la ciélographie à la vélocité de l’esprit). Les défis de la publication sur le web: Hyperlectures, cybertextes et méta-editions. Retrieved from

Holmwood, J. (2013). Markets versus dialogue: The debate over open access ignores competing philosophies of openness. LSE Impact Blog. Retrieved from

Humboldt, W. von. (2010). Über die innere und äussere Organisation der höheren wissenschaſtlichen Anstalten in Berlin (C. Markschies, Ed.).

Huxley, A. (1958). Brave new world revisited. Retrieved from

Johns, A. (2009). Piracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kant, I. (1784). Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? Retrieved from

Kant, I. (1991). Political Writings (H. Reiss, Ed.; H. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Konrad, F.-M. (2012). Wilhelm von Humboldt’s contribution to a theory of Bildung. In P. Siljander, A. Kivelä, & A. Sutinen (Eds.), Theories of Bildung and Growth: Connections and Controversies Between Continental Educational Thinking and American Pragmatism. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: SensePublishers.

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. Retrieved from

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE, 10.

Leslie, I. (2016). The sugar conspiracy | Ian Leslie. The Guardian.

Lévy, P. (1997). L’universel sans totalité, essence de la cyberculture. Retrieved from

MacKie-Mason, J. (2018). Why force the OA transition now? An economist’s view. Retrieved from

Markin, P. (2018). Preprint Repositories Gain in Institutional Legitimacy and Recognition, Reduce the Attractiveness of Subscription Journals. Retrieved from

Mazzotti, M. (2012). Listing wildly. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from

Merton, R. K. (1941). Znaniecki’s "The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge".

Merton, R. K. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. Retrieved from

Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. Retrieved from

Merton, R. K. (1968). Behavior Patterns of Scientists. Retrieved from

Merton, R. K. (1973a). The Puritan Spur to Science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 228–253). Retrieved from

Merton, R. K. (1973b). The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (N. W. Storer, Ed.). Retrieved from

Moriarty, P. (2008). Reclaiming Academia from Post-Academia. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(2), 60–62.

Moscon, V. (2013). Open Access to Scientific Articles: Comparing Italian with German law. Retrieved from

Neeson, C. R. (2019). A Declaration of the Mission of University in Barlowspace. Retrieved from

Pievatolo, M. C. (2006). «Friends have all things in common»: intellectual property, publishing, and politics. Retrieved from

Pievatolo, M. C. (2012). Jaron Lanier, You are not a Gadget. Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica. Retrieved from

Pievatolo, M. C. (2017). La bilancia e la spada: scienza di stato e valutazione della ricerca. Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica. Retrieved from

Pinfield, S., & Rob, J. (2018). Adoption of Open Access Is Rising but so Too Are Its Costs. Retrieved from

Plato. (n.d.). Phaedrus. Retrieved from

Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton U.P.). Retrieved from

Prodi, P. (2013). Università e città nella storia europea (Il Mulino). Retrieved from

Radder, H. (2010). The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the modern university.

Radder, H., Nordmann, A., & Schiemann, G. (Eds.). (2011). Science Transformed? Debating Claims of an Epochal Break. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Ravetz, J. R. (2016). How Should We Treat Science’s Growing Pains? The Guardian. Retrieved from

Redazione (2012). Italian declaration supporting the Berlin declaration on open access to knowledge in the sciences and humanities (2004)., 3(2).

Redazione Roars. (2019). Bibliometric evaluation chokes innovation. But it’s OK because “We are not all Galilei and Newton”. ROARS. Retrieved from

Ringer, F. K. (1969). The decline of German Mandarins. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard U.P.

Rossi, P. (2015). La nascita della scienza moderna in Europa. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Rudwick, M. J. S. (1985). The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists. Retrieved from

Sample, I. (2012). Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices. The Guardian. Retrieved from

Santosuosso, A., Sellaroli, V., & Fabio, E. (2007). What constitutional protection for freedom of scientific research? Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(6), 342–344.

Shirky, C. (2010). The Shock of Inclusion. Edge. Retrieved from

Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2012). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science.

SPARC. (2019). Landscape Analysis The Changing Academic Publishing Industry for Academic Institutions. Retrieved from

Srigley, R. (2018). Whose University Is It Anyway? Los Angeles Review of Books. Retrieved from

Tennant, J. (2019). “Transformative” Open Access Publishing Deals Are Only Entrenching Commercial Power. Times Higher Education (THE).

Velterop, J. (2016). On the dangers of SciHub and hybrid journals. Retrieved from

Weber, M. (1919). Science as a Vocation. Retrieved from

Weinberger, D. (2011). Too Big to Know. Retrieved from

Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What It Is and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Maria Chiara Pievatolo

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.