A Socio‐epistemological Framework for Scientific Publishing

Abstract

In this paper I propose a new theoretical framework to analyse socio‐technical epistemic practices and systems on the Web and beyond, and apply it to the topic of web‐based scientific publishing. This framework is informed by social epistemology, science and technology studies (STS) and feminist epistemology. Its core consists of a tripartite classification of socio‐technical epistemic systems based on the mechanisms of closure they employ to terminate socio‐epistemic processes in which multiple agents are involved. In particular I distinguish three mechanisms of closure, integration, aggregation and selection, and argue that they correspond to three different types of epistemic sociality. Different systems can employ different mechanism of closure or combinations thereof. Yet each mechanism has its own epistemic merits, depends on specific social, technical and epistemic prerequisites, has different strengths and weaknesses, and is optimal for different epistemic tasks. The aim of my analysis is twofold. Distinguishing different modes of epistemic sociality is a way for me not only to put forward a more nuanced framework for analysing socio‐epistemic practices, such as web‐based scientific publishing and scholarly communication. It can also serve as the theoretical basis for improving them.

Keywords:

• Social Epistemology
• Information Technology
• Scientific Publishing
• Scholarly Communication

Notes

[1] Further information on technical constraints can be obtained online. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28technical_restrictions%29; INTERNET [cited 16 March 2010].

[2] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Proposed_naming_conventions_and_guidelines; INTERNET [cited 16 March 2010].

[3] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial; INTERNET [cited 16 March 2010].

[4] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style; INTERNET [cited 16 March 2010].

[5] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ; INTERNET [cited 16 March 2010].

[6] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines; INTERNET [cited 16 March 2010].

[7] Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies; INTERNET [cited 16 March 2010].

[8] Available from http://delicious.com/help/faq#tags; INTERNET [cited 20 March 2010].

[9] Available from http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/; INTERNET [cited 20 March 2010].

[10] Keith Lehrer’s work on rational consensus marks a notable and important exception (Lehrer and Wagner 1981).

[11] See, for instance, the proceedings of the numerous international and national conferences organized by the International Society for Knowledge Organization. Further information available from http://www.isko.org/; INTERNET [cited 23 January 2010].

[12] For instance, the topic has been discussed at the workshop QualityCommons, which took place in Paris in Janurary 2010 (organized by the Centre for Research in Social Simulation, University of Surrey, UK and the Centre d’Analyse et Mathématique Sociales, EHESS/CNRS, France). Further information is available from http://cress.soc.surrey.ac.uk/web/events/qualitycommons-workshop/; INTERNET [cited 21 March 2010]. Another workshop on “Quality in Techno‐Social Systems” takes place on 28th September 2010 in Budapest. Available from http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/qteso/index.html; INTERNET [cited 20 July 2010].

[13] Further information on this project can be found on the project website. Available from http://project.liquidpub.org/; INTERNET [cited 21 March 2010].