Revistas científicas: oligopólio e acesso aberto
Palavras-chave:
revistas científicas, economia política da ciência, acesso aberto, redes sociais acadêmicas, revistas predatórias, pirataria editorialResumo
Do ponto de vista da economia política da ciência, este artigo apresenta um quadro sobre a situação atual do sistema de revistas científicas. Para tanto, analisa-se o funcionamento do mercado de revistas, com especial referência ao papel dos grandes conglomerados editoriais. Também são descritas as principais tendências de mudança deste sistema, que giram em torno das iniciativas de acesso aberto em seus diversos aspectos, a expansão de formas de pirataria editorial, a emergência e o rápido crescimento de um segmento de editoriais e revistas de baixa qualidade ou fraudulentas, a ascensão das redes sociais acadêmicas e a importância das políticas públicas e institucionais.Downloads
Referências
ALONSO-GAMBOA, J. O. y RUSSELL, J. (2012): “Latin American scholarly journal databases: a look back to the way forward”, Aslib Proceedings, vol. 64, n° 1, pp. 32-45. DOI 10.1108/00012531211196693.
ALTBACH, P. (2010): “The Asian Higher Education Century?”, International Higher Education, n° 59, pp. 3-5.
AMIRTHA, T. (2015): “The Open Publishing Revolution, Now Behind A Billion-Dollar Paywall”, Fast Company, 17 de abril. Disponible en: https://www.fastcompany.com/3042443/mendeley-elsevier-and-the-future-of-scholarly-publishing.
ANDERSON, R. (2018a): “Napster vs. Record Labels, Sci-Hub vs. Publishers, Part 1: Parallels”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 3 de enero. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/01/03/napster-vs-record-labels-sci-hub-vs-publishers-part-1-parallels/.
ANDERSON, Rick (2018b): “Napster vs. Record Labels, Sci-Hub vs. Publishers, Part 2: Differences”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 4 de enero. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/01/04/napster-vs-record-labels-sci-hub-vspublishers-part-2-differences/.
BACEVIC, J. y MUELLERLEILE, C. (2018): “The moral economy of open access”, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 21, n° 2, pp. 169-188. DOI: 10.1177/1368431017717368.
BARSKY, O. (2014): La evaluación de la calidad académica en debate. Volumen 1. Los rankings internacionales de universidades y el rol de las revistas científicas, Buenos Aires, UAI Editorial–Teseo.
BERGSTROM, T. C. (2001): “Free labor for costly journals?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 15, n° 4, pp. 183–198. Disponible en: http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/jeprevised.pdf.
BERGSTROM, C. T. y BERGSTROM, T. C. (2004): “The costs and benefits of library site licenses to academic journals”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 101, n° 3, pp. 897–902.
BJÖRK, B. (2017): “Gold, green, and black open access”, Learned Publishing, n° 30, pp. 173–175. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1096.
BOHANNON, J. (2016): “Downloading pirated papers? Everyone”, Science, 28 de abril. Disponible en: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloadingpirated-
papers-everyone.
BOSCH, S., ALBEE, B. y HENDERSON, K. (2018): “Death By 1,000 Cuts | Periodicals Price Survey 2018”, Library Journal, 23 de abril. Disponible en: https://lj.libraryjournal.com/2018/04/publishing/death-1000-cuts-periodicals-price-survey-2018/#_.
BOYES, P. y KINGSLEY, D. (2016): “Hybrid open access – an analysis”, Unlocking Research, University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication, 24 de octubre. Disponible en: https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?tag=double-dipping.
BURANYI, S. (2017): “Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?”, The Guardian, 20 de junio. Disponible en:
COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE SHARING (2017): “Publishers and societies take action against ResearchGate’s copyright infringements”, 5 de octubre. Disponible en: http://www.responsiblesharing.org/coalition-statement/.
CRAWFORD, W. (2017): “Gray OA 2012-016. Open Access Journals beyond DOAJ”, Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, vol. 17, n° 1, ISSN 1534-0937. Disponible en: https://citesandinsights.info/civ17i1.pdf.
DAVID, P. A. (2003): “The economic logic of ‘open science’ and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information: A primer”, en P. Uhlir y J. Esanu (eds.): National Research Council on the Role of the Public Domain in Science, Washington DC, National Academy Press.
DAVIS, P. (2018): “Future of the OA Megajournal”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 10 de enero. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/01/10/future-oa-megajournal/. Consultado el 11 de junio de 2018.
DIRECTION DE L´INFORMATION SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE (2015):
Résultats 2014 des grands éditeurs scientifiques: une croissance satisfaisante, des profits record. Un terrain favorable à de nouvelles concentrations?, CNRS, DISTinfo, 14 de marzo.
DIRECTION DE L´INFORMATION SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE (2016): Financer la publication scientifique Le « Lecteur » et / ou « l’Auteur »? Evolutions, Alternatives, CNRS, Observations de la DIST. Disponible en: http://www.cnrs.fr/dist/zoutils/documents/Distinfo2/DISTetude3_09.2016-final.pdf. Consultado el 22 de junio de 2018.
DICKSON, D. (2012): “Developing world gains open access to science research, but hurdles remain”, The Guardian, 3 de septiembre. Disponible en: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/sep/03/developing-worldopen-
access-research-hurdles.
DODDS, F. (2018): “The future of academic publishing: Revolution or evolution?”, Learned Publishing, vol. 31, pp. 163–168.
DUFFY, B. E. y POOLEY, J. D. (2017): “Facebook for Academics”, The Convergence of Self-Branding and Social Media Logic on Academia.edu, Social Media + Society, pp. 1-11. DOI:10.177/2056305117696523.
ELSE, H. (2018): “Dutch publishing giant cuts off researchers in Germany and Sweden”, Nature, n° 559, pp. 454-455.
ESPOSITO, J. (2013): “The Inexorable Path of the Professional Society Publisher”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 8 de mayo. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/05/08/the-inexorable-path-of-the-professional-society-publisher/.
ESPOSITO, J. (2016a): “The Terrible Burden of a Prestigious Brand”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 5 de enero. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/01/05/the-terrible-burden-of-a-prestigious-brand/.
ESPOSITO, J. (2016b): “The Illicit Love Affair between Open Access and Traditional Publishing”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 24 de febrero. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/02/24/the-illicit-love-affair-between-openaccess-and-traditional-publishing/.
ESPOSITO, J. (2016c): “Winning Strategies for Journal Publishers”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 14 de mayo. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/03/14/winning-strategies-for-journal-publishers/.
ESPOSITO, J. (2017): “Revisiting: The Arms Race in Journals Publishing Heats Up”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 23 de agosto. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/23/revisiting-arms-race-journals-publishing-heats/.
EVE, M. y PRIEGO, E. (2017): “Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers?”, TripleC, vol. 15, n° 2, pp. 755-770.
FAY, B. (2018): “MIT and Royal Society of Chemistry Sign First North American “Read and Publish” Agreement for Scholarly Articles”, MIT Libraries, 14 de junio. Disponible en: https://libraries.mit.edu/news/royal-society-chemistry-3/27769/.
FERNÁNDEZ ESQUINAS, M. (2016): “Las revistas de ciencias sociales en los sistemas de I+D. Notas sobre política editorial para revistas de sociología”, Revista Española de Sociología (RES), vol. 25, n° 3, pp. 427-442, ISSN: 1578-2824.
FERWERDA, E., PINTER, F. y STERN, N. (2017): A landscape study on open access and monographs. Policies, funding and publishing in eight European countries, Knowledge exchange. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.815932.
FINCH REPORT (2012): Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications, Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings.
FULLER, S. (2017): The Academic Caesar: University Leadership is Hard, Sage Swifts.
FYFE, A., COATE, K., CURRY, S., LAWSON, S., MOXHAM, N. y MØRK RØSTVIK, C. (2017): Untangling Academic Publishing: a history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100.
GRABER-STIEHL, I. (2018): “Science’s pirate queen”, The Verge, 8 de febrero. Disponible en: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16985666/alexandra-elbakyan-scihub-open-access-science-papers-lawsuit.
GRAY, J. y LAWSON, S. (2016): “It’s time to stand up to greedy academic publishers”, The Guardian, 18 de abril.
GREEN, T. (2017): “We’ve failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach”, Learned Publishing, vol. 30, pp. 325–329. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1116.
HAGNER, M. (2018): “Open access, data capitalism and academic publishing”, Swiss Med Wkly, vol. 148. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2018.14600.
HARNAD, S. (2011): “Open Access to Research. Ganging Researcher Behaviour Trough University and Funder Mandates”, JeDEM, vol. 3, n° 1, pp. 33-41.
HUNTER, S. (2004): “Why Copy Editors Matter”, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, n° 36.
ISRAEL, J. (2012): “CHART: Who Is Lobbying For And Against The Protect IP Act”, Think Progress, 18 de enero. Disponible en: https://thinkprogress.org/chart-who-islobbying-
for-and-against-the-protect-ip-act-73beb451bdb/.
JOHNSON, R. (2018): “Guest Post: Time to Check Out of the Hybrid Hotel?”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 25 de junio. Disponible en: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/25/guest-post-time-check-hybrid-hotel/.
KARAGANIS, J. y BODO, B. (2018): “Russia is building a new Napster — but for academic research”, The Washington Post, 13 de julio. Disponible en: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/13/russia-isbuilding-a-new-napster-but-for-academic-research/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.450a23affae6.
LAAKSO, M., LINDMAN, J., SHEN, C., NYMAN, L. y BJÖRK, B. (2017): “Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing”, Electron Markets. DOI 10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1.
LALU, M. M., SHAMSEER, L., COBEY, K. D. y MOHER, D. (2017): “How stakeholders can respond to the rise of predatory journals”, Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 1, n° 12, pp. 852–855. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0257-4.
LARIVIÈRE, V., HAUSTEIN, S. y MONGEON, P. (2015): “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era”, PLoS ONE, vol. 10, n° 6. DOI: e0127502.10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.
LAWSON, S., GRAY, J. y MAURI, M. (2016): “Opening the Black Box of Scholarly Communication Funding: A Public Data Infrastructure for Financial Flows in Academic Publishing”, Open Library of Humanities, vol. 2, n° 1. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.16995/olh.72.
LAWSON, S. (2017): “Access, ethics and piracy”, Insights, vol. 30, n° 1, pp. 25–30. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.333.
MALTRÁS BARBA, B. (2003): Los indicadores bibliométricos. Fundamentos y aplicación al análisis de la ciencia, Gijón, Ediciones Trea, ISBN: 84-9704-012-0.
MCGUIGAN, G. y RUSSELL, R. (2008): “The Business of Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Academic Journal Publishing Insdustry and its Impact on the Future of Scholarly Publishing”, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, vol. 9, n° 3.
MONBIOT, G. (2011): “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist”, The Guardian, 29 de agosto. Disponible en: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist.
MORRIS, S. (2007): “Mapping the journal publishing landscape: how much do we know?”, Learned Publishing, vol. 20, pp. 299–310. DOI: 10.1087/095315107X239654.
MORRIS, S., BARNAS, E., LAFRENIER, D. y REICH, M. (2013): The Handbook of Journal Publishing, Nueva York, Cambridge University Press.
NARIMANI, M. y DADKHAH, M. (2017): “Predatory Journals and Perished Articles; a Letter to Editor”, Emergency, vol. 5, n° 1. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325920/.
NEYLON, C. (2012): “The stupidity of SOPA in Scholarly Publishing, Science in the open”, 3 de enero. Disponible en: https://cameronneylon.net/blog/the-stupidity-ofsopa-
in-scholarly-publishing/.
NEYLON, C. (2013): “Architecting the Future of Research Communication: Building the Models and Analytics for an Open Access Future”, PLoS Biol, vol. 11, n° 10. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001691.
NEYLON, C. (2017): “Blacklists are technically infeasible, practically unreliable and unethical. Period”, 28 de enero. Disponible en: http://cameronneylon.net/blog/blacklists-are-technically-infeasible-practically-unreliable-and-unethical-period/.
OECD (2007): Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding, París, OECD Publications. Disponible en: http://www.oecd.org/science/scitech/38500813.pdf.
OECD (2015): “Making Open Science a Reality”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 25, París, OECD Publishing. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en.
PHILLIPS, A. (2014): “Business models in journal publishing”, en B. Cope y A. Phillips (eds.): The Future of the Academic Journal, Chandos Publishing, pp. 139-158.
PINFIELD, S. (2016): “Mega-journals: the future, a stepping stone to it or a leap into the abyss?”, Times Higher Education Supplement, 13 de octubre. Disponible en: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/mega-journals-future-stepping-stone-itor-leap-abyss. Consultado el 11 de junio de 2018.
PINTER, F. (2018): “Why Book Processing Charges (BPCs) Vary So Much”, Journal of Electronic Publishing, vol. 21, n° 1. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0021.101.
POSADA, A. y CHEN, G. (2017): “Publishers are increasingly in control of scholarly infrastructure and why we should care A Case Study of Elsevier, Preliminary Findings: Rent Seeking by Elsevier”, The Knowledge Gap, 20 de septiembre. Disponible en: September 20, 2017, http://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seekingand-
financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-industry/preliminary-findings/.
POSADA, A. y CHEN, G. (2018): “Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Academic Infrastructure by Big Publishers”, ELPUB 2018, junio, Toronto. Disponible en: 10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.30.
POTTS, J., HARTLEY, J., MONTGOMERY, L., NEYLON, C. y RENNIE, E. (2016): “A Journal is a Club: A New Economic Model for Scholarly Publishing”, SSRN. Disponible en: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2763975.
POYNDER, R. (2011): “Not Looking for Sympathy. Interview With Derk Haank, CEO, Springer Science+Business Media”, Information Today, vol. 28, n° 1. Disponible en: http://www.infotoday.com/it/jan11/Interview-with-Derk-Haank.shtml.
PYNE, D. (2017): “The Rewards of Predatory Publications at a Small Business School”, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 48, n° 3, pp. 137-160. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137.
RIN (2008): “Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK”. Disponible en: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Activites-costs-flows-report.pdf.
ROSENWALD, M. S. (2016): “This student put 50 million stolen research articles online. And they’re free”, The Washington Post, 30 de marzo. Disponible en: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/this-student-put-50-million-stolen-researcharticles-online-and-theyre-free/2016/03/30/7714ffb4-eaf7-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?utm_term=.3374824655ee.
SALLAZ, J. (2017): “Your Paper Has Just Been Outsourced”, Global Dialogue. Magazine of the International Sociological Association, vol. 7, n° 4. Disponible en: http://isa-global-dialogue.net/your-paper-has-just-been-outsourced/.
SCHWARTZ, H. M. (2017): “Club goods, intellectual property rights, and profitability in the information economy”, Business and Politics, vol. 19, n° 2, pp. 191–214. DOI: 10.1017/bap.2016.11.
SCIENCE EUROPE (2018): “‘Plan S’ Making Open Access a Reality by 2020”. Disponible en: https://www.scienceeurope.org/making-open-access-a-reality-by-2020/.
SHEN, C. y BJÖRK, B. (2015): “‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics”, BMC Medicine, vol. 13, n° 230. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
SMART, P. (2017): “Predatory journals and researcher needs”, Learned Publishing, vol. 30, pp. 103-105. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1101.
SMITH, K. (2016): “Some radical thoughts about Sci-Hub, Scholarly Communications @ Duke, 3 de marzo. Disponible en: https://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2016/03/03/some-radical-thoughts-about-scihub/.
SPEZI, V., WAKELING, S., PINFIELD, S., CREASER, C., FRY, J. y WILLETT, P. (2017): “Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review”, Journal of Documentation, vol. 73, n° 2, pp.263-283. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082.
SUBER, P. (2012): Open Access, MIT Press, ISBN : 978-0-262-51763-8.
SUTTON, C. (2011): “Is free inevitable in scholarly communication?: The economics of open access”, College & Research Libraries News, vol. 72, n° 11, pp. 642-645, ISSN 2150-6698. Disponible en: https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/8671. Consultado el 1 de junio de 2018.
TAUBERT, N. (2017): “Recent Processes of Change from the Perspective of Academic Publishers”, en P. Weingart y N. Taubert (eds.): The Future of Scholarly Publishing. Open Access and the Economics of Digitisation, Capetown, African Minds, ISBN: 978-1-928331-53-7, pp. 69-93.
TAUBERT, N. y WEINGART, P. (2017): “Changes in Scientific Publishing. A Heuristic for Analysis”, en P. Weingart y N. Taubert (eds.): The Future of Scholarly Publishing. Open Access and the Economics of Digitisation, Capetown, African Minds, ISBN: 978-1-928331-53-7, pp. 265-272.
THE ECONOMIST (2018): “Publish and don’t be damned. Some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so”, 23 de junio. Disponible en: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-sciencejournals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so.
THE KNOWLEDGE GAP (2017): “Rent Seeking and Financialization strategies of the Academic Publishing Industry”.
THE WELCOME TRUST (2003): Economic analysis of scientific research publishing. A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, SQW Limited. Disponible en: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtd003182_0.pdf.
TRAVIS, J. (2016): “In survey, most give thumbs-up to pirated papers”, Science. Disponible en: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/survey-most-give-thumbspirated-papers. Consultado el 22 de junio de 2018.
UNIÓN EUROPEA (2016): “H2020 Programme Guidelines on FAIR Data
Management in Horizon 2020”, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Disponible en: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf.
UNIÓN EUROPEA (2017): “Information Note towards a Horizon 2020 platform for open access, European Commission Research and Innovation”, 21 de diciembre. Disponible en: https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/information_note_
platform_public.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.
UNIÓN EUROPEA (2018): “Recomendación (UE) 2018/790 de la Comisión de 25 de abril de 2018 relativa al acceso a la información científica y a su preservación”. Disponible en: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0790&from=EN.
UNIVERSITIES UK (2017): “Monitoring the transition to open access”. Disponible en: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf.
VENCE, T. (2017): “Identifying Predatory Publishers. How to tell reputable journals from shady ones”, The Scientist, 17 de julio. Disponible en: https://www.thescientist.com/careers/identifying-predatory-publishers-31225.
WARE, M. y MABE, M. (2015): The STM Report An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
WEINGART, P. (2017): “Trust, Quality Assurance and Open Access: Predatory Journals and the Future of the Scholarly Publication System”, en P. Weingart y N. Taubert (eds.): The Future of Scholarly Publishing. Open Access and the Economics of Digitisation, Capetown, African Minds, ISBN: 978-1-928331-53-7, pp. 265-272.
WELLER, M. (2014): The Battle for Open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory, Londres, Ubiquity Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5334/bam.
WILKINSON, M. D., DUMONTIER, M., AALBERSBERG, I. J., APPLETON, G.,
AXTON, M., BAAK, A. y BLOMBERG, N. et al. (2016): “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship”, Scientific Data 3, 15 de marzo.
WILLINSKY, J. y MOORHEAD, L. (2014): “How the rise of open access is altering journal publishing”, en B. Cope y A. Phillips (eds): The Future of the Academic Journal, Cambridge, Chandos Publishing.
WILLINSKY, J. y KENNISTON, R. (2016): “Cutting Through the Mysteries of Journal and Article Pricing”, Slaw, 24 de junio. Disponible en: http://www.slaw.ca/2016/06/24/cutting-through-the-mysteries-of-journal-and-article-pricing/.
WILLINSKY, J. (2017): “Working the Law Against Its Intent: Policing Access to Research”, Slaw, 10 de noviembre. Disponible en: http://www.slaw.ca/2017/11/10/working-the-law-against-its-intent-policing-access-to-research/.
WEINGART, P. y TAUBERT, N. (2017) The Future of Scholarly Publishing. Open Access and the Economics of Digitisation, Capetown, African Minds, ISBN: 978-1-928331-53-7.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Todas os números de CTS e seus artigos individuais estão sob uma licença CC-BY.
Desde 2007, a CTS proporciona acesso livre, aberto e gratuito a todos seus conteúdos, incluídos o arquivo completo da edição quadrimestral e os diversos produtos apresentados na plataforma eletrônica. Esta decisão é baseada no entendimento de que fornecer acesso livre aos materiais publicados ajuda a ter uma maior e melhor troca de conhecimentos.
Por sua vez, em se tratando da edição quadrimestral, a revista permite aos repositórios institucionais e temáticos, bem como aos sites pessoais, o autoarquivo dos artigos na versão post-print ou versão editorial, logo após da publicação da versão definitiva de cada número e sob a condição de incorporar ao autoarquivo um link direcionado à fonte original.
