| dc.relation | Andrade, C. (2015). The primary outcome measure and its importance in clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(10), e1320-e1323. Bartling, S. y Friesike, S. (2014). Towards another scientific revolution. En S. Bartling y S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Bekelman, J., Li, Y. y Gross, C. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454-465. Biddle, J. (2007). Lessons from the Vioxx debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology, 21(1), 21-39. Biddle, J. (2014). Can patents prohibit research? On the social epistemology of patenting and licensing in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 14-23. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Doucet, M. y Sismondo, S. (2008). Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(8), 627-630. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Elliott, K. (2008). Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict-ofinterest policies. Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance, 15(1), 1-29. Elliott, K. (2019). The kaleidoscope of citizen science. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, 9(1), 47-52. EU Presidency. (2016). Amsterdam call for action on open science, [https://f-origin.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1244/files/ 2016/06/amsterdam-call-for-action-on-open-science.pdf ]. European Commission for Research and Innovation. (2016). Guidelines on open access to scientific publications and research data in horizon 2020, [http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf ]. Eurostat. (2018). The EU in the World, [https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-EX-18-001]. Fecher, B. y Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. En S. Bartling y S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research (pp. 17-47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Fernández Pinto, M. (2017). To know or better not to: Agnotology and the social construction of ignorance in commercially driven research. Science & Technology Studies, 30(2), 53-72. Fernández Pinto, M. (2018). Democratizing strategies for industryfunded medical research: A cautionary tale. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 882-894. G8 Summit. (2013). Science Ministers statement, [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g8-science-ministers-statement-london-12-june-2013]. Greenberg, D. (2007). Science for sale: The perils, rewards, and delusions of campus capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Greenberg, D. S. (2001). Science, money, and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Holman, B. y Elliott, K. (2018). The promise and perils of industryfunded science. Philosophy Compass, 13(2), e12544. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Nueva York, NY: Prometheus Books. Koskinen, I. Y Mäki, U. (2016). Extra-academic transdisciplinarity and scientific pluralism: What might they learn from one another? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 419-444. Kourany, J. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Leonelli, S. (2013). Why the current insistence on open access to scientific data? big data, knowledge production, and the political economy of contemporary biology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(1-2), 6-11. Levin, N., Leonelli, S., Weckowska, D. et al. (2016). How do scientists define openness? exploring the relationship between open science policies and research practice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(2), 128-141. Lexchin, J., Bero, L., Djulbegovic, B. et al. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 326(7400), 1167-1170. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B. et al. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2(2), 33. Markowitz, G. y Rosner, D. (2002). Deceit and denial: The deadly politics of industrial pollution. California: Milbank Books on Health and the Public. Maurer, S. (2007). Open source drug discovery: Finding a niche (or maybe several). UMKC Latin American Law Review, 76, 405-434. McGarity, T. O. y Wagner, W. E. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt Public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Merton, R. (1974). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meskus, M., Marelli, L. y D’Agostino, G. (2018). Research misconduct in the age of open science: The case of STAP stem cells. Science as Culture, 27(1), 1-23. Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Nueva York: Oxford University Press. Mirowski, P. (2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science, 48(2), 171-203. Murray R., P., Neylon, C., Pollock, R. y Wilbanks, J. (2010). Panton principles, principles for open data in science. Panton Principles,[https://pantonprinciples.org/]. National Science Board (2018). Science and engineer indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. Alexandria, VA: NSF, [https://www.nsf. gov/statistics/ indicators/]. Nielsen, M. (2011a). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Nielsen, M. (2011b). Open science now. TED talk, [https://www.ted.com/talks/Michael_nielsen_open_science_now]. OCDE. (2015). Making open science a reality. OECD science, technology and industry policy papers, 25. París: OECD Publishing, [https:// www.oecdilibrary. org/science-and-technology/making-open-sciencea-reality_5jrs2f963zs1-en]. Oreskes, N. y Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Nueva York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Phelps, L., Fox, B. A. y Marincola, F. M. (2012). Supporting the advancement of science: Open access publishing and the role of mandates. Journal of Translational Medicine, 10(13), 34-49. Powell, M. y Colin, M. (2009). Participatory paradoxes: Facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 325-342. Proctor, R. N. (2011). Golden holocaust: Origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Radder, H. (2010). The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Resnik, D. B. (2007). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Royal Society (2012). Report 02/12 DES2482. Science as an open enterprise, [https://royalsociety.org//media/policy/projects/sape/2012-06- 20-saoe.pdf ]. Sappington, T. W., Ostlie, K. R., DiFonzo et al. (2010). Conducting public-sector research on commercialized transgenic seed. GM Crops & Food, 1(2), 55-58. Schroeder, R. (2007). E-research infrastructures and open science: Towards a new system of knowledge production? Prometheus 25(1), 1-17. Sidler, M. (2014). Open science and the three cultures: Expanding open science to all domains of knowledge creation. En S. Bartling y S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research (pp. 81-85). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Sismondo, S. (2007). Ghost management: How much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry? PLoS Medicine, 4(9), 286. Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(2), 109-113. Sismondo, S. (2009). Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science, 39(2), 171-198. Slaughter, S. y Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, R. (2003). Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: Uneasy bedfellows. British Medical Journal, 326(7400), 1202-1205. Turner, E., Matthews, A., Linardatos, E. et al. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 252-260. Unesco. (2012). Policy guidelines for the development and Promotion of open access. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, [http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf ]. Unesco. (2015). Unesco science report: Towards 2030, [https://en. unesco.org/unescosciencereport]. Waltz, E. (2009). Under wraps. Nature. Biotechnology, 27(10), 880-882. Wise, N. (2006). Thoughts on the politicization of science through commercialization. Social Research, 73(4), 1253-1272. Wylie, A. (2015). A plurality of pluralisms: Collaborative practice in archaeology. En F. Padovani, A. Richardson y J. Tsou (eds.), Objectivity in science: New perspectives from science and technology studies (pp. 189-210). Dordrecht: Springer. | |
