Tensiones y transformaciones en la producción científica institucional: dinámicas editoriales, costos y desafíos del acceso abierto en una organización nacional de investigación agropecuaria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20751500Palabras clave:
producción científica, acceso abierto, costos de publicación, evaluación de la investigación, ciencia abiertaResumen
En las últimas dos décadas, el ecosistema de publicación científica ha experimentado transformaciones profundas impulsadas por la expansión del acceso abierto, el fortalecimiento de las políticas de ciencia abierta y la consolidación del oligopolio editorial global. En este contexto, los centros e instituciones públicas de investigación y desarrollo enfrentan desafíos crecientes relacionados con la sostenibilidad económica de la publicación, la visibilidad en los sistemas de indexación y la efectividad de sus políticas internas de evaluación científica. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar cómo emergen estas tensiones en la dinámica de producción científica de la Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria, AGROSAVIA, como instituto nacional de investigación agropecuaria.
El estudio siguió un diseño metodológico mixto que incluyó métodos de análisis bibliométrico basados en Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO y The Lens; una revisión de datos institucionales sobre productividad y costos de publicación entre 2019 y 2023; y una encuesta estructurada aplicada a la totalidad de los investigadores vinculados a la organización (589). Un cálculo previo del tamaño muestral, estratificado por cargo, estableció el umbral mínimo de representatividad; se obtuvieron 156 respuestas voluntarias. La encuesta examinó percepciones, experiencias y barreras dentro del proceso editorial.
Los hallazgos revelan una dependencia creciente de los modelos de pago por publicación, en particular de los cargos por procesamiento de artículos (APC), con un incremento acumulado del 273% en el costo promedio por artículo y un valor estimado de USD 911.938 pagado a editoriales entre 2021 y 2023. Estas tendencias convergen con limitantes operativas internas y externas, incluidos los solapamientos entre los cronogramas de los proyectos y los flujos editoriales de las revistas, las restricciones de los financiadores y características específicas del sistema institucional de escalafón, especialmente aquellas relacionadas con el reconocimiento y los incentivos a la generación de conocimiento. El estudio concluye que, para responder a los desafíos actuales, las instituciones necesitan rediseñar con urgencia los instrumentos de política que regulan la publicación científica, priorizar mecanismos de financiación sostenible y promover modelos de gobernanza alineados con los principios de la ciencia abierta.
Descargas
Citas
Abbasi, Z., Shekofteh, M., Shahbodaghi, A., & Kazemi, E. (2019). Citation indicators’ comparison of lis open access and subscription publications based on scopus. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 68(4–5), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2018-0016
Abdel-Razig, S., Stadler, D., Oyoun Alsoud, L., Archuleta, S., & Ibrahim, H. (2024). Open Access Publishing Metrics, Cost, and Impact in Health Professions Education Journals. JAMA Network Open, 7(10), e2439932. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39932
Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A., Chávez-Ávila, S., Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A., & Chávez-Ávila, S. (2019). Reflexión sobre la publicación académica y el acceso abierto a partir de la experiencia de {Redalyc}. Palabra Clave, 8(2), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.24215/18539912e067
Alperin, J. P., Nieves, C. M., Schimanski, L. A., Fischman, G. E., Niles, M. T., & McKiernan, E. C. (2019). How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? ELife, 8. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42254
Álvarez, I. V. (2015). La concentración editorial: una aproximación conceptual al fenómeno. Trama & Texturas, 28, 43–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26156274
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Asai, S. (2020). Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for open access journals. Scientometrics, 123(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03402-y
Bardiau, M., & Dony, C. (2024). Measuring back: bibliodiversity and the Journal Impact FactorTM brand, a case study of IF-journals included in the 2021 Journal Citations ReportTM. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.633
Beallslist. (2018). Beall´s List of predatory journals and publishers. In Beallslist (Vol. 128, Issue 7).
Beigel, F. (2025). The transformative relation between publishers and editors: Research quality and academic autonomy at stake. Quantitative Science Studies, 6, 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00343
Berger, M. (2021). Bibliodiversity at the Centre: Decolonizing Open Access. Development and Change, 52(2), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12634
Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2015). Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics, 103(2), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z
BOAI, B. O. A. I. (2002). Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). Interlending & Document Supply, 30(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/ilds.2002.12230bab.012
Bojo-Canales, C., Sanz-Lorente, M., & Sanz-Valero, J. (2021). Trends in the Searching Information on the Collections SciELO, Redalyc and Dialnet Conducted through Google. Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica, 44(2). https://doi.org/10.3989/REDC.2021.2.1765
Borrego, Á. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558
Borrego, Á., Anglada, L., & Abadal, E. (2021). Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access? Learned Publishing, 34(2), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347
Budzinski, O., Grebel, T., Wolling, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). Drivers of article processing charges in open access. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2185–2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3
Buitrago Ciro, J. (2022). How are academic libraries in Spanish-speaking Latin America responding to new models of scholarly communication and predatory publishing? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211016533
Butler, L.-A., Hare, M., Schönfelder, N., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2024). An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023). 1–13. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08356
Butler, L. A., Matthias, L., Simard, M. A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Cantrell, M. H., Mezick, J. A., Estill, M., Caldwell, R., & Collister, L. B. (2025). An APC Trap? Privilege and the Perception of Reasonableness in Open Access Publishing. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18184
Collyer, F. M. (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South. Current Sociology, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020
Cox, E. (2023). Research Outputs as Testimony & the APC as Testimonial Injustice in the Global South. College and Research Libraries, 84(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.4.513
Da Costa, M. P., & Leite, F. C. L. (2016). Open access in the world and Latin America: A review since the Budapest Open Access Initiative. In Transinformacao (Vol. 28, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892016002800003
Delgado-López-Cozar, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2024). The profit route in scholarly publishing: From journals as a business to journals focused on the business. The source of the publishing business: The business of scientific evaluation with bibliometric tools; [La ruta de oro de la publicación científica: . Revista Mediterranea de Comunicacion, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM.26763
Demeter, M., & Istratii, R. (2020). Scrutinising what Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities. Publishing Research Quarterly, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09771-9
Di Zio, M., Liseo, B., & Ranalli, M. G. (2024). Bayesian Ideas in Survey Sampling: The Legacy of Basu. Sankhya A, 86(Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13171-023-00327-5
Ellers, J., Crowther, T. W., & Harvey, J. A. (2017). Gold open access publishing in mega-journals: Developing countries pay the price of western premium academic output. In Journal of Scholarly Publishing (Vol. 49, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.1.89
Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.31269/vol11iss2pp428-443
Greussing, E., Kuballa, S., Taddicken, M., Schulze, M., Mielke, C., & Haux, R. (2020). Drivers and obstacles of open access publishing. A qualitative investigation of individual and institutional factors. Frontiers in Communication, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465
Grossmann, A., & Brembs, B. (2021). Current market rates for scholarly publishing services [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 10(20). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2
Halevi, G., Sánchez-Jiménez, R., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & De-Moya-anegón, F. (2024). Estimating the Financial Value of Scientific Journals and APCs using Visibility Factors: A New Methodological Approach. Profesional de La Informacion, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2024.0512
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. In Nature (Vol. 520, Issue 7548). https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Ikokoh, C. E., & Ikokoh, D. P. (2026). Open access publishing and research dissemination in developing countries: Evolution, impact, problems and prospects. Journal of Library Services and Technologies, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.47524/jlst.v7i4.155
Ili, B. (2025). Academic Quality or Commercial Concern? The Role of APCs in Open-Access Communication Studies Journals. TripleC, 23(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v23i1.1547
Jama, J. M. (2025). Why Diamond Open Access in the Global South? Dhaxalreeb, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.13169/dhaxalreeb.21.2.0013
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. John Wiley & Sons.
Kumar, A., Pandey, D., Srivastava, L., & Srivastava, S. (2024). Measures to Protect Ethical Publications Getting Trapped Under Unethical Practices: Preying by Predatory Journals. Springer International Handbooks of Education, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3895-7_64-1
Kwon, D. (2022). Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00342-w
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Macdonald, S. (2025). The Scandal of Academic Publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 41(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-025-10042-8
Martínez-Saldarriaga, J., Henao-Rojas, J. C., Flórez-Martínez, D. H., Cadena-Chamorro, E. M., & Yepes-Betancur, D. P. (2025). Methodological framework for supporting phytochemical bioprospecting re-search: A case study on carrot (Daucus carota L.) crop by-products. Heliyon, 11(3), e41822. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41822
Martínez Galindo, F. J., Fernández-Burguete, S., & Rubio, F. J. (2023). Present and future of transformative agreements in Spain. Hipertext.Net, 0(27 SE-Articles. Monograph), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2023.i27.09
Martinino, A., Campagnoli, G., Dallavalle, S., Soto, A., Pouwels, S., & Smeenk, F. (2024). Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.64674
Memon, A. R. (2019). Dealing with predatory publishing is a shared responsibility: The role of Latin American journals. In Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias (Vol. 91, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201920180631
Muñoz-Vélez, H., Pallares, C., Echavarría, A. F., Contreras, J., Pavas, A., Bello, D., Rendón, C., Calderón-Rojas, J., & Garzón, F. (2024). Strategies for Negotiating and Signing Transformative Agreements in the Global South: The Colombia Consortium Experience. Journal of Library Administration, 64(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2023.2287945
Nejadghanbar, H., & Hu, G. (2022). Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals. Learned Publishing, 35(4), 574–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1485
Nicholas, D., Revez, J., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Clark, D., Xu, J., Swigon, M., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., & Herman, E. (2024). Purchase and publish: Early career researchers and open access publishing costs. Learned Publishing, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1617
Packer, A. L., Biojone, M. R., Antonio, I., Takemaka, R. M., García, A. P., Silva, A. C. Da, Murasaki, R. T., Mylek, C., Reis, O. C., & Delbucio, H. C. R. F. (2001). SciELO: Una metodología para la publicación electrónica. ACIMED, 9(SUPPL. 4). https://doi.org/10.1590/s1135-57272001000400004
Pinfield, S., & Johnson, R. (2018). Adoption of open access is rising – but so too are its costs. LSE Impact Blog.
Porter, A. L. (2005). QTIP: Quick technology intelligence processes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(9), 1070–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.007
Ruggiero, A. (2023). The price of quality: Scholarly publishing business is the primary predictor of citation-based indicators of journal performance in ecology and evolutionary biology. Research Evaluation, 32(2), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad012
SCImago. (2016). SJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank. SJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank.
Smith, A. C., Merz, L., Borden, J. B., Gulick, C. K., Kshirsagar, A. R., & Bruna, E. M. (2022). Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier’s “Mirror Journal” system. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(4), 1123–1143. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00157
Talbott, J. A. (2016). Salami Slicing, Duplicative Publication, and Data Set Utilization: Where to Draw the Line. In Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Vol. 204, Issue 11). https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000630
van Bellen, S., Alperin, J. P., & Larivière, V. (2025). Scholarly publishing’s hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers. PLOS ONE, 20(6), e0327015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327015
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
van Norden, R. (2013). The true cost of science publishing: Cheap open-access journals raise questions about the value publishers add for their money. Nature, 495((7442)).
Wexler, E. (2015). What Open-Access Publishing Actually Costs. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Williams, J. W., Taylor, A., Tolley, K. A., Provete, D. B., Correia, R., Guedes, T. B., Farooq, H., Li, Q., Pinheiro, H. T., Liz, A. V., Luna, L. W., Matthews, T. J., Palmeirim, A. F., Puglielli, G., Rivadeneira, M. M., Robin, V. V., Schrader, J., Shestakova, T. A., Tukiainen, H., … Zizka, A. (2023). Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder research equity and careers. In Journal of Biogeography (Vol. 50, Issue 9). https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14697
Zarif, A. (2023). The Economics of Scientific Publishing. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 96(2). https://doi.org/10.59249/OMSP9618
Zedda, M. (2025). Making open access: History, developments and new challenges; [Fare open access: storia, sviluppi e nuove sfide]. Recenti Progressi in Medicina, 116(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44440
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Yajaira Romero-Barrera, Carlos Contreras-Pedraza, Diego-Hernando Flórez-Martínez
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
