Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilAppels à contributionsAppels en coursCall for paper

Call for paper

Open Science / Open Science: perspectives on the right to science, its legitimacy, its transmission, its governance, its innovations, its commitments and its risks. Interdisciplinary and global adventure of a concept in thinking.

Coordination :

Catherine Pascal maîtresse de conférences en SIC- université Bordeaux Montaigne/MICA, (EA 4426), Axe ICIN, Information, Connaissance, Innovation, Numérique, UFR Langues et Civilisations, et Marie-Christine Lipani maîtresse de conférences habilitée à diriger des recherches en Sic, Institut de Journalisme Bordeaux Aquitaine-Université Bordeaux Montaigne/MICA, (EA 4426), Axe Médias, Culture et Société

Open science is the unhindered dissemination of publications and research data. This notion should be compared with that of democratization of access to knowledge, insofar as it is based on the possibilities offered by digital technology, thus strengthening the ease of finding data, making them accessible, interoperable, reusable.

Promoting science as a whole as a public science is not a new concept in itself: the sharing of knowledge in this sense is heir to the intellectual current of the Age of Enlightenment marked by the idea of ​​transmission and pedagogy desired by the encyclopedists, with Diderot at their head.

This leads us, therefore, to question, in the first place, the type of utterance in reflexivity and popularization, this in the written or oral of the researcher, knowing that the latter by its specificity of discipline, has, to embody , by the paradigms established and recognized by peers in its field: legitimacy and transparency (Jurdant, 2012.); but in fact another question arises: that of the social scope of this type of dialogue that research has to maintain with society as a whole.

Since 2005, the European Charter for Researchers has encouraged: “social dialogue between researchers and stakeholders in society as a whole.”1 However, the intervention of researchers in informal spaces not scientists such as public debates for example, or even publications outside places reserved and recognized by the scientific community can be perceived as suggested by Elsa Poupardin and Mélodie Faury (2018/2015) as a form of symbolic capital, but this one, is not “worth anything”, from an academic point of view if the authors do not play “the game of the field” and at the same time do not acquire, and within their discipline of affiliation, a certain legitimacy. ”2

However, today, access to so-called open science (Open Access) is favored by different types of technical devices that encourage this dialogue between knowledge and society. However, the simple fact that many scientific publications benefit from open and free access does not always allow researchers to take a real active place in the social and political scene. All the more so, since scientists may be reluctant to pass on their work in this way. It is true that this is relatively little recognized by the institution that manage their careers (Boure, 2016). And yet, our contemporaneity vividly reveals the paradoxes and challenges of the right to science and the strong societal demand for a science qualified as open.

This Open Science or Science Ouverte cannot be reduced only to technical or media formats. Because the media coverage that passes through mass media such as television and digital media, therefore, may not ensure real popularization of science. Dominique Wolton, from 1997, underlined it with perspicacity: "the mediatization is not the equivalent of the popularization either in spite of the place of the media in the society and the simple and false idea, according to which more the media talk about science, the more popularization there would be ”(1997); in other words "access to knowledge alone would not allow the development of a knowledge society".

This is the stake of this call for papers: to allow a wider community to reflect on what is meant by Open Science in accessibility (open access) but not only. The call is made in Information and Communication Sciences, but cross-disciplinary or other approaches in disciplines are not only possible but expected.

Questioning, today, after the health crisis (Covid19) experienced around the world, on the values ​​of dissemination, use, transparency by peers of the right to science is no longer a trivial or cyclical question. In these times of questioning of the relevance of scientific research, working on essential issues and possible gaps or risks between the right to science and to knowledge in transparency and validity, questioned by peers, is a global issue.

This broader question is thus revealed in the initiative of UNESCO's reflective community aimed at creating scientific and societal awareness ...3

Several axes emerge as a priority but these are in no way exhaustive and closed and other approaches to the theme, other crossed and multidisciplinary views can be considered, in order to promote for each possible axis the plurality of reference points, the multiplicity of the field of application, the richness and the complexity of all the scientific cultures considered.

The axes envisaged:

Open Science: right to science and credibility. Approaches on the values ​​of dissemination, use, transparency by peers.

The pandemic due to Covid has enabled us to observe that the credibility of science by its contradictory and controversial dissemination in scientific and political issues raised doubts not only on the methods of researchers but also on the research itself and on the evolution of its perception between expertise and pedagogy, (Boniface P. 2007).

Open Science: values ​​or ideologies of transparency? Paradoxes of contemporary media transmission, in the age of artificial intelligence.

Transparency in media coverage is to be questioned. A powerful fragmentation is revealed between scientists and intermediaries: (Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Dillaerts H., (2018)); between dissemination, information and reflexivity: (Cardy H., Froissart P., Tavernier A., ​​2008) and (Lipani MC, 2019), accompanied by a strong temptation of "possible triviality" between legitimate science and amateur science ( Boure R., Lefebvre M., 2015)

Open Science as governance: promotion and media coverage of research data.

New paradigm in interdisciplinarity? Sharing creation, experiences or content? Are there contradictory global vs local tensions between governance, promotion, media coverage and engagement in collective research? (Neveu É, 2003).

Open Science and sustainable development (taken in its global and systemic definition): democratic process of collective engagement and challenges of science.

What commitment are we talking about? That of researchers, intermediaries or that of citizens? What are the commitments to be solicited? How to solicit them? Are there any risks? (Jeanneret Y.1994), (Breton P. 2003) and Unesco project in progress.4

Open Science and openness to excluded knowledge.

  • 5 La science ouverte au-delà du libre accès : Pour et avec les communautés .Un pas vers la décolonisa (...)

An extension to knowledge and systems of thought, stemming from indigenous cultures and countries of the South should be requested. This ancestral knowledge, anchored in different realities, is for the most part ignored or excluded from European or world science. And yet the enrichment of scientific research would benefit because this form of openness would allow a decolonization of knowledge.5

Open science and innovations: questioning of data and its sharing in technological issues (Artificial Intelligence) and societal and social innovations.

Public or common issues? Territorial, political and ethical issues can be questioned between sharing, consultation, participation, experience and commitment of different actors in roles and cultures, Common space or public space? (Tassin E. 1991); Pascal C., 2019)).

Practical arrangements

• The articles offered can be theoretical, epistemic, with field immersion or experimental content. The writing of the article is possible in French, English and Spanish, in editable text format (doc, odt, rtf.).

• Abstracts, titles and key words are requested in these three languages.

• See editorial instructions at the following address:

Articles should be sent to the following address

Selection methods

•All the texts will be evaluated double blind. 2020-2021 Calendar

Call for papers 2020-2021

• October 2020 • Articles are expected by November 25, 2020

• Return to authors on December 20

• Return of final articles on January 25

• File published in n ° 9, planned publication for the end of February



Boure R. (2016), « Les paroles de chercheurs, le numérique et la scène sociale », Mondes sociaux, mis en ligne le 15 avril 2016, mis à jour le 6 juin 2017, consulté le 20 mai 2018, http://sms.hypothè

Boure R., Lefebvre M., (2015), « Entre science légitime et science amateur : le devenir trivial d’une information scientifique sur Internet », Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, 13/3A.

Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Dillaerts H,. (2018), « Information scientifique et diffusion des savoirs : entre fragmentations et intermédiaires », Revue Français des sciences de l’information et de la communication [En ligne], 15/2018, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2019, consulté le 29 septembre 2019. URL :

Breton P., (2003), « L’engagement est un risque », Questions de communication, 4, 261-269.

Cardy H., Froissart P., Tavernier A., « Le chercheur et le journaliste : regards croisés sur l’information et la communication », Congrès de la SFSIC, 2008, [En ligne],

Jeanneret Y. (1994), Écrire la science. Formes et enjeux de la vulgarisation, Paris, PUF.

Jurdant B. (2012), « Parler la science ? », Alliage, n° 59, décembre 2006, Médiation et Culture scientifique, Parler la science, mis en ligne le 01 aout 2012, consulté le 21 mai 2018 :

Jurdant B. (2009), Les problèmes théoriques de la vulgarisation scientifique, Paris, Archives contemporaines, coll. « Etudes de sciences ».

Jurdant B. (2006), « Écriture, réflexivité, scientificité », Sciences de la société, 67, 131-143.

Kleinpeter E. (2010), « Baudouin Jurdant, Les problèmes théoriques de la vulgarisation scientifiques », Lectures, (en ligne), Les comptes rendus, 2010, mis en ligne le 01 septembre 2010, consulté le 21 mai 2018 : http//

Koren R. (2003), « L’engagement de l’UN dans le regard de l’Autre. Point de vue d’une linguiste », Questions de communication, 4, 271-277.

Le Marec J., Faury Mélodie, (2013), « Communication et réflexivité dans l’enquête par des chercheurs sur les chercheurs », dans Béziat J., Analyse de pratiques et réflexivité : regards sur la formation, la recherche et l’intervention socio-éducative, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Lipani M.C., (2019), « The Conversation : dispositif d’interface entre science et journalisme », dans Beyaert-Geslin A., Rouissi S., (dir.), La vie interfaciale. Regards croisés en SIC et en Arts, Bordeaux, MSHA, 71-81.

Neveu É, (2003), « Recherche et engagement : actualité d’une discussion », Questions de communication, 3, 109-120.

Open Science et Unesco : Projet réflexif, chantier 2020-2021,

Open Science et Unesco : Projet réflexif, chantier 2020-2021, et

Pascal C., (2019), « Les enjeux de la recherche-action, participative, collaborative, créative entre normes à la fois techniques et politiques de modernisation d’une recherche et défis économiques et sociaux » dans Lipani M.-C., Pascal C., Journée d’étude, Sciences et société : Quelle place et quelle représentation de la recherche dans les médias ?, 11 avril 2019, Bordeaux, MSHA.

Pascal C., Vieira L., Akam N. (2019), « Des interfaces au bio pouvoir. Le progrès social et le défi humaniste sous le prisme du numérique », dans Beyaert-Geslin A., Rouissi S., (dir.), La vie interfaciale. Regards croisés en SIC et en Arts, Bordeaux, MSHA, 175-189.

Peraya D., (2012), « Quel impact les technologies ont-elles sur la production et la diffusion des connaissances ? », Questions de communication, 21, 89-106.

Poupardin E., Faury M. (2018), « Hypothèses : l’inscription d’une pratique de communication dans l’activité de recherche », Revue Française des sciences de l’information et de la communication [En ligne], 15/2018, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2019, consulté le 29 septembre 2019. URL : ; DOI : 10.4000/rfsic.4877

Tassin E. (1991), « Espace commun ou espace public ? L’antagonisme de la communication et de la publicité », Hermès, 10, 23-37.

Wolton D., (1997), « De la vulgarisation à la communication », Hermès, 21/1, 9-14.

Haut de page


1 –

2 Poupardin E., Faury M. (2018), « Hypothèses : l’inscription d’une pratique de communication dans l’activité de recherche », Revue Française des sciences de l’information et de la communication [En ligne], 15/2018, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2019, consulté le 29 septembre 2019. URL : ; DOI : 10.4000/rfsic.4877.

3 Open Science et Unesco : Projet réflexif, chantier 2020-2021, et %E2 %80 %99est-ce-que-le-libre-acc %C3 %A8s

4 Open Science et Unesco : Projet réflexif, chantier 2020-2021,

5 La science ouverte au-delà du libre accès : Pour et avec les communautés .Un pas vers la décolonisation des savoirs , Commission canadienne pour l’UNESCO
Par Leslie Chan, Budd Hall, Florence Piron, Rajesh Tandon and Lorna Williams Ottawa, Juillet 2020,

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search