Open Access in the Social Sciences
社會科學的開放近用
(By Ulrich Herb,Saarland University and State Library)
The social sciences can only be vaguely defined:for example,
the Brockhaus encyclopaedia provides a broader definition than
the classification adopted by DFG (German Research Foundation).
In addition, some subjects can be classified as social sciences, natural
sciences and humanities.This conglomerate of subjects explains why
there are different attitudes towards Open Access within the social sciences.
社會科學可以只被模糊的定義為：
例如，布羅克豪斯百科全書(the Brockhaus encyclopaedia )提供了一個比DFG
(德國研究基金會)認可的分類法更廣泛的定義。因此，有些主題、科目可以被
分類為社會科學、自然科學及人文學。這些學科的合成解釋了為什麼在社會科
學領域的開放近用存在著不同的態度。
However, a DFG study published in 2005 provides some insight:
compared to other disciplines, German social scientists have scarce
knowledge of Open Access, and of relevant initiatives and declarations.
They have less knowledge about relevant Open Access journals and
they almost never publish in these kinds of journals. These characteristics
are not just evident with respect to first publications with Open Access
publishers or in Open Access journals; German social scientists also rarely
use Open Access servers for second publications of published documents
or of preprints. International inquiries confirm these findings: social
scientists publish work on Open Access servers less often than is average
in other disciplines and are often not familiar with any Open Access
journals in which they could publish their work.
然而，DFG在2005年發表了一個研究成果，提供了一些啟示：相對於其他
學科領域， 德國社會科學家開始害怕知識的開放近用、相關的創制權及宣
言。他們對開放近用期 刊相關的知識很少，而且他們幾乎沒有出版這種種
類的期刊。這些特點並不是明顯的 關心開放近用出版者或開放近用期刊的
第一個出版品。德國社會科學家也很少使用開 放近用服務的第二個出版品
的出版文件或預印本。國際調查證實這些結果：社會科學 家出版的開放近
用服務平均較其他學科低，而且往往不熟悉他們出版的任何的開放近 用期刊。
This lack of knowledge stands in contrast to the numerous services
that are available: in Germany, the institutional Open Access server
coverage for authors at the local university is exemplary. However,
fewer than 20% of the documents on these servers come from the
social sciences. According to a DFG study, social scientists, more than
other academics, request discipline -based servers. Already existing
examples in the social sciences are the Munich Personal RePEc Archive
MPRA of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität of Munich for economists
(http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen/.de), and PsyDok, the psychology
server of the Saarland University and State Library
(http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de)/. Similar servers are being set up
with the Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR) at the Centre
for Digital Systems (CediS) of the Freie Universität Berlin in cooperation
with the Social Science Information Centre (IZ Sozialwissenschaften)
in Bonn, or Pedagogical Documents (PeDoc) by the German Institute for
International Pedagogical Research (DIPF).
這種知識的缺乏對照眾多的服務是適合的、有效的：在德國，為讀者而設的
體制 的開放近用伺服器，在地方大學堪稱楷模。然而，伺服器只有不到20 ％
的文件 是來自於社會科學。根據DFG的研究，社會科學家對伺服器的需求，
遠超過其 他學科。有個在社會科學方面現有的例子，MPRA於慕尼黑的路德
維希-馬克西 米利安大學的經濟學家(http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de)，另外
，還有薩爾大 學與國家圖書館(http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/)在心理學
領域的伺服器— PsyDok。社會科學開放近用儲存系統(SSOAR)相似的伺服器
被設置在位於柏林 的Freie大學與位於波昂的社會科學資訊中心的數據系統中心
，或是德國的國際 教學研究所(PeDoc)的教學文件(DIPF)。
Of more than 2 600 journals listed in the Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ: http://www/.doaj.org), approximately 23% can
be attributed to the social sciences, and fewer than 20 are published
in Germany. The frontrunner is the trilingual journal Forum: Qualitative
Social Research FQS (http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/),
which has already been accessed some 16 million times. It is probably
the most important online journal for qualitative social research. Others
to be mentioned are Survey Research Methods (http://surveymethods.org/),
the psychology journal Brains, Minds & Media(http://www.brains-minds-media.org/)
and the education journal Bildungsforschung
(http://http://www.bildungsforschung.org/).
超過2 600個期刊被列表在開放近用期刊的指南手冊(DOAJ：
http://www.doaj.org/)， 大約有23 ％可以被歸因於社會科學，
只有不到20％是在德國所印刷出版的。 遙遙領先的是有三種語言
的雜誌論壇：定性社會研究FQS(http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/)
，已被近用了約16萬次，這可能是定性社會研究(FQS)最重要的線上期刊。
其他被提及的還有考查研究方法(http://surveymethods.org/)、心理學智
力期刊、思想與媒體(http://www.brains-minds-media.org/)和教育雜誌(http://http://www.bildungsforschung.org/)。
The acceptance of Open Access depends on its recognition within
a specific area of expertise.There are some positive signals here:
the German Sociological Association (Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Soziologie, DGS), the German Educational Research Association
(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft,DGfE) and the
German Psychological Society(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie,
DGPs) are represented on the advisory committee of the Information
Platform on Open Access.(http://www.open-access.net/), which
addresses scientists and scholars, universities and learned societies.
The DGPs even makes recommendations regarding Open Access. As
the DFG study shows, this is the right way to go: the more knowledge
of and experience with Open Access there is, the fewer the reservations.
開放近用的受理與接納取決於其在專門知識的特定領域所得到的承認。
這裡有一些積極 正面的標誌：德國社會學協會(DGS )、德國教育研究
協會(DGFE)、德國心理學社會學會(DGPs)，代表國開放近用國際平台
的諮詢委員會。(http://www.open-access.net)，其 中有科學家、學者
、大學級學術團體等。DGPs甚至提出關於開放近用的推薦。根據DGPs
的研究顯示，這是個正確的前進方向：開放近用越多的知識和經驗，越
少的保留。
