English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Connoisseurs of linguistic mechanisms will not like the expression “scientist 2.0” which is employed in the title of the present study. This metaphor suggests that such a scientist would be an updated and ameliorated version of a sort of antiquated scientist 1.0. Although chosen as a provocative springboard, however, the question (“to be or not to be a scientist 2.0?”) gets to the heart of a set of problems that arise out of presently changing scientific practices. Thus, why not begin with such a polemical wording in the title? In recent years, a new conception of scientific activity for the 21st century has been put forward under the heading of “Open Science”. This movement follows the recommendations formulated by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI 2001) and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (Berlin Declaration 2003) urging academic actors to ensure unrestricted access to knowledge, at least to that produced by themselves. In this context “Science 2.0” would mean the possibility (or utopian ideal?) of openly accessing any kind of knowledge resources produced or elaborated by researchers. “To be or not to be a Scientist 2.0?” is, therefore, a question that is becoming increasingly urgent in many disciplines, including also Contrastive Linguistics and Translatology. Paradoxically, this is occurring even though the indispensable adjustments specific to these disciplines that would follow from a positive response to the question have so far been neither defined nor applied. Nevertheless Open Access (OA) is flatly considered a revolutionary research practice (cf. Aschenbrenner et al. 2007: 21).

To be or not to be a Scientist 2.0? Open Access in Translatology – A German Case Study