Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 5 versions
addClaim

La omisión del gasto en licencias de uso y servicios contratados en debates sobre alternativas basadas en software libre y herramientas abiertas

The omission of expenditure on subscribed licenses and services in debates on free software based and open tool alternatives
Authors: Lázaro-Rodríguez, Pedro;

La omisión del gasto en licencias de uso y servicios contratados en debates sobre alternativas basadas en software libre y herramientas abiertas

Abstract

Resumen: El objetivo de este trabajo es aportar información sobre el gasto de universidades públicas, sus bibliotecas, centros de investigación y la Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) en suscripciones y servicios contratados en cuanto a sistemas de gestión bibliotecaria y bases de datos y herramientas para la información y evaluación científicas. Se analizan 70 licitaciones desde 2017 con adjudicatarios como Ex Libris (de Clarivate), OCLC y Baratz en cuanto a sistemas de gestión bibliotecaria, y Web of Science e InCites (también de Clarivate) y Scopus y SciVal (de Elsevier) en cuanto a herramientas para la información y evaluación científicas. Desde dicho año, el gasto para el software de gestión bibliotecaria supera los 16 millones de euros sin IVA (más de 20 con impuestos). Para servicios y herramientas de información y evaluación científicas, el gasto supera los 39 millones sin IVA (más de 48 con impuestos): más de 23 millones sin IVA (más de 28 con impuestos) a Clarivate por Web of Science e InCites y más de 16 millones sin IVA (más de 19 con impuestos) a Elsevier por Scopus y SciVal. A modo de discusión y conclusiones, se reflexiona sobre la omisión del gasto en servicios contratados en debates sobre alternativas basadas en software libre y herramientas abiertas y en el contexto de CoARA y la ciencia abierta; y se plantean cuestiones a debatir desde una perspectiva más integradora y crítica, teniendo en cuenta el gasto por las licencias de uso de los servicios comerciales contratados. Palabras clave: Software libre; Gasto público; Licitaciones; Sistemas de gestión bibliotecaria; Información científica; Evaluación científica; Ex Libris; Web of Science; InCites; Scopus; SciVal; Clarivate; Elsevier; FECYT; España; Bibliotecas universitarias; CoARA; Ciencia abierta. The omission of expenditure on subscribed licenses and services in debates on free software based and open tool alternatives Abstract: The aim of this work is to provide information on the expenditure of public universities, their libraries, research centers, and FECYT (the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology) on services and subscriptions regarding library management systems and databases and tools for scientific information and research evaluation. 70 tenders/bids since 2017 are analyzed from providers such as Ex Libris (Clarivate), OCLC, and Baratz regarding library management systems, and Web of Science and InCites (also Clarivate) and Scopus and SciVal (Elsevier), in relation to tools for scientific information and research assessment. From 2017, expenditure on library management software exceeds €16 million excluding VAT (more than €20 million including VAT). For scientific information and evaluation services and tools, expenditure exceeds €39 million excluding VAT (more than €48 million including VAT): more than €23 million excluding VAT (more than €28 million including VAT) to Clarivate for Web of Science and InCites, and more than €16 million excluding VAT (more than €19 million including VAT) to Elsevier for Scopus and SciVal. In the discussion and conclusions, the paper reflects on the perceived omission of expenditure on subscribed services in debates on free software–based and open-tool alternatives and in the context of CoARA, and open science; and raises questions for debate from a more integrative and critical perspective, taking into account the expenditure on licenses for subscribed commercial services. Keywords: Free Software; Public Expenditure; Tenders; Bids; Library Management Systems; Scientific Information; Research Evaluation; Ex Libris; Web of Science; InCites; Scopus; SciVal; Clarivate; Elsevier; FECYT; Spain; University Libraries; CoARA; Open Science. Versiones: Versión 1.4: corrijo el año de la referencia IWETEL. (2025) a IWETEL. (2026). Se debe a que el trabajo lo empecé a hacer a finales de 2025 y lo publiqué finalmente a inicios de 2026. La cita estaba bien. Versión 1.3: actualización a v1.3 en la portada Versión 1.2: corrección de una frase añadiendo palabra que faltaba Versión 1: primera versión

Related Organizations
Keywords

InCites, Elsevier, España, Gasto público, Ciencia abierta, Public Expenditure, Bids, Scientific Information, Open Science, Research Evaluation, Bibliotecas universitarias, Scopus, Información científica, Free Software, Library Management Systems, Tenders, Licitaciones, CoARA, University Libraries, SciVal, Sistemas de gestión bibliotecaria, Spain, Software libre, Evaluación científica, Web of Science, Ex Libris, Clarivate, FECYT

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green