From Google’s English: “CLACSO opens an observatory to interpret the phenomenon of the global pandemic.
With the conviction that the social sciences and humanities play a central role, CLACSO offers society a set of reflections on an event that affects all dimensions of life in common.
Scientific knowledge is today, more than ever, an indispensable source of information to analyze the social effects and warn about the new forms of inequality that may arise from the crossroads facing the COVID-19 pandemic….”
Abstract: At the NASIG 2019 Conference, the presenter outlined how the dominance of English-language publishers based in the Global North negatively impacts researchers in Puebla, Mexico. Universities in the Global South must compete in world-wide university ranking systems, which intensifies the pressure to compete with researchers in the Global North to publish in journals of the Global North in order to demonstrate global competitiveness and local career standing. To support those competitive publishing expectations, institutions of the Global South must also subscribe to English-language journal packages of the Global North, thus locking in a cycle of academic publishing dominance. Meanwhile, Latin America is developing quality Open Access (OA) alternatives. In May 2018, the presenter received funding from a NASIG grant to interview journal editors and librarians at universities in Puebla, Mexico. Through these interviews, the presenter sought to explore challenges for researchers publishing in Global North journals, discuss the role of OA at the interviewees’ institutions, consider the future outlook for OA in Mexico, and examine the social justice implications of the academic journal publishing ecosystem. The presenter reported on findings from the interviews and invited members to discuss how engagement with researchers from the Global South can help the global scholarly communication ecosystem become more equitable.
“Fostering Diversity in Scholarly Communication: expanding and strengthening the role of repositories
Diversity is an important characteristic of any healthy ecosystem, including scholarly communications. Diversity in services, platforms, funding mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the system to accommodate the needs of different research communities and support a variety of workflows, languages, scholarly outputs, and research topics.
As we continue on the path towards full and immediate open access (and open scholarship more broadly) we must think about how we can create the conditions that allow diversity to exist and flourish. At COAR we recognize and celebrate the diversity of our community. At the same time, we understand that diversity cannot thrive unless it is fostered in an intentional way, through strong coordination.
This meeting will be an opportunity to discuss how we can use the global repository network to support greater diversity, while also supporting the need for an international system. We will learn more about the current context in Latin America, and raise awareness of other approaches being developed around the world….”
“When I’m asked what I am focussing on in my PhD research, more than a few of my counterparts initially don’t understand why my focus as a geographer is the transition of the scholarly publishing system, or what the whole thing has to do with geography. But when I start to reflect upon what kind of issues relate to an open access to knowledge, it becomes quite clear why geographers, and geography as a scholarly discipline, should care. In this blog post I will explain why….”
“Recently, concerns have been raised about the consequences that Plan S, an initiative of the cOAlitions S consortium of research funders aiming to provide free online access to all research literature, will have for existing non-commercial and not-for-profit open access initiatives. These concerns focus particularly on the threat to Latin America’s strong tradition of open access publishing. In responding to these concerns, I argue that Plan S has many synergies with this vibrant and exemplary tradition of open access publishing, and this will create real opportunities for future development….
Another synergy between Plan S and Latin American open access publishing lies in the pledge from cOAlition S funders that it is funders and research institutions who will pay for open access publication fees (Principle 4). For funders and research institutions, paying for open access fees is the easiest way to participate in the costs of open access publishing….
The objection against a payment per publication is that in this way Plan S upholds the article-processing charge (APC) system, but this is not quite correct. The most legitimate objection against APCs is that they require authors to find the money to pay for their publications. But Plan S has eliminated this obstacle: the funder or institution pays the publisher, not the author….”
“Open access is often seen as a process of switching from the existing closed-subscription model of scholarly communication to an open one. But Latin America has had an open access ecosystem for scholarly publishing for over a decade, and the recent AmeliCA initiative seeks to develop cooperative scientific communication further still. These efforts, however, could yet be undermined by recent open access proposals from the cOAlition S consortium of research funders in the Global North, write Eduardo Aguado López and Arianna Becerril García (both Redalyc, AmeliCA, and Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México)….”
Abstract: Open access policies have been progressing since the beginning of this century. Important global initiatives, both public and private, have set the tone for what we understand by open access. The emergence of tools and web platforms for open access (both legal and illegal) have placed the focus of the discussion on open access to knowledge, both for academics and for the general public, who finance such research through their taxes, particularly in Latin America. This historically unnoticed discussion must, we believe, be discussed publicly, given the characteristics of the Latin American scientific community, as well as its funding sources. This article includes an overview of what is meant by open access and describes the origins of the term, both in its philosophical sense and in its practical sense, expressed in the global declarations of Berlin and Bethesda. It also includes the notion of open access managed (or not) by some reputable institutions in Chile, such as CONICYT (National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research) and higher education institutions reputed nationally, such as the Universdad de Chile and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Various Latin American initiatives related to open access (Scielo, Redalyc, among others) are described, as well as the presence of Chilean documents in those platforms. The national institutional repositories are listed, as well as their current status and a discussion about what open access has implied in Latin America and its importance for the replicability of the investigations carried out locally. Finally, we describe some governmental initiatives (mainly legislative) at the Latin American level and propose some recommendations regarding the promotion and implementation of repositories for the access to scientific data (for access and replication purposes) of the national research.
Abstract: We share the spirit of Plan S in achieving immediate and full Open Access (OA) of scholarly publishing, but we disagree with its implementation guidelines. We consider that while this initiative will influence the publishing ecosystem worldwide, its design has ignored more than 20 years of agenda on OA from the Global South, and the paradigm of a contrasting scholarly publishing landscape in Latin America. Our region represents the largest worldwide adopter of OA practices, where publishing is led by the scholarly community in collaborative and cooperative platforms, and access to knowledge is considered a universal right. The community sustains and encourages a tradition of free-to-publish and free-to-read OA publishing, which reverberates in an unparalleled apprehension of the scholarly record by students, researchers, and the public. In our opinion, the guidelines of Plan S fail to tackle the essential and chronic issues of traditional scholarly publishing, such as the concentration of articles in large international commercial publishers with extraordinary profit margins. It is our belief that to contribute to the democratization of knowledge, funders must promote policies, actions and resources to implement OA while improving the quality and retaining control of scholarly editorial processes by the scholarly community. Plan S is yet to demonstrate that it will also (financially) support the advancement of non-commercial OA initiatives. We call to interpellate asymmetrical discussions where privileged institutions and funders commit the global scholarly publishing landscape. We urge funding agencies to embrace an inclusive agenda that proposes a fair, equilibrated and rational ecosystem for the future of academic publishing. In the meantime, we call our region to postpone its potential adhesion to Plan S until its first evaluation would verify and inform results and implications for less privileged researchers, countries and institutions.
“As members of the National University of La Plata, with institutional responsibilities in the visibility of scientific production, we express our concern over the decision of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology of the Nation to actively participate in the so-called Coalition S , an international alliance that promotes open access to scientific-academic publications, but under the “charge for publishing in open” (APC) model. Adherence to this system represents an unnecessary millionaire expense, which is also paid with public research funds….”
“One particular challenge for researchers in the Global South is the potential for a shift from a ‘pay to read’ model of scholarly communication to a ‘pay to publish’ model in which researchers do not have the resources necessary to publish their research.
Plan S has stated that it is not focused on delivering only one business model for scholarly communication. However, Article Processing Charges (APCs) have been the only model clearly identified for financing.
If Plan S is proposing to pursue a global flip to open access, we believe that this will require the recognition and support of diverse business models and a clearer definition of the resources these organisations will need to implement these policies, much in the same way the coalition has provided guidance to commercial publishers to secure funding for APC payments.
For a system that publicly subsidises scholarly communication through academic institutions, as in Latin America, implementing charges to authors heightens the risk of breaking a structure that has been designed to support researchers and keep public money within a publicly managed ecosystem.
As Leslie Chan notes, when opening access is decontextualised from its historical and political roots, it has the potential to become as exploitative and oppressive as the system it is seeking to replace….”