{"id":7511,"date":"2018-11-07T14:15:29","date_gmt":"2018-11-07T20:15:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amelica.org\/?p=7511"},"modified":"2023-09-21T22:01:54","modified_gmt":"2023-09-21T22:01:54","slug":"open-access-lays-in-fragments-in-latin-america-which-leaves-it-in-an-uncertain-future","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amelica.org\/index.php\/en\/2018\/11\/07\/open-access-lays-in-fragments-in-latin-america-which-leaves-it-in-an-uncertain-future\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Access lays in fragments in Latin America which leaves it in an uncertain future"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eduardo Aguado L\u00f3pez<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Early this century, it was maintained that an old tradition and a new technology were working together to generate an unprecedented public good: open access. By tradition I mean the scientists’ historic interest for publishing \u2014to make things public unrestrictedly\u2014interested solely in disseminating to hold conversations and keep doing research. And by technology I mean the web which allows to disseminate without barriers, to have access in real time and demolish physical space restrictions. Back then, there was a possibility to think of a science for everyone (access). This caught the eye of scientists, researchers, universities, research centres, foundations, and the like, causing them to join this immediately. Thus a vision based on sharing and attempting to eliminate hindrances for accessing and participating in Budapest (2002)<\/strong><\/a><\/span>,\u00a0Berlin (2003)<\/strong><\/a><\/span>,\u00a0Bethesda (2003)<\/strong><\/a><\/span> statements became institutionalised in the North. The three statements stressed that they aimed at “removing access barriers” so that “peer-reviewed periodical literature was completely free of charge and with unrestricted access to read, download, copy, distribute and print.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, in Latin America, neither did we utter nor define. We just simply consolidated platforms capable to identify, gather and give visibility and positioning to scholarly publications from the region, being unconcerned for having a denomination. Latindex<\/strong><\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>and\u00a0SciELO<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/a> had already 5 years of existence. And Redalyc<\/strong><\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/strong> was launched in its Beta version by 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n

Platforms in Latin America to revitalise the visibility of regional journals (Latindex, SciELO, Redalyc, \u00a0CLACSO<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/span>) emerged because it wasn\u2019t easy to have the output in the region\u2019s local languages, there was a necessity to strengthen journal publishing processes and contribute to the electronic-digital transition of regional journals. The result was an open access ecosystem like no other region had had before. As it boosted regional journals giving them visibility. It consolidated them in their editorial practices since the inclusion and durability demands were equal to or stricter than any other indexing system in the world. Editorial consolidation has been an ongoing task in which these initiatives have been involved continuously.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Why is open access laying in fragments in Latin America when such ecosystem was built like in no other continent? What are the paradigms and goals that draw open access projects more and more inside the region? <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Open access conceptions are diverse and oftentimes quarrel with one another. Differences are seen even in Budapest, Berlin and Bethesda statements. Differences between public and open, open and free. Means to attain it are also diverse. Powers too. It’s a movement. And so it’s diverse, rich and complex in projects, initiatives and proposals. Partly, due this diversity, as I see it, is that it finds its strength.<\/span><\/p>\n

Open access caused developments in various fields such as the legal, technological and the like. Let us consider a few:<\/span><\/p>\n