Open Access, as a means of the social appropriation of scientific knowledge, was outlined and generally agreed upon in three documents that continue to be relevant in the debate surrounding scientific communication: the Budapest Declaration (Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, 1999), the Bethesda Declaration (Declaration on Open Access Publishing, 2003), and the Berlin Declaration (Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, 2011). These documents converge on the importance and goal of providing unrestricted access to research results through electronic publication, recognizing that scientific knowledge must have social relevance.

Despite the above, a universal concept of Open Access and the practices for implementing it have not been agreed upon. Currently, a diversity of Open Access cultures is observed, which can generally be conceptualized within two ecosystems: A) a commercial Open Access ecosystem focused on the Global North, where the green and gold pathways of Open Access operate separately and where journal publishing is carried out by large commercial publishers who charge APCs (article processing charges) and fees for accessing journal content. Furthermore, these commercial solutions propose the prevailing scientific evaluation frameworks, based on the creation of rankings, metrics (Impact Factor and quartiles), and databases that are considered indicators for defining academic excellence. The most recent expression of this model is Plan S, from the cOAlition S, to achieve Open Access in Europe with a target date of 2021.

In turn, it is possible to identify B) a non-profit Open Access ecosystem led and funded by academia, where the publication of scientific journals and the green pathway are supported by universities and research centers (public funds) without charging APCs or readers. This ecosystem is located primarily in Latin America, a region where actors such as Latindex, CLACSO, and Redalyc promote responsible scientific evaluation practices and offer scientific journals visibility services and digital publishing technology, as is the case with Redalyc, to strengthen editorial teams within institutions.

Both systems coexist and face common problems. Among the challenges to be resolved is the scientific evaluation system based on the Impact Factor and organized by quartiles, an expression of the prestige system that was built in the second half of the 20th century around scientific journals and which resulted in the organization of a research evaluation system that does not focus on the social impact of scientific knowledge, but rather on academic prestige. This scenario impacts all levels of the research structure and is the basis from which journals, researchers, and institutions are valued and define their research agendas and communication strategies (Guédon, 2019; European Commission, 2019).

Meanwhile, there is unprecedented financial and operational growth among large commercial publishing houses, actors in the Global North that edit scientific journals, propose benchmark metrics and databases for academic excellence, and increase their control over the scientific circuit (research, publication, communication, and evaluation tools for researchers, editors, reviewers, etc., used globally) (Posada and Chen 2017; Aspesi and Loung, 2014). This occurs concurrently with the difficulties faced by universities and science and technology funders in sustaining payments for access to the information services offered by these commercial houses, as is the case, for example, in Germany (Riquelme, 2017), the University of California (López Michelone, 2019), Norway, and Sweden (Qureshi, 2019).

The current global context of science communication demands a critical analysis of key issues such as intellectual property, since existing scientific communication mechanisms and practices do not guarantee that what is open today will continue to be open in the future, and under what terms. Furthermore, sustainability is an urgent matter to address, given that in the long term there is no guarantee of the conditions under which Open Access will take place, nor of the sustainability of either the Global North ecosystem (commercial Open Access) or the Global South ecosystem (non-profit Open Access) (Becerril García, 2019).

The problems outlined demand research and mobilization efforts to reclaim open knowledge as a common good and a universal human right. These efforts should build upon regional initiatives that have traditionally promoted non-commercial Open Access and provide sustainable, non-profit, academic-led digital communication infrastructures that enhance the communication of scientific knowledge and reaffirm its fundamental importance in addressing major human challenges. A tension exists between Open Access practices in the Global North and those in the Global South, which jeopardizes the tradition of non-profit scientific communication in Latin America and hinders regional efforts to preserve and strengthen knowledge dissemination channels and to build new mechanisms for the social appropriation of science. 

The development of theoretical frameworks for science communication, with a focus on open knowledge as a common good, presents a significant opportunity in Latin America and the Caribbean. These frameworks can serve as tools to conceptualize and explain the current global context of science communication and open access. The challenges presented by the current paradigm of scientific evaluation, the sustainability of science communication initiatives, and the dynamics of exclusion surrounding scientific practice are points of debate that require inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. These approaches must address, in a multidimensional way, the diverse problems that currently frame science communication.

The debate surrounding scientific communication and Open Access has undergone a conceptual evolution, moving from topics such as the need to give visibility to scientific knowledge, towards topics such as the sustainability of Open Access, intellectual property, the use of Information Technologies as agents that provide new possibilities and models of communication, and the construction of new paradigms of scientific evaluation as an alternative to the status quo of the meaning of science and scientific prestige (Mudditt, 2019; Poynder, 2019). 

Among the lines of research being developed in Latin America and the Caribbean regarding scientific communication is the one related to the development of a science measurement model with an approach that considers aspects such as community building, the development of new research capacities, and the communicability of contributions, moving beyond the approach of only observing the visibility achieved through various open science channels (Vélez Cuartas et al., 2019). Also noteworthy is the line of research that addresses the sustainability of scientific journal management models, analyzing the Diamond model (without article processing fees for authors or charges for readers) supported by public technological infrastructure and centered on the sovereignty of scientific knowledge, in contrast to profit-driven models promoted by large publishing houses (Rozemblum, 2019).

In turn, a fundamental line of analysis developed from Latin America is that which addresses the conceptual differences of the Open Access models of Europe and Latin America, as well as their implications in terms of inclusion in the scientific field, sustainability and circulation of scientific knowledge generated in the various regions; specifically, conceptions that are expressed, on the one hand, in the S Plan, on the part of Europe from the S coalition, a group made up of the main funders of research in Europe; and on the other hand, in the Open Access initiatives and practices in Latin America and the Caribbean, which operate from a public infrastructure and budget (Debat and Babini, 2019; Becerril García, 2019).

The above constitute lines of research that can be integrated to achieve a comprehensive approach to contemporary scientific communication based on inter- and transdisciplinary research approaches, and based on strategies of articulation with public policy and actors (researchers, research programs and initiatives) that result in the preservation of a non-subordinate model of open publication that allows scientific knowledge generated with public funds to continue circulating through open non-profit channels, having as a fundamental principle that access to scientific knowledge is a universal right. 

The proposed action-research program adopts the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations as the central agenda from which action strategies and priority research programs are developed. The central objective of the Working Group's proposal is the preservation and strengthening of a non-profit scientific communication system, which may have an indirect impact on the 17 SDGs. However, the Sustainable Development Goals that can be specifically addressed are: 

4. Quality education: ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all.

 Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to quality technical, vocational and higher education, including university education.

Indicator 4.3.1: Participation rate of young people and adults in academic and non-academic education and training in the previous 12 months, broken down by sex

Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of young people and adults who have the necessary skills, particularly technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent work and entrepreneurship.

Indicator 4.4.1: Proportion of young people and adults with knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICT), broken down by type of technical knowledge.

9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure: building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization and fostering innovation.

Goal 9.a: Facilitate the development of sustainable and resilient infrastructure in developing countries through increased financial, technological and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States.

Indicator 9.a.1: Total official international support (official development assistance plus other official flows) to infrastructure

17. Partnerships to achieve the goals: strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.

Target 17.6: Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation in and access to science, technology and innovation, and increase knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including by improving coordination among existing mechanisms, particularly at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism.

Indicator 17.6.1: Number of agreements and cooperation programs in science and technology concluded between countries, broken down by type of cooperation (United Nations, 2015).