Open science is defined by UNESCO as an inclusive construct that combines diverse movements and practices to ensure that multilingual scientific knowledge is openly available and accessible to all, as well as reusable by all; to increase scientific collaborations and the exchange of information for the benefit of science and society; and to open up the processes of creating, evaluating, and communicating scientific knowledge to social actors beyond the traditional scientific community. (UNESCO, 2021)

In particular, 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, given that scientific knowledge must have social relevance.

Open science, as an umbrella concept, seeks to address not only access, but also the different phases of knowledge generation, dissemination, and application.

However, we currently observe a global context of ambivalence, where the capitalist project continues to operate and reinvent itself, seeking to reach as many places as possible, not only geographically but also in terms of the market: extending its principles to social, cultural, scientific, artistic, and environmental life. Open science is not exempt from these ambivalences.

Currently, a diversity of Open Access cultures is observed, which can generally be conceptualized within two ecosystems: on the one hand, 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 Article Processing Charges (APCs) 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.

On the other hand, we find a non-profit Open Access ecosystem led and funded by academia, in which 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 journals visibility services and digital publishing technology, as is the case with Redalyc, to strengthen editorial teams within institutions.

In order to focus its efforts on the paradigm of Science as a Common Good, Redalyc decided to offer its services exclusively to Diamond Open Access (non-APC) journals. Since then, it has indexed journals from anywhere in the world that meet its quality criteria and that do not charge authors or, of course, readers.

In 2018, AmeliCA was created as a multi-institutional initiative supported by UNESCO (Becerril-Garcia & Aguado-Lopez, 2018) that arises in response to the international, regional, national and institutional context of academic publishing, which seeks a collaborative, sustainable, protected and non-commercial solution for Open Knowledge in Latin America and the Global South (AmeliCA, 2018).

For its part, the Latin American Forum on Scientific Evaluation (FOLEC-CLACSO), which formally began in November 2019 in Mexico City with the "First Latin American Seminar on Scientific Evaluation", co-organized between CLACSO and the National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt, Mexico), "emerges as a space for debate on [...] the processes of evaluation of scientific work in the region, from an open, collaborative and public domain of knowledge perspective." (CLACSO, n.d.).

With all these initiatives and infrastructure managing knowledge as a common good from within the scientific and academic community itself, Latin America is the region of the world that has made the most progress in providing open access to publicly funded scientific and academic knowledge. In contrast to commercialized proposals for open access in the Global North, the Latin American case is presented in the international debate as an alternative for open scientific and academic communication.

This paradigm is supported by recent internationally published frameworks and recommendations. UNESCO, for its part, recognizes that open science should not only foster greater exchange of scientific knowledge solely among scientific communities, but also promote the inclusion and exchange of academic knowledge from traditionally underrepresented or excluded groups (such as women, minorities, indigenous researchers, and researchers from less developed countries and those speaking languages ​​with limited resources) and contribute to reducing inequalities in access to development, infrastructure, and scientific capabilities among different countries and regions. (UNESCO, 2021).

In turn, the Budapest Initiative, on its 20th anniversary, recognizes that:

These past 20 years have sharpened our understanding of certain systemic problems. Today we know more than we did about the harm caused by proprietary infrastructure, commercial control of access to research, commercial control of research assessment indicators, journal-based research metrics, journal rankings, journal business models that exclude authors for economic reasons (just as subscription journals exclude readers for economic reasons), embargoes on open access repositories, publishers' exclusive rights, the fixation on the journal version of an article, and persistent misunderstandings about different methods for facilitating open access. As our understanding deepens, we recognize the need to foster an open infrastructure, academic or non-profit control of research access and evaluation indicators, policies to ensure open access without embargoes, evaluation methods without adverse incentives, inclusive journal business models, and fundamental changes in research culture beyond technological, political, or economic shifts. (Budapest Open Access Initiative: Recommendations on its 20th anniversary, 2022)

The alignment of such recognitions with the development of scientific communication in Latin America gives Open Science as a Common Good a space in international discussion but also a real possibility of change in favor of achieving a non-commercial, inclusive, multilingual, participatory and non-subordinate science.

Just as Open Access (OA) has grown and evolved, the Open Science movement that now encompasses it has also evolved from many perspectives and based on diverse models. Several tensions are present in this transition, yielding varying results, but above all, impacting the opening or closing of existing gaps, or creating new ones, in the development of science in different regions.

As Becerril-García & Córdoba González (2021) mention, when this movement emerged in Europe, the region was already well on its way, as the infrastructure that had been developing for many years prior, even before the birth of the web. However, its limited visibility in mainstream science raised questions about the existence of a robust and high-quality scientific community, compared to that of wealthier countries. The challenges currently faced are numerous, and their complexity is related to the political and economic system, rife with injustices and inequalities that characterize the region, and to the evolution of Open Access in other parts of the world.

A fundamental line of analysis developed from Latin America is that which addresses the conceptual differences of the AA 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.

The debate surrounding scientific communication and AA has undergone a conceptual evolution that has moved from topics such as the need to give visibility to scientific knowledge, towards topics such as the sustainability of AA, 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).

Actors such as CLACSO, Latindex, and Redalyc can be identified as having implemented strategies based on a critical stance regarding the Impact Factor as an imperative in the evaluation logic, as well as regarding the ownership and circulation of scientific knowledge. Regarding the position on the ownership of scientific knowledge, the Mexico Declaration in favor of the Latin American ecosystem of non-commercial open access was signed in 2017, a joint declaration by Latindex, Redalyc, CLACSO, and the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology.

In this regard, during 2020, a project was developed that included a proposed national Open Access policy, the creation of a National Digital Repository, and training for academics, students, and administrative staff in the non-commercial Open Access paradigm. These actions aim to boost Angola's scientific development, dissemination, and outreach. These advances were led by UNESCO, the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico (UAEM) through Redalyc, AmeliCA, the Angolan Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, and the Óscar Ribas University, in conjunction with Angolan government and educational institutions, with the goal of increasing and preserving its scientific and technological heritage. (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations et al., 2021)

One of the fundamental agents of change in the Open Science spectrum is the shift in evaluation culture. In this regard, CLACSO/FOLEC launched a Proposed Declaration of Principles, "A New Academic Evaluation for Socially Relevant Science in Latin America and the Caribbean," in June 2022, which addresses the evaluation processes that

"...it is essential to regain control of the scientific and academic community over the evaluation processes and their indicators, reviewing the evaluation policies currently based on incentives for publication with an impact factor, because they affect the local autonomy of research agendas, while discouraging good practices of open access, open science and active interaction with society?" (CLACSO-FOLEC, 2022).

For its part, Redalyc is developing a methodology for the evaluation of science in Open Access Diamond, which proposes a methodological framework for studying the production published in non-commercial Open Access scientific journals, recognizing that this model has the potential to reconstruct the research and publishing trajectories of the actors who have participated and participate in the scientific narrative based on a non-commercial publication model.

At the global and regional levels, a set of reforms are being proposed in evaluation systems that seek to incorporate these guidelines into the evaluation of research projects, institutions, careers and digital institutional repositories, and at the same time, reward and incentivize open and citizen science practices underway in national evaluation systems.

The problems outlined demand research and mobilization efforts to establish Open Science as a common good and a universal human right, giving continuity to the regional efforts that have traditionally promoted non-commercial Open Access and providing sustainable, non-profit, open infrastructures led by academia that enhance the communication of scientific knowledge and reaffirm its fundamental importance in solving major human problems.

The Working Group "Open Science as a Common Good", which represents the continuity and consolidation of a community that has its antecedents in the Working Group "Common Goods: challenges and perspectives" from the period of 2016 to 2019, which then underwent a mitosis from which the Working Group "Open Knowledge as a Common Good" emerged during the period of 2020-2022, has managed to establish a frank and solid dialogue not only with the Latin American region, but has also carried a decisive voice in the debate with the Global South (Africa, India) and the Global North, influencing academic activities, but also public policies of institutional, regional and national scope.

The action research program aims to work in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) proposed by the United Nations as the central agenda from which action strategies and research programs identified as priorities are established, since Open Science has a cross-cutting impact on all 17 goals.

This group seeks to influence Open Science from the paradigm of the commons in the following areas: Diamond Open Access, Open Research Data, Technology for Open Science, Persistent Identifiers, National Open Science Policies, Scholarly and Open Access Books, Responsible Research Evaluation, Ethics in Scientific Communication, Commercialization, APCs and Transformative Agreements, Repositories, CRIS Systems, Citizen Science.

The above constitute lines of research and development that can be integrated to achieve a comprehensive approach to Open Science as a Common Good based on inter- and transdisciplinary research approaches, and based on strategies of articulation with public policies and actors (researchers, research programs and initiatives) that result in the preservation and evolution of a non-subordinate model of open science 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.