Background

En noviembre de 2015, la XXV Asamblea General de CLACSO reunida en Medellín, Colombia, emitió la Declaration of Open Access to Knowledge Managed as a Common Good, based on the conviction that in most countries of Latin America and the Caribbean a substantial part of the research and production of scientific knowledge is financed with public funds and, therefore, should be available in an open format. 

A diez años de aquel pronunciamiento —que potenció y anunció discusiones y consensos que se profundizaron en los años siguientes— le siguió una pléyade de documentos internacionales de relevancia (manifiestos, declaraciones, acuerdos, principios, entre otros) que plantean recomendaciones en torno a la necesaria transformación de la evaluación científica y la necesidad de transicionar hacia la ciencia abierta. Entre ellos encontramos: la San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto, The Declaración de Panamá sobre Ciencia Abierta, the Manifiesto sobre la Ciencia como Bien Público Global, the Manifiesto bibliotecario por la Ciencia Abierta Latinoamericana, the Manifiesto de Ciencia Abierta y Colaborativa (OCSDNet), el ALAEC Manifesto for the responsible use of metrics in science assessments in Latin America and the Caribbean, The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, The Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scientific Communication, Hong Kong Principles (HKP), the update of the Budapest Declaration (BOAI20), and the most recent ones, such as the Manifesto for socio-territorial metrics of Science, Technology and Innovation (Latmetrics), the Toluca-Cape Town Declaration on Diamond Open Access, The Barcelona Declaration on Open Information in Investigations, The Leticia Declaration: A manifesto for science with social impact in Latin America and the Caribbean (Global Young Academy), The Agreement for Research Assessment Reform (CoARA), Open Science: The Challenge for Universities (IAU) y las recomendaciones presentes en los informe titulados: The future of research evaluation (GYA-IAP-ISC) and Transforming Assessment (RORI-GRC-RRA); among many others. Along these lines, it is possible to add a series of MCP pipeline kits that have been developed to implement these transformation processes, for example, the recent ones: A Practical Guide to Implementing Responsible Research Assessment at Research Performing Organizations (DORA) and the set of practical tools prepared by FOLEC (Rovelli and Vommaro, 2025).

Todos estos documentos han contribuido a expandir el enfoque de apertura más allá del acceso a publicaciones, impulsando transformaciones estructurales en los complejos de ciencia y tecnología en ámbitos como la gestión de datos y políticas de acceso abierto; el desarrollo de infraestructuras, software abierto y plataformas colaborativas no comerciales; el diseño de marcos de evaluación responsables y métricas cualitativas; la adopción de modelos de comunicación inclusivos y multilingües; la implementación de licencias y gobernanzas de bienes comunes; la creación de espacios de formación y desarrollo de capacidades críticas; y la incorporación de principios éticos, de diversidad e inclusión en todas las etapas del ciclo de investigación, desafiando el poder concentrado de corporaciones editoriales que lucran con datos y publicaciones a su vez que condicionan y configuran los procesos de evaluación científica y académica en todo el mundo a su imagen y semejanza, es decir, respondiendo a sus intereses y modelos de negocio.

A estas declaraciones y manifiestos —textos de carácter propositivo que interpelan a la comunidad académica y científica a transformar sus prácticas— se suma una serie de ensayos e investigaciones críticos publicados en los últimos años. Estos analizan, desde una perspectiva reflexiva y a menudo contundente, la situación actual de los mundos sociales de la producción científica, tecnológica y académica en diversos contextos geográficos. Lejos de ser discursos aislados, ambos fenómenos constituyen las dos caras de una misma moneda: si los manifiestos plantean un llamado a la acción y esbozan nuevos horizontes de sentido que habiliten el cambio, los ensayos operan como diagnósticos rigurosos que develan las contradicciones y el malestar estructural inherente a la labor académica y científica contemporánea. Sin ánimos de exhaustividad, entre ellos podemos nombrar: “Slow Science Manifesto”(Slow-Science.org, 2010), “Innovation, Sustainability and Development: A new Manifesto”(STEPS, 2010), “Chart of the desexellence“(LAC-ULB, 2014),Het acade-misch manifest: they are not at all published by universiteit”(Halffman and Radder, 2015), “Saving Science“(Sarewitz, 2016),Besieged Academies” (Basail Rodríguez, 2019), “University in dark times” (Pecheny, 2020), and “Bridging the Gap: Localizing Open Science for Asia's Research Realities” (Sayab, 2025). 

Estos trabajos coinciden en diagnosticar una crisis estructural de alcance global en las instituciones científico-académicas, causada por la imposición de lógicas productivistas –heredadas de la gestión gerencial y del New Public Management–, la obsesión por indicadores cuantitativos que reducen la investigación a meras métricas de rendimiento y posiciones en rankings internacionales, la creciente precarización del trabajo docente e investigativo y la mercantilización y privatización del conocimiento científico-tecnológico. Denuncian con firmeza los modelos cerrados de publicación y evaluación, dominados por corporaciones editoriales y evaluaciones estandarizadas, que subordinan los procesos de revisión a criterios numéricos descontextualizados y desdibujan la función social de las ciencias. Asimismo, apuntan a la homogeneización de los saberes, la exclusión de epistemologías no hegemónicas y la imposición de modelos eurocéntricos que ignoran las realidades locales y los conocimientos ancestrales.

Among them, we are particularly interested in highlighting how Sayab (2025) also incorporates the infrastructural and linguistic barriers that marginalize researchers in Asia and the Arab world (the lack of robust repositories, limited connectivity, and the hegemony of English in open science channels), limitations that are not foreign to the Latin American and Caribbean context. In response, he proposes replacing the approaches top-down through collaborative and contextualized strategies that respect the diversity of research ecosystems: designing participatory incentives and metrics, investing in decentralized digital infrastructure, and providing training in locally adapted open access practices. Likewise, it advocates for the integration of local languages ​​and knowledge as cornerstones of inclusive science, in line with international recommendations that promote multilingualism in scientific communication. Under this vision, universities and research centers are reconfigured as co-created public spaces where research, teaching, outreach, engagement, and other forms of social knowledge mobilization regain their transformative power and are oriented toward the social and epistemic challenges of each community and territory. Our proposals, which aim for fundamental change, arise from this diagnosis and scenario.

El paradigma de la ciencia abiertaOpen science, understood as a public science policy oriented towards the common good, transcends the traditional formats of production, circulation, use, and evaluation of scientific and technological knowledge. According to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, this approach is defined as a constructo inclusivo que combina diversos movimientos y prácticas con el fin de que los conocimientos científicos multilingües estén abiertamente disponibles y sean accesibles para todos, así como reutilizables por todos; se incrementen las colaboraciones científicas y el intercambio de información en beneficio de la ciencia y la sociedad; y se abran los procesos de creación, evaluación y comunicación de los conocimientos científicos a los agentes sociales más allá de la comunidad científica tradicional (UNESCO, 2021). This approach implies a paradigm shift in the way science is done, which involves opening up all stages or phases of scientific and technological research (design, data production, review, publication, evaluation, among others), transforming what is done and how it is done, which redefines scientific and technological research. 

Along the same lines, the Manifesto on the science as a global public good sostiene que las ciencias son patrimonio de la humanidad y un derecho universal, que debe estar disponible, accesible y ser reutilizable por todas las personas en cualquier parte del mundo, sin restricciones comerciales ni barreras lingüísticas, y que su producción debe estar al servicio del desarrollo colectivo. Este abordaje enfatiza la necesidad de fortalecer infraestructuras abiertas, medios no comerciales de publicación y redes de colaboración solidaria entre instituciones, investigadoras e investigadores, comunidades y territorios. Así, la noción de ciencia como bien público global converge con el paradigma de la ciencia abierta, al promover una producción científica inclusiva, multilingüe, colaborativa y orientada a las necesidades sociales. De este modo, la ciencia abierta integra una pluralidad de lenguas, culturas, prácticas y saberes y promueve formas más horizontales de colaboración entre diversos agentes sociales, orientando la producción científico-tecnológica hacia la equidad, la sostenibilidad y la justicia social. Esta orientación busca dar respuesta a las desigualdades históricas en la producción, circulación y acceso al conocimiento científico, promoviendo valores como la equidad, la sostenibilidad, la justicia cognitiva y la diversidad epistémica. Desde su fundación en el año 1967, CLACSO ha impulsado estas perspectivas, nutriéndose de tradiciones propias del Sur Global, como la investigación-acción participativa, el diálogo de saberes y las epistemologías críticas, con el fin de consolidar ciencias más democráticas, solidarias y transformadoras.

In line with the previous approaches, the Declaration of Principles “A new academic and scientific evaluation for a science with social relevance in Latin America and the Caribbean”, promoted by the Foro Latinoamericano de Evaluación Científica (FOLEC)  perteneciente a CLACSO y aprobada en su XXVII Asamblea General Ordinaria en junio del 2022 en la Ciudad de México en el marco de la novena Conferencia, representa un avance significativo hacia un paradigm of responsible and situated scientific evaluationDiscussed by numerous specialists throughout the region and endorsed by hundreds of signatories, this Declaration has become a regional and international benchmark. This framework proposes evolutionary, self-reflective, transparent, and participatory evaluation processes that foster dialogue, mutual learning, and continuous improvement. Among its fundamental principles are: the alignment of scientific and academic evaluation with human rights, the social relevance of knowledge, the appreciation of multilingualism, the inclusion of university outreach, the recognition of diverse career paths, the participatory and evolving nature of evaluation, and a challenge to the uncritical use of restrictive metrics based on geographic, disciplinary, and linguistic criteria.

Within this framework, the categories of politicized and mobile social science that we have collectively developed in previous CLACSO work are consolidated as analytical keys for thinking about sciences committed to the urgent problems of our peoples. politicized science –en el sentido varsavskiano– reconoce su ineludible inscripción en disputas por el sentido común y la orientación del desarrollo; mientras que una mobile science —in dialogue with Fals Borda's thinking— shifts toward territories and communities, connects with other social actors, and seeks to influence the transformation of material conditions of existence. These categories allow us to understand and challenge the competing models in the field of science policy in Latin America and the Caribbean: one centered on productivity under decontextualized global logics, and another that prioritizes social relevance, epistemic sovereignty, and the democratization of scientific and technological knowledge. In this sense, we propose moving toward deeply committed and democratic sciences, understood not only as accessible, but also as the result of a collective construction, with agendas and priorities defined in dialogue with the needs of the people and not exclusively by the interests of the market or internationalized scientific elites.

Based on this background and collective learning, this declaration – prepared collaboratively and signed by the CLACSO Working Group “Open Science as a Common Good”, the Working Group “Mobile and Politicized Social Science” and FOLEC – reaffirms and updates a horizonte compartido: Open, democratic, fair, inclusive and sovereign sciences, understood as common public goods and tools for social transformation. Retomando las tradiciones críticas y emancipadoras del Sur Global, e incorporando los debates contemporáneos sobre acceso abierto, ciencia abierta, evaluación responsable y pluralidad epistémica, esta declaración ofrece un marco común –o una hoja de ruta– para repensar las políticas científicas y tecnológicas en la región. Este marco se estructura en torno a tres pilares entrelazados, que se desarrollan en la propuesta transformadora más adelante. Las dimensiones que lo componen expresan una apuesta ética y política por ciencias democráticas, construidas colectivamente, vinculadas a las luchas y necesidades sociales, y comprometidas con la soberanía científica, la independencia tecnológica, la justicia cognitiva, el bienestar y la felicidad de los pueblos de América Latina y el Caribe.

Pillars of the transformative proposal

Latin America and the Caribbean urgently require a structural and radically democratic transformation of their science and technology sectors. This transformation cannot be reduced to technical adjustments or the incorporation of new tools; it implies a profound redefinition of the ends, means, and meanings that guide the production of scientific and technological knowledge in the region. Ultimately, it is about challenging the hegemonic model of production, circulation, evaluation, use, and appropriation of scientific knowledge, in order to advance toward a paradigm that places science at the service of peoples, communities, territories, and the expansion of democratic life. Within this transformative horizon, it is essential to situate the discussion within a normative framework that recognizes the right to science as a human right and a universal common good.

The regulatory framework that guides this transformation is based on the concept of science as a human rightas stated by UNESCO and the United Nations system in documents such as Right to science: a human rights perspective (UNESCO, 2020) y Derecho a la ciencia y a los sistemas de conocimiento (UNESCO, 2022). This approach recognizes that all people and communities have the right to access, participate in, and contribute to the production and use of scientific knowledge, as well as to benefit from its results. Science, understood as a common good and an essential component of democratic life, must be developed under principles of freedom, equity, inclusion, and respect for cultural and epistemic diversity. From this perspective, guaranteeing the right to science entails promoting policies that eliminate structural barriers—economic, technological, linguistic, or institutional—that limit its exercise, and strengthening social participation in defining its aims and priorities. In Latin America and the Caribbean, recognizing science as a human right implies orienting its development toward cognitive justice, sovereignty, and the collective well-being of the region's peoples. The three pillars that guide the transformative proposal presented here are based on this foundation.

The first pillar of this transformation is the Open science as a public and common goodThis concept transcends the narrow view of open access to publications, proposing a comprehensive approach that encompasses all dimensions of the scientific process: from data generation to evaluation, governance, social participation, digital infrastructures, and ethical frameworks. Open science promotes equitable access to knowledge, collaboration among diverse social actors, recognition of pluralistic knowledge, and the elimination of economic, linguistic, and technological barriers that limit the right to conduct research and participate in knowledge production.

The second pillar is the construction of a new model of scientific evaluation with social relevanceAs FOLEC-CLACSO has been proposing, this model rejects the uncritical reliance on commercial metrics and rankings and promotes evaluation criteria that recognize the diversity of research trajectories, the multiple contributions to human and environmental development, the commitment to local contexts, and the capacity to influence the transformation of social realities, for example, through participatory action research or public policies based on scientific evidence. It is not just about measuring better, but about transforming what is considered valuable in scientific work.

The third pillar is the epistemic and technological sovereignty, que exige recuperar el control público, democrático y regional sobre las infraestructuras, plataformas y procesos que hacen posible la ciencia. Esto implica fortalecer repositorios institucionales, desarrollar herramientas abiertas y accesibles, garantizar el multilingüismo y asegurar que las tecnologías digitales –incluyendo la inteligencia artificial– se diseñen y usen bajo principios éticos, con participación activa de la comunidad científica y sin subordinación a lógicas mercantiles.

Together, these pillars form a transformative architecture that transcends sectoral or institutional boundaries. These three pillars are interrelated and can only be fully realized through robust public policies, sufficient economic resources, sustained political will, and institutional leadership and dialogue that foster cultural change; only in this way will it be possible to achieve a truly democratic science, oriented toward the collective well-being of our people. These pillars are also the result of a historical process of struggle, reflection, and collective creation by the region's scientific and educational communities, which today are expressed in numerous initiatives, networks, and declarations aimed at democratizing knowledge.

In short, transforming science in Latin America and the Caribbean is not just an institutional challenge: it is a political, cultural, and ethical task that must be undertaken with a sense of urgency and a strategic vision. The future of scientific knowledge in our region depends on our ability to reconfigure its foundations based on a commitment to scientific sovereignty, technological independence, cognitive justice, and the well-being and happiness of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Guiding principles 

The transformation of the science and technology ecosystem in Latin America and the Caribbean must be based on a series of ethical, political, and operational principles that guide public policies, institutional practices, and daily decisions in the scientific and academic fields. These principles are not merely technical or normative; they constitute meaningful commitments that allow for the reconfiguration of the relationships between science, technology, society, and power, in order to establish a coherent and common framework oriented toward the aspirations for justice, inclusion, and sovereignty that permeate the region.

I. Fundamental principles: towards an ethical, democratic and committed science

1. Social justice, ethics of knowledge, and expanded impact

Orientar los procesos de producción, circulación y validación del conocimiento científico-tecnológico hacia principios de justicia social, relevancia ética y compromiso con los derechos humanos y el bienestar colectivo. Esto implica reconocer y valorar la incidencia del conocimiento en los territorios-comunidades, en las políticas públicas y en los procesos de transformación social. Se propone ampliar la noción de “impacto” más allá de los indicadores de citación o productividad académica, incorporando dimensiones sociales, culturales, productivas, ambientales, pedagógicas y comunitarias, atendiendo especialmente a los problemas públicos y a la producción de bienes comunes.

2. Linguistic and cultural diversity as a condition of epistemic inclusion

Actively promote multilingualism and cultural diversity in the processes of production, dissemination, and validation of scientific and technological knowledge. Public science policies should encourage the use of the native languages ​​of countries and regions of the Global South, including indigenous languages, through strategies of publication, translation, and academic recognition. This implies valuing the diversity of formats, knowledge, and modes of knowledge dissemination, recognizing the importance of regional, local, and ancestral expressions as an integral part of the scientific and cultural ecosystem.

3. Recognition of the co-production of knowledge and collective work

Revaluing the collaborative nature of scientific and technological production, properly recognizing teamwork, inter-institutional networks, and interdisciplinary approaches. Likewise, the processes of co-producing knowledge with social actors, local communities, Indigenous peoples, social movements, productive sectors, and public policy managers must be made visible and valued. The dialogue of knowledge and collective construction should be considered central elements of scientific and technological work and should form part of the criteria for academic evaluation and recognition.

4. Right to participate in scientific progress and its benefits

Recognizing participation in science as a fundamental human right implies ensuring that all people and communities can actively engage in the production, dissemination, and use of scientific and technological knowledge, and benefit from its results. This requires public policies that guarantee accessibility, inclusion, and effective participation at all stages of the scientific process, from defining agendas and priorities to evaluating, mobilizing, and promoting the social appropriation of results. This principle is based on international frameworks promoted by UNESCO and the United Nations system, which affirm the obligation of States to create enabling environments for freedom of research, open cooperation, and equitable access to knowledge. In the Latin American and Caribbean context, exercising this right means democratizing science, strengthening epistemic and technological sovereignty, and promoting a fair distribution of the benefits of knowledge and innovation for the common good and the development of peoples.

II. Democratización del conocimiento y soberanía digital

4. Open, free and non-commercial access to publicly funded scientific knowledge

Promover el acceso abierto irrestricto a todos los productos de investigación financiados con fondos públicos, eliminando barreras de pago o suscripción. Este acceso debe garantizarse a través de repositorios interoperables de acceso abierto (vía verde) y mediante el fortalecimiento de revistas científicas que operen bajo el modelo diamante, es decir, sin cargos para lectores ni para autores. Se debe priorizar el uso de infraestructuras no comerciales, sostenidas por universidades, redes públicas o sistemas cooperativos de ciencia abierta, para garantizar la soberanía del conocimiento científico-tecnológico y evitar su privatización y mercantilización.

5. Development and sustainability of open, interoperable and cooperative infrastructures

Strengthen open and public digital infrastructures that enable the production, circulation, visibility, preservation, and reuse of scientific and technological knowledge. This includes open access repositories, non-commercial journal platforms, book portals, institutional archives, and digital libraries. These infrastructures must operate with open standards, guarantee regional and international interoperability, and ensure the long-term preservation of content. They must also facilitate the development and dissemination of open educational resources (OER), promoting free, open, and reusable access to knowledge for educational purposes.

6. Building inclusive and representative academic information systems

Diseñar y sostener sistemas de información científico-tecnológica y académica que sean públicos, abiertos, federados y actualizados, capaces de representar la diversidad institucional, disciplinar y territorial de los sistemas científicos y educativos. Estos sistemas deben permitir visibilizar las agendas de investigación, los actores involucrados y las modalidades de producción, circulación, usabilidad y apropiación del conocimiento. Es fundamental que estos sistemas estén alineados con principios de ciencia abierta y con los derechos digitales, y que sean gobernados democráticamente por actores públicos y comunitarios.

III. Transformación de los modelos de evaluación

7. Open, participatory and contextualized evaluation systems

Promote systems for evaluating scientific, technological, and academic activity based on open, public, and cooperative platforms that allow for transparency, traceability, and democratic control of the evaluation process. These systems must adapt to institutional, disciplinary, linguistic, and territorial diversity, recognizing different trajectories and modalities of scientific and technological knowledge production. Evaluation processes should be designed to be open, evolving, participatory, and cooperative, actively involving academic communities and relevant social actors, instead of reproducing opaque, hierarchical, competitive, closed, and standardized models.

8. Uso de indicadores cualitativos y contextualizados, y superación de métricas comerciales y los rankings internacionales

Sustituir el uso hegemónico de métricas comerciales como el factor de impacto o el índice H, así como el uso de rankings, por modelos de evaluación basados en el juicio experto cualificado, criterios cualitativos y métricas alternativas desarrolladas en entornos regionales y no comerciales. Es imprescindible fomentar el uso de sistemas como Latindex, SciELO, RedALyC, AmeliCA, LA Referencia y otros repositorios regionales para la evaluación de publicaciones. Se deben desarrollar indicadores propios, contextualizados y relevantes para las realidades institucionales, territoriales y disciplinares del Sur Global, que permitan superar la dependencia de indicadores de citación internacionales y de lenguas dominantes.

9. Evaluation with gender equity, inclusion of diversities and support for emerging pathways

Incorporar de manera activa una perspectiva de género y diversidad en los procesos de evaluación, promoviendo la visibilización, el reconocimiento y la valorización de los aportes de mujeres, diversidades sexo-genéricas y colectivos históricamente subrepresentados en la ciencia y tecnologia. Asimismo, es fundamental establecer apoyos específicos a las trayectorias en formación, incluyendo jóvenes investigadores, becarias y becarios, mediante sistemas que contemplen su especificidad, sus tiempos de formación y sus contribuciones iniciales, promoviendo procesos de mentoría, acompañamiento y reconocimiento diferenciado.

IV. Training and culture of open science as a public and common good

10. Formación crítica y estrategias pedagógicas para arraigar la ciencia abierta como bien público y común basado en una evaluación con relevancia social

Impulsar espacios formativos y estrategias pedagógicas que promuevan una comprensión crítica y colectiva sobre la evaluación científica y la ciencia abierta como herramientas para la transformación institucional y social. La socialización de saberes es condición de posibilidad para construir comunidades de prácticas comprometidas con la justicia epistémica, la equidad en la producción y circulación del conocimiento científico-tecnológico y el cuestionamiento de los modelos hegemónicos y corporativos. Para arraigar una cultura de apertura, es imprescindible acompañar los programas de formación con guías institucionales y espacios de diálogo que capaciten a todos los actores académicos en los principios, herramientas y valores de la ciencia abierta, favoreciendo su adopción en la docencia, la investigación, la extensión universitaria y la vinculación.

These principles, taken together, allow us to build a new social contract for scientific knowledge in Latin America and the Caribbean, where science ceases to be a privilege and becomes a tool at the service of social transformation, equity, and the sovereign development of our Latin American and Caribbean peoples.

Call to action

In a world where the concentration of economic and technological power deepens, inequalities worsen, and the neoliberal and authoritarian rhetoric of the far right threatens our democratic institutions, defending free, pluralistic knowledge oriented toward the common good becomes a political and ethical imperative. From Latin America and the Caribbean, we issue a clear, decisive, and collective call to all actors involved in science, technology, and higher education: it is time to act, to imagine, and to build a model of knowledge production that is truly just, democratic, sovereign, and rooted in the transformations that our people demand.

We urge states and regional integration bodies to recognize science as a human right and a public and common good, and to design public policies that guarantee scientific sovereignty, technological independence, and epistemic justice. To this end, it is essential to invest in open and sustainable infrastructures, strengthen and fund local scientific journals, guarantee non-commercial open access to knowledge, and foster solidarity-based cooperation among the countries of Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Global South. At the same time, we urge universities, research centers, and funding agencies to critically review their evaluation and incentive systems, abandoning competitive logics based on bibliometric metrics and international rankings, and embracing an academic and scientific culture that values ​​collaboration, epistemic diversity, social relevance, and the collective production of knowledge.

We call upon the scientific, academic, and student communities to assume a leading role in this transformation. It is not enough to superficially adhere to slogans like “open science”: it is essential to contest their meanings, politicize them, and critically appropriate them. Resistance to neoliberal and technocratic models arises from organization, solidarity, and joint regional action. Likewise, we urge social movements, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, feminist, peasant, and grassroots movements to actively participate in building a situated and emancipatory science that recognizes that knowledge is produced not only in laboratories and classrooms but also in territories, in struggles, and in the ancestral practices of our peoples.

En consonancia con nuestro compromiso de transformar los sistemas de evaluación y promover una ciencia abierta y democrática, presentamos a la Asamblea de CLACSO dos iniciativas que apuestan por la socialización de estas propuestas, reconociendo el papel fundamental de las estrategias pedagógicas como herramientas de cambio y como condición de posibilidad para construir y desarrollar comunidades de prácticas. La proliferación de espacios formativos en estos temas es esencial para fomentar una comprensión crítica y colectiva de las prácticas científicas abiertas basadas en prácticas evaluativas responsables. Estos espacios permiten cuestionar los modelos hegemónicos, promover la equidad en la producción y difusión del conocimiento, y construir una comunidad académica comprometida con la justicia epistémica y social.

On the one hand, we present the “FOLEC School of Evaluators,” an initiative resulting from years of research, which began its activities in 2024 and was consolidated in 2025. It reflects the maturity achieved after a long period of Latin American dialogue with actors from around the world regarding scientific evaluation and the open science paradigm. Its central objective is to strengthen training and critical knowledge about contemporary debates in responsible evaluation and open science, promoting reflection on and questioning of hegemonic evaluation practices through innovative theoretical and methodological tools that facilitate inclusive, transparent, fair, and appropriately situated evaluation methods within our regional context and a global framework for open science. We begin with the understanding that transforming evaluation requires simultaneous action in multiple dimensions: the political, to review power relations and generate strategic consensus; the axiological, to redefine the values ​​that underpin it; The School employs two levels: the institutional and normative, to reformulate rules and procedures through situated and bidirectional change processes (bottom-up and vice versa); and the praxeological, to translate these consensuses into everyday practices that truly impact both those who evaluate and those who are evaluated. Within this framework, the School adopts a pedagogical strategy—seeking to influence the aforementioned levels—that socializes the principles of the new paradigm among all audiences and social actors, constructing new meanings as alternatives to the hegemonic model and fostering innovative practices capable of driving the institutional changes we need. With a critical and participatory approach, the School disseminates knowledge and conceptual, ethical, and practical tools to realize a more inclusive, democratic, and socially relevant science: an open science mobilized to solve the problems affecting our communities and promote a real social impact in its work. Throughout the two editions of the FOLEC School for Evaluators, 26 teachers from 21 different institutions and 8 different countries participated, sharing their knowledge and experiences in scientific and academic evaluation. This diversity enriched the discussions and promoted a pluralistic and contextualized view of evaluation practices in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Furthermore, and complementing the previous proposal, the online course "Open Science as a Public Good: Reflections and Necessary Actions from a Non-Commercial Perspective" was developed between October and December 2024. This initiative arose in response to regional debates on the commodification of knowledge and the need for alternative models of scientific communication. The course aimed to delve into the dynamics and best practices of open science, focusing on dismantling prevailing commercial logics and fostering more inclusive and transparent publishing processes. Through an active methodology that combined theoretical modules, discussion forums, and practical activities, the course sought to disseminate the principles of open science among researchers, librarians, and editors. With a participatory approach, the content was delivered by 16 specialists from 12 institutions in 8 countries, who facilitated discussions and coordinated collaborative activities in free virtual spaces with prior registration, culminating in the issuance of a certificate of completion. This experience helped to mobilize a critical and committed community for a more inclusive, democratic and socially relevant science, willing to translate the open science paradigm into concrete actions that confront the commodification of knowledge and promote a real impact on our societies.

Finally, we call upon international networks and forums, especially those in the Global South, to forge horizontal alliances, share experiences, and build a common agenda to address civilizational crises from the perspectives of social, environmental, and epistemic justice. This is a time for political imagination, collective action, and the construction of shared horizons. 

The sciences we dream of are possible, but they require courage, organization, and commitment. From Latin America and the Caribbean, we embrace this challenge as part of a broader struggle for the dignity, autonomy, and sovereignty of Our America.

---