Access and reuse policies

Kóot is an annual publication edited by the Directorate of Culture, of Universidad Tecnológica de El Salvador, and it is published in one hundred percent format, in open access, in addition to not making charges for article processing (APC), there are also nonexistent charges for shipping items.

Each article will be accompanied by a letter from the main author, specifying that the materials are unpublished and that they will not be presented to any other medium before knowing the decision of the Editorial Committee. The author must attach a signed declaration indicating what type of right his article presents, remembering that the university suggests using the type of free access, without forgetting to mention the main source.

Open Access Policy, from Kóot journal, is attached to the Latindex Open Access declaration, which we accept and endorse as country coordinators. Open Access and CC Licenses: for a durable and protected open access.

We would like to return to the principles of open access based on the “three Bs”: Declarations of Budapest (2002), Berlin (2003) and Bethesda (2003): “An old tradition and a new technology converge to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the desire of scientists and academics to publish the fruits of their research in academic journals without having to pay for it, just for the pleasure of investigating and for knowledge. The new technology is the Internet. The public good that makes this possible is the electronic distribution on the network of peer-reviewed periodical literature completely free of charge and with no access restrictions by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students and other curious minds. Removing barriers to access to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and that of the poor with that of the rich, make this literature as useful as possible, and lay the foundation for uniting to humanity in a common intellectual conversation and search for knowledge”. Budapest (2002)

The principle was to make open knowledge available, without payment, without profit. Many institutions opened their ideas and findings in various formats with the purpose of sharing to maintain the idea that knowledge should not be paid for, since it is a common good and a right. In this way, they recommended the CC-BY license considering that open publication allowed the adequate distribution, use and reuse of academic scientific works. The objective was to allow free access and reuse of content. The principle was adopted by thousands of institutions and countries, and systems were created to deposit scientific works: thematic repositories, platforms, institutional repositories, web sites that collected works and promoted their deposit; later, various projects emerged initially applauded coordinated by academics and open access. As advocates of open access grew and promoted its use, commercial publishers were restructuring and thinking about how they could bring open access to their own legitimate ends: profit, while regrouping. The companies that concentrated content would continue to control and expand it, but in turn created the evaluation systems of the magazines, using the old or new metrics; it didn't matter, the important thing was to control the systems that provided them. They didn't stop there, of course, they had clear objectives.

Since they had control of the content and evaluation metrics, under the discourse of excellence and internationalization defined by them they understood that the next power in scientific communication was no longer content in addition, they already controlled it, but control of the communication channels of the science circuit. As the principle is to obtain the maximum profitability rate, they were driven by pragmatism and went shopping to acquire the networks of scientists, the systems for generating new metrics and the software and hardware that were being recognized as adequate to communicate. The starting point was clear, the content would tend to lose weight and they moved towards the control of communication and data. Institutions were eager to go international and connected their repositories with their content systems, offering metrics and performance reports in real time to identify the impact of research.

Countries, communities, and science and technology councils embraced such a discourse of internationalization and restructured to take a place in it. Open access policies emerged that demanded that everything be open without payment within a specified period, but since most of the journals were in the control of commercial companies, the way to have open access works from commercial publishers was called APC (article processing charge) referred to the payment for processing and publication of the scientific article. Many entities were convinced by the APC modality and publication costs were set from $ 100 to $ 5,000. The cost was associated with the metrics provided by these commercial houses, so the APC average amounted to $ 2,500, and publishing in the most prestigious, according to them, ranged between $ 3,000 and $ 5,000. Science and technology councils believed that these payments could replace subscriptions and soon realized that they paid two and three times: a) APC, b) payment to electronic journal databases, and c) payment when a request was made. Article not included in the purchased journals.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, a region in which open access has traditionally been an indisputable option confusion was also generated in the search for the positioning of science in that region, by seeking to insert it into commercial bases and yearning to build them metrics criticized by the community that provided their research results. So, 15 years after the Budapest declaration, the situation of open access and its future are not clear and present various contradictions and acts that reinforce the idea that many actions are not meeting their goals and may end up having effects contrary to their objectives. initials: this is the case of CC-BY licenses. Budapest, Berlin and Bethesda all encouraged the opening of the documents to avoid paying, but currently the cost of accessing the information has not been reduced. The difficulty in accessing knowledge is not technology, but being able to pay for access to commercial databases. Consortia have been created in the countries to face the continuous increase in prices, but the cost has increased and now these bases have become the raw material of the evaluation. The contradiction of academic institutions and science and technology councils is evident: promotion and even regulation of open access, but ignorance of their systems related to it, their repositories and their journals for purposes of evaluation, promotion and reward of academic work; To evaluate, closed systems and magazines of the big publishing monopolies are used, and when “national” magazines are appreciated it is because they are in those bases.

And 15 years later we see that from those sites the documents that are in the repositories paid for with public resources are accessed and that, in many cases, the documents with a CC-BY license have been modified, design elements have been added or they have become part of larger systems, anthologies or other works, and are being charged for them. We then ask ourselves: But if the idea was not to pay for access to science and knowledge, then what happened? In some cases, they answer us saying that they do not charge for them, that they charge for the values of integrating them into the engines or discoverers; in other cases, they charge us because they need to access the metrics of the documents in open access, etc. After 15 years, commercial systems have all resources closed and, furthermore, all resources open in a totally legal way, because the CC-BY license allows them to take, insert, modify, integrate, generate, add DOI, sell, resell, etc. In other words, they have appropriated knowledge and it can only be accessed if access to their databases is paid for and, in the worst cases, what is open in some sites is closed and is charged for it in closed services, because they have taken - appropriate - the resources that are in open access. Its bases have acquired greater value for containing science in open access. They say that they do not sell the article in open access, and it can be, but their developments significantly increase its cost. And it is, let's understand it perfectly and clearly, totally legal. Yes, it is legal to take an article, the same one that is in the institutional repository or on a journal site or on the most recognized platforms, take, copy those articles and put them on another site, or collect them and charge for them. Yes, it is legal.

Wasn't it about not paying? A naive position has been taken in promoting the CC-BY license, which allows - sometimes in perpetuity - someone to own the work and profit from what is covered by a license of this type. Let us remember that the final edited PDF of a commercial magazine generally CANNOT be uploaded to the author's institutional repository or website, because the editor claims that he added value with the design, modification of the photographs or graphics and style correction, and then only the Word in which the peer reviews have been included can be uploaded: the approved document. The only license that does not allow profit and requires that it be maintained under the conditions defined by the owner of the Copyright Rights of the work is the CC BY-NC-SA license. This allows to share, distribute, use and download, use the material for academic purposes; for example, an anthology, but it cannot be sold. If someone makes a derivative work using an article, they are fine, but they must put that derivative work under the same conditions. So everyone can reuse, compile, etc., but if you generate a derivative you must share it the same CC BY-NC-SA. The chain can grow, but someone is being prevented from making a profit from it in any part of the communication circuit of science. We recommend the CC BY-NC-SA Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. As Creative Commons says, with this license “you are free to Share-copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt-mix, transform and build on the material”. If you "mix, transform, or create new material from this work, you may distribute your contribution as long as you use the same license as the original work." In other words, the new work must have the same license: CC BY-NC-SA Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. This license prevents the contents from being used for commercial purposes and the user is required to put them under the same conditions, that is, in open, non-commercial access.

All this is allowed by the CC BY-NC-SA license; the only thing that prevents it is that someone, another scientist or another entity, can one day commercialize a work. However, if you want to avoid being marketed with the text that publishers are making available at no cost or financed with public resources, then they must use a CC BY-NC-SA license. “The scope of the Creative Commons license refers to the work that is being put under the CC license, not, for example, to the commercial exploitation of something that could be the subject of a patent. That is, when I publish a paper under a CC license that describes an invention, that does not automatically authorize whoever is consuming that content to commercially exploit the matter of the paper, that falls into another branch of intellectual property, which is industrial property and, in that sense, if I applied for a patent and it was granted to me, I would have the exclusive right to exploit the product or the material process of the patent. So the use of a CC license does not have that scope beyond the document to which the license is attached. Imagine that you do research and it follows that you found a process to improve photosynthesis. This is going to have positive consequences for agriculture. If you publish this research and with this said process and how you came to the conclusion, the fact that you have released this publication under a CC license does not authorize whoever is reading that publication to be able to replicate your process if it is subject to a patent, if not matter of a clear patent that could replicate it” (León Felipe Sánchez. Representative CC Mexico; Fulton & Fulton SC). If someone wants to make use of a scientific text in open access with this license, nothing prevents it, they can do it only by citing it, sharing it the same and not commercializing it. Science has worked through time using the texts and ideas of other scientists, because knowledge is a social construction and therefore the contribution of many people is necessary and it grows cumulatively; “We work on the shoulders of giants” (Newton said), before the “three B's” statements were made and CC licenses were implemented. In short, there is nothing to prevent the legitimate use of the CC BY-NC-SA license for scientific and academic works. It only prevents commercialization and requires the same sharing of the text, so that once it is shared (articles in an anthology, for example) it cannot be commercialized and no one benefits commercially, rather, we all benefit.

Based on the above and under these principles, we recommend and recognize journals that use the CC BY-NC-SA license and we will seek that other Latin American and European actors share and disseminate this vision. Likewise, that we can shape and maintain our Latin American ecosystem: clacso-ibict-latindex-redalyc. Creating, sharing, maintaining and preserving the knowledge of the region is the objective of this text.

Referencias

Solomon, D., y Bojörk, B. (2016). Article processing charges for open access publication—the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada. Peer J. Retrieved from https://peerj.com/articles/2264/

Morrison, H., Brutus, W., Dumais-Desrosier, M., Laprade, K., Merhi, S., Ouerghi, A., Salhab, J., Volkanova, V., y Wheatley, S. (2017). Open access article processing charges 2016. Scholars Portal Dataverse. Retrieved from https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP/KC2NBV

Morrison, H. (2017). From the Field: Elsevier as an Open Access Publisher. The Charleston Advisor, 18(3), 53-59. Retrieved from https://theidealis.org/tag/apc/

Silva, L. (2016). Luces iniciales y sombras actuales del “acceso abierto”: una mirada desde los países en desarrollo. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud. Retrieved from http://www.rcics.sld.cu/index.php/acimed/article/view/941

CLACSO. (2015). Declaración de la Asamblea General de CLACSO sobre el acceso abierto al conocimiento gestionado como un bien común. Retrieved from https://www.clacso.org.ar/conferencia2015/documentos/asamblea/declaraciones/4-Declaracion-de-CLACSO-sobre%20el-acceso-abierto-al-conocimiento-gestionado-como-un-bien-comun.pdf
Babini, D. (2014). El riesgo de que el acceso abierto sea integrado dentro del sistema tradicional de publicación comercial – necesidad de un sistema global no comercial de comunicaciones académicas y científicas. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação & Inovação em Saúde, 8(4), Retrieved from https://www.reciis.icict.fiocruz.br/index.php/reciis/article/view/431/1078

Nassi-Calò, L. (29 de noviembre de 2016). Las tasas de publicación en Acceso Abierto: ¿una nueva crisis de las publicaciones periódicas? [Blog publication]. Retrieved from http://blog.scielo.org/es/2016/11/29/las-tasas-de-publicacion-en-acceso-abierto-una-nueva-crisis-de-las-publicaciones-periodicas/#.Wa2HFsjyjIV

Shulenburger, D. (2016). Substituting Article Processing Charges for Subscriptions: The Cure is Worse than the Disease. Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/substituting-apcs-for-subscriptions-20july2016.pdf

Schöpfel, J. (2015). Open access — the rise and fall of a community-driven model of scientific communication. Learned Publishing. 28(4), 321–325. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1087/20150413/abstract

Brembs, B. (7 de abril de 2016). How Gold Open Acces May Make Thing Worse [Blog publication]. Retrieved from http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/04/how-gold-open-access-may-make-things-worse/

Gadagkar, R. (2016). The “pay-to-publish” model should be abolished. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 70(4), 403–404. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095365/

Pooley, J. (15 de agosto de 2017). Scholarly communications shouldn’t just be open, but non-profit too [Blog publication]. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/08/15/scholarly-communications-shouldnt-just-be-open-but-non-profit-too/

Heller, M. (27 de octubre de 2016). 2016: The Year Open Access Broke? [Blog publication]. Retrieved from http://acrl.ala.org/techconnect/post/2016-the-year-open-access-broke

Brienza, C. (30 de enero de 2014). Paying twice or paying thrice? Open access publishing in a global system of scholarly knowledge production and consumption [Blog publication]. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/30/paying-twice-or-paying-thrice-brienza/