Academic publishing is one of the most unequal areas of the circulation of ideas. Recent studies have analyzed the dominance of ISI-style standards and its consequences for scientific production in the periphery. This article delves into the Latin American publishing circuit and its performance in the midst of four different types of circuits in the world academic system: (a) mainstream 'international' publishing circuits, sustained by major private enterprises and publishing houses (Thomson Reuters, Elsevier, Google); (b) transnational networks and repositories built as open access (DOAJ, Dial-net, INASP) to create an alternative to previous (c) regional Southern circuits (LATINDEX, SCIELO, CLACSO, REDALYC, AJOL); and (d) national circuits based on local publications. Given that these four circuits all come into play in national scientific fields, this article addresses the case of Argentina in order to prove that these circuits are segmented, partly due to the hierarchies of the World Scientific System and partly to structural constraints and the local history of professionalization. Focusing on tenure evaluations for research positions at Argentina's National Scientific Research Council (CONICET), the article examines the results of a survey among coordinators of the council's evaluation committees in order to analyze the relationship between international publishing and tenure. By exploring the evaluative culture at CONICET, common trends are highlighted along with alternative forms of regional academic prestige.

No abstract

Several studies have delved into the globalization of academic exchanges, the expansion of internet search engines, transnational networks and the multiplication collaborative flows (

Nuestro símbolo no es pues Ariel, como pensó Rodó, sino Calibán. Esto es algo que vemos con particular nitidez los mestizos que habitamos estas mismas islas donde vivió Calibán: Próspero invadió las islas, mató a nuestros ancestros, esclavizó a Calibán y le enseñó su idioma para entenderse con él: ¿Qué otra cosa puede hacer Calibán sino utilizar ese mismo idioma para maldecir, para desear que caiga sobre él la "roja plaga"? No conozco otra metáfora más acertada de nuestra situación cultural, de nuestra realidad (Retamar, 1971). INTRODUCCIÓNV arios autores sostienen que las lenguas constituyen un sistema idiomático global, una suerte de dimensión lingüística del sistema mundo, que es el producto de relaciones de poder e intercambio, y se construye a la par de sus dimensiones políticas económicas y cultuhttp://dx

No abstract

University Rankings and impact factor indicators were critical in the extension of the global belief in the intrinsic academic value of "World Class Institutions," along with the international recognition of successful individuals forged through mainstream journals. However, these supposedly global standards were not adopted passively, nor massively, in the so-called periphery. Drawing from quantitative and qualitative studies of evaluative cultures in Latin America, particularly in Argentina, this paper observes various circuits of recognition and different paths for prestige-building. First, it discusses a multi-scale approach to national scientific fields highlighting heterogeneity in terms of the orientation of research agendas and styles of academic publishing. Evaluative cultures are examined as a complex set of instances of legitimation that provide room for maneuvering between global standards and local orders. Second, the paper delves into the role played by Latin America in forging an open access, non-commercial, regional publishing circuit with a dominant, but not exclusive, composition of journals from the social sciences and humanities. Finally, it argue that facing this dynamical publishing ecosystem developed in the public domain, national research assessment systems are alienated by incentives directed only to performance in mainstream publishing. Uma perspectiva multi-escalar para avaliar circuitos de publicação em países não hegemônicos RESUMO Os rankings universitários e os indicadores de fator de impacto de periódicos foram fundamentais para espalhar a crença global no valor acadêmico indiscutível de "instituições de classe mundial," bem como no reconhecimento internacional de indivíduos de sucesso por meio de sua participação em revistas mainstream. No entanto, esses padrões supostamente globais não foram adotados passivamente, ou em massa, na chamada periferia. Com base em estudos quantitativos e qualitativos sobre culturas avaliativas na América Latina, em particular na Argentina, este trabalho aponta vários circuitos de reconhecimento e diferentes

El artículo aborda un corpus completo de publicaciones científicas de América Latina y el Caribe a partir de la consolidación de los registros de las bases de datos históricas de SciELO y Redalyc para el período 1909-2019 (OLIVA). Dicho corpus está compuesto por casi 800.000 artículos y más de 2.500.000 de autores y autoras. Se analizan también las instituciones editoras de las más de 1.700 revistas -de 15 países- destacándose la importancia de las universidades y las instituciones públicas en el circuito latinoamericano y caribeño de publicación. El estudio destaca la magnitud de este circuito, su profunda diversidad disciplinar y las tendencias en la colaboración nacional e internacional. También se analiza la colaboración hacia el interior de Brasil -a partir de la base de datos SciELO- y se muestra la colaboración entre distintos estados como un rasgo que confronta la lectura en términos de endogamia de la colaboración nacional.

This article presents the results of the Latin American Observatory of Evaluation Indicators (OLIVA, its Spanish acronym) which works to raise the visibility of the scientific production indexed in Latin America and the Caribbean, and to enhance its value for research assessment. This study deals with the production published in open access by journals indexed in SciELO and Redalyc, based on a deduplicated database of a total of 908,982 documents and 2,591,704 authors. It highlights the magnitude of this production and describes its disciplinary diversity, as well as trends in national, regional, and international research collaboration. It also examines the publishers of the 1,720 journals that make up the database of journals from 15 countries and highlights the predominance of universities and public institutions in this regional circuit. The journals that operate with the APC model are analyzed, confirming a clearly lower influence of this model compared to what is observed in other continents, although Brazil is identified as the country with the greatest incidence of this practice in the region. Finally, collaboration between states in Brazil, analyzed with SciELO data, proves to be highly significant, strongly challenging the traditional interpretation of co-authorship among researchers from the same country as academic inbreeding. The study concludes that these journals show multi-scalar circulation, a linguistic diversity, and a disciplinary breadth that can very effectively serve the current needs of scholarly communication in times of open science. Spanish version: https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2653