[I've reposted this from Thierry Chanier, adding an English translation of the GFII working group's Statement excerpt -- just in case any AmSci readers think the apparent vacuity of the GFII statement is owing to an uncertain grasp of French: No it isn't. It really is that vacuous in French too! -- SH]
List-Post: [email protected] List-Post: [email protected] Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:28:43 +0100 From: Thierry CHANIER thierry.chanier -- univ-bpclermont.fr To: [email protected] Subject: Interference in the scientific process by French private publishers: the case of Heloise Dear all, We already mentioned on this list the fact that a site has been launched so French publishers can present their policies with respect to deposit in open archives : http://heloise.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ It may sound strange to have such site given that there already exists the Sherpa/Romeo one. French private publishers have had the opportunity for years to present their policies in Romeo. What could be the rational for having another site ? Do French private publishers have problems reading English ? Do they want to cut the French off from the rest of the international  community ? But more embarrassing is the fact that Heloise has been set up on a public server (by the CNRS and the same institute as the one in charge of HAL, the national open archive system) as the result of an agreement with the SNE (which represents the commercial French publishers -- publishers in general, not necessarily related to Scientific publishing) and the GIFF (groupement francais de l'industrie de l'information). On the GFII web site, there is a page about a SIG dealing on OA issues : http://www.gfii.fr/fr/document/groupe-de-travail-gfii-sur-le-libre-acces-br-mise-en-ligne-de-la-synthese-des-discussions-et-des-recommandations Some private publishers have made a common statement with scientists (representing national research centres, please find the list at the end of this message) where they refer to the way scientific policy should be undertaken with respect to our research institutions and disciplines , e.g. : "...C'est pourquoi le libre accès suscite des polémiques non seulement entre institutions de recherche et éditeurs, mais aussi a l'intérieur même du monde de la recherche et de ses instances décisionnelles. Le groupe de travail du GFII a centré sa réflexion sur les productions scientifiques que constituent les articles. Le document de synthèse insiste notamment sur la nécessité de raisonner par discipline, pluridiscipline ou interdiscipline. Pour être efficace, la diffusion de l'information scientifique et technique doit être adaptée à un champ donné. Une discipline se définit notamment par la communauté scientifique qui lui est associée, son histoire, ses objets et ses méthodes, son caractère plus ou moins transversal, l'échelle de temps concernée et le caractère local ou au contraire international de l'objet de la rechercheâ¦." "â¦This is why open access generates polemics not only between research institutions and publishers, but even within the research world and its authorities. The GFII working group focussed its deliberations on scientific output that takes the form of articles. The summary document lays particular emphasis on the need to reason by discipline, pluri-discipline or inter-discipline. To be effective, the dissemination of scientific and technical information must be adapted to each given field. A discipline defines itself by the scientific community associated with it, its history, its subjects and methods, its more or less cross-sectional character, the time scale in question, and the local or international character of the topic of the researchâ¦." Is it appropriate to have Elsevier, Lavoisier, Cairn, Masson, etc. tell us how disciplines should be organized in France, how we should do our research work and publish it  ?What is the next step ? Will the GFII and private publishers enter into the national public research Agency AERES (which has undertaken something similar to the UK-Research Assessment Exercise) and tell us which journals should be classified per discipline as Rank A, B or C, because they have private interests in them  ? I have nothing against private publishers publishing some of the work in the scientific domain, but there should be no confusion between publishing the search and having any say in the research process (other than the substantive scientific editing itself). I am not aware of such interference by the private sector into the research process in other countries. I would really welcome feedback from colleagues on this list about this issue. Thank you in advance. Cordialement Thierry Chanier More information below: ****** List of signatures of GFII SIG working group on OA ***** Les membres du groupe de travail   Catherine Blache, SNE   Jean-Marc Bocabeille, Lavoisier   Hélène Bourguignon, Presses de Sciences Po   Jean-Frank Cavanagh, Reed Elsevier   Ghislaine Chartron, CNAM   Daniel Confland, Jouve, GFII   Rachel Creppy, MESR   Hans Dillaerts, doctorant INTD   Nathalie Duchange, INSERM   Jean-Jacques Evesque, Masson   Nathalie Ferrand-Larmanjat, PUF   Herbert Gruttemeier, INIST-CNRS   Agn=E8s Henri, EDP Sciences   Odile Hologne, INRA   Emmanuelle Jannes-Ober, CEMAGREF   Gilles Lambert, FNPS   Marie-Anne Leriche, CEA   Ruth Martinez, GFII   Marc Minon, Cairn.info   Christophe Perales, SCD Université de Versailles - Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines   Nicole Pinhas, INSERM   Sébastien Riault, Armand Colin   Jean-Louis Soubret, Necplus   Catherine Thiolon, Quae/INRA   Michel Vajou, MV Ãtudes et Conseil   ******************************* The current lists of journals in Humanities classified by AERES : http://www.aeres-evaluation.fr/Publications/Methodologie-de-l-evaluation/Listes-de-revues-SHS-sciences-humaines-et-sociales
