On 2013-01-18, at 1:28 PM, Peter Suber <[email protected]> wrote:

> [Forwarding from Ruth Marinez at GFII (Groupement Français de l'Industrie de 
> l’Information), via the GOAL list.  --Peter Suber.]
> 
> Recommendations of the European Commission
> on Open Access : GFII’s first comments
> 11 January 2013

Reminder: A 2-day meeting January 24-25 in Paris will be addressing  this very 
question:

Promoting open access to research outputs
http://couperin.sciencesconf.org/?lang=en

> On  July 17, 2012,  the European Commission issued a recommendation 
> encouraging the Member States to make necessary arrangements to disseminate 
> publicly funded research through open access publication, as soon as 
> possible, preferably immediately and in any case within  6 or 12 months after 
> the date of publication, depending on the discipline.
> 
> The French government should soon take a stand on this issue. In this 
> context, the professional Group GFII, bringing together public and private 
> stakeholders involved in the information and knowledge industry, would like 
> to inform the government on the preliminary findings of its Working Group on 
> Open Access. The text below has been discussed by the GFII Board of Directors 
> and was approved with just one vote against (CNRS).
> 
> The GFII shares the conviction that publications, which are researchers 
> output, must be disseminated as open as possible and as soon as possible to 
> the benefit of their authors, their institutions, readers and the whole of 
> society. But the Group recalls that editing scientific texts, either in the 
> Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) or in the Scientific, Technical and 
> Medical (STM) publishing, is not only publishing it, particularly in the 
> digital environment. Indeed, editing scientific texts involves different 
> stages including selecting, enhancing and validating information through 
> exchanges with authors on a regular basis, correcting proofs, formatting it, 
> printing these manuscripts or posting it online and ensuring sustainable 
> indexing on valuable platforms, enhancing it by adding metadata, developing 
> tools to facilitate information retrieval through databases, 
> communicating/promoting authors and their research, etc. So many activities 
> and services are needed to the scientific community and they have a cost that 
> requires to be paid. Open Access needs therefore to find a balance between 
> ensuring the widest dissemination of research publications and business 
> models allowing a real editorial and promotional work of scientific texts for 
> their potential readers. In absence of balance between these different 
> objectives, the scientific information sector will be deeply destabilized.
> 
> The balance is even more difficult to find since the situation is actually 
> different depending on the discipline, the linguistic area or the type of 
> works published. There are differences, for example, in scholarly publishing 
> in the STM compared with the HSS, as the former is largely globalized whereas 
> the latter is highly dependent on specificities of each linguistic area. And 
> within these fields of disciplines, there are major differences of 
> communication practices between each discipline. For the GFII, it is only 
> through consultation between the scientific communities, publishers and 
> distributors of scientific publications that such complex issues can be 
> really addressed and that a balanced outcome can be achieved. It is convinced 
> that this consultation is an essential step before any decision is made on 
> the subject.
> 
> To avoid counterproductive effects, particularly in areas where public and 
> private national publishing houses or publishing structures are involved, the 
> GFII strongly recommends an independent impact study seeking to address the 
> following questions :
> 
> -        What is, for each discipline, the adequate embargo period needed for 
> rewarding fairly scholarly publishing actors ?
> 
> -        If adequate embargo periods for each discipline were not obtained, 
> which other business models could be implemented to ensure quality, 
> diversity, sustainability and independence of scientific publications 
> (“Author pays” model, freemium model, etc.) ? What would be the cost of it ? 
> How to bear this cost ?
> 
> -        In accordance to the measures currently specified by the European 
> Commission for the Horizon 2020 program, what should the French government do 
> to provide a mechanism for an immediate posting of scholarly articles through 
> pre-financing of publication costs ? What would be the case for the 
> Humanities and Social Sciences in particular ?
> 
> -        What would be the impact of science dissemination using open access 
> on other publishing sectors such as the professional publishing and/or other 
> knowledge publishing sectors ?
> 
> We believe also that the Government should take account of the following 
> points :
> 
> -        Which type of publications should not be subject to the regulatory 
> measures being considered ? Regarding self-archiving, should recommendations 
> only be applied on journal articles or also on collective books and even 
> research monographs ?
> 
> -        How should a “publicly funded” research be clearly defined ? For 
> example, should we consider that all the writings of an author that has been 
> paid from public funds, in some way, must be made freely available (after the 
> embargo period) ? Should knowledge transfer publications and scientific 
> publications be concerned by the proposed measures once their authors are 
> “paid from public funds” through their salaries for example ?
> 
> The Commission Communication was also on other subjects which are the main 
> focus of GFII’s work, including Open research data. The Working group on Open 
> Access will shortly prepare an analytical and conceptual paper and what 
> appeared to constitute the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific and 
> technical information ecosystem in France will be discussed.
> 
> GFII stands ready to provide any clarification or assistance on these issues 
> to the French government and in case it would consider that such a study is 
> required before making any decisions on the transposition of the European 
> Recommendation.
> 
> About the GFII
> 
> The GFII (Groupement Français de l’Industrie de l’Information) includes 
> representatives from the information and knowledge market : information 
> producers, publishers, servers, intermediaries, information providers, 
> service providers, software developers, libraries and subscription agencies.
> 
> The GFII hosts working groups allowing members of the information industry to 
> meet, discuss and exchange points of view on the legal, technical and 
> economic aspects of the sector. With a membership from the private and public 
> sectors, the GFII is a valuable forum for helping stakeholders to get to know 
> one another and to exchange about their jobs, their goals and their 
> constraints. The GFII has been assisting all the stakeholders in the 
> development of the digital information market and is running an  e-books 
> working group.
> 
> About GFII’s Working Group on Open Access
> 
> Created in September 2007 and including representatives from the main 
> economic stakeholders involved in Open Access: research institutes, 
> publishers, aggregators, internet services, subscription agents, academic 
> libraries, the GFII’s Working Group on Open Access aims to analyze this 
> movement and its demands and also to advance it at the national level through 
> a constructive and reasonable approach. As a result of the Group’s work, a 
> series of recommendations has been published in June 2010 and is available 
> online at  http://www.gfii.fr/fr/groupe/open-access. One of these 
> recommendations was on setting up and operating “a shared, standardized and 
> transparent information site to display each publisher’s policy with regard 
> to Open Access repositories”. To this end, publishers within the SNE 
> (Syndicat National de l’Edition) and the SPCS (Syndicat de la Presse 
> Culturelle et Scientifique) have been meeting the CNRS in order to 
> collaborate in the creation of the Héloise platform developed by the 
> CCSD-CNRS. The platform is today online and hosted by the publishers 
> (http://heloise.ccsd.cnrs.fr/).
> 
> The working group which has been relaunched in early 2012 is chaired by 
> Ghislaine Chartron who is professor of Information and Communication Sciences 
> and Chair of Document Engineering in the CNAM (Conservatoire National des 
> Arts et Métiers).
> 
> Contact :
> 
> Ruth Martinez, General Delegate, GFII
> [email protected]
> tel 00 33 1 43 72 96 52
> 


_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to