Thank you, Marc, for doing the work I wanted to do, without finding the time to do it.
What is interesting in Rodriguez' statement is that he deals with the realities of a publicly-traded company and its imperatives. Essentially, he says: we are in business to make money, not to serve the research communities. I could add that, in fact, companies like Elsevier make use of the research communities to make money. Hence their constant moves to maintain or increase control over the communication channels of scientists. By contrast to Rodriguez, A. Wise keeps on putting up smoke screens of Jesuitic statements with the objective of maintaining peaceful relations with researchers. Her goal is neither truth nor reality, but deceptive statements crafted to placate. That is what she is paid for. How one can live this way, I do not quite understand as the mercenary mindset is profoundly alien to me, but she does. However, Elsevier may begin to understand that the ROI (return on investment) in this particular case is no longer worthwhile. That would give her a chance to renew acquaintances with the fundamental values of knowledge creation by moving back to the values of her discipline. Jean-Claude Guédon ________________________________ De : [email protected] [[email protected]] de la part de Couture Marc [[email protected]] Envoyé : jeudi 11 juin 2015 16:13 À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Objet : [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new "sharing" policy Hi all, I found the entire “Papiers dorés” video highly interesting. It features mainly high-profile French scientists, who all describe the dominant publication/evaluation model as inadequate and doomed to be superseded in the near (or not-so-near) future. Here is my rough translation of some excerpts of the interview with Daniel Rodriguez, director of Elsevier Masson SAS (a branch of Reed Elsevier group), to which Dider alludes. Rodriguez speaking; we don’t hear the question(s). (14:22) “It’s like you opposed – here I caricature – a financial and a scientific community: there’s no common ground. Thus you oppose an approach that, whichever way you present it, remains first and above all a profit – [more precisely] profit increase – approach to, let’s say, a much more scientific, “noble” goal related to the global progress of science. In a certain way, I don’t think these two universes can meet each other.” (16:08) “We are a group whose goal is earning money, so the traditional model remains extremely lucrative. I repeat: we are a publicly traded group, whether we want it or not; we mustn’t bury our head in the sand.” Marc Couture De : Didier Pélaprat [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : 11 juin 2015 05:14 À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Cc : [email protected]; Couture Marc Objet : RE: [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new "sharing" policy Hi Alicia, One question puzzles me, studying your interventions everywhere explaining the changes in policy : Seems you have the same coach as Erik Merkel-Sobotta, from Springer, don’t you? http://poynder.blogspot.fr/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html For those who understand French: another explanation from Elsevier, that sounds more realistic on the aims, objectives and relationships between Elsevier and the scientific communities; it’s called “papiers dorés” (“Golden papers”) http://vimeo.com/127546263 Sorry not to have the English translation yet. Should be available probably in july. have a nice day. Didier De : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) Envoyé : jeudi 11 juin 2015 02:21 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc : Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) Objet : [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new "sharing" policy Hi Marc, Apologies for the delay in replying – I have been on the road this week. The introduction of tags was an idea we developed after consultation with large, mainly commercial, sharing platforms such as social collaboration networks. For them the challenge is to handle a tsunami of user-uploaded content in an automated way. We are working to implement tagging of both final articles and manuscripts which will include information to allow platforms to automatically detect what version of the article has been uploaded along with other key information such as the embargo end date. The availability of these metadata on full-text uploads will be particularly helpful to them. Repositories are free to extract and use the data from the tags if they would like to do so. We will also make these metadata available for everyone to use via our ScienceDirect API. However, not all repositories like the idea of a variety of APIs and some express the wish of a more simple method. Tagging therefore helps us to cater for differing platform needs. We recognize that the development of an industry-wide API would be desirable to avoid the need for repositories to integrate with multiple APIs, and we would support this approach. With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Access and Policy Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Twitter: @wisealic From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Couture Marc Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:03 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new "sharing" policy Hi all, Elsevier has a record of pretending to make its decisions (at least partly) in the interests of researchers, or research, and now repositories. One example is the introduction of tagged manuscripts. I don’t really understand how it will work and what will be gained by authors or repositories if they use these instead of the usual author-supplied manuscripts, with metadata residing in the repository itself. The new policy seems to imply that either the author-provided or the Elsevier-tagged manuscripts could be self-archived, but like much of the policy, it’s far from clear. In this page (http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing), it is stated that in order to help repositories “ensure self-archived accepted manuscripts can be made available in line with publisher’s hosting & posting policies”, Elsevier will be “taking steps to tag all manuscripts from the point of acceptance with key metadata”. And also this: “IRs will have access to the tagged manuscripts if an author self-archives.” What I understand here is that these embedded metadata could be used by Elsevier to automatically, and more efficiently, monitor policy compliance (notably embargo). Which they have certainly the right to do, by the way. The point is: do we have, or wish to work for them on this? Finally, I suggest that you read the Comments section of the above-cited page, especially Ms Wise’s answers, which are - how to say it - more to the point than what I’d been expected to find. Marc Couture ________________________________ Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
