Thank you Didier for this video. It will be helpfull for african French speaking countries, which seem to be outside of this debate. I spread it in our network www.projetsoha.org and i hope that now ours leaders are guided to take the Best decision about publishers like Elsevier. Le 12 juin 2015 05:57, <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi all, > > > Many thanks, Marc, for this very true translation. > > I began my career as a chemist engineer and further shifted to biology. > During 35 years in labs (I only left the labs 5 years ago, for the > Scientific Information field), from the very beginning, all my work was > conducted in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, small, big, very > big ones. > > What I experienced during all these years, and what I also try to > experience now in my relationships with the actors of the private sector in > this field, ie publishers, agents and so on, is mutual respect, which > represents the basis of a real and efficient partnership. > > Mutual respect is based on the fact that every partner knows what are the > constraints of the others, because every partner tells what they are. > > In mutual respect, there is "mutual". > > > > What Mr Rodriguez tells is the reality of any company. This is why I > consider that Mr Rodriguez respects us, and I in turn respect that. > > I think, first, that double speak is not necessary and, second, that it > destroys rather than construct. > > > > Thus, Alicia (and Eric too, if you read that. First fire your common > coach): > > Let us take it like this. > > Elsevier makes profit on scientific publishing. Big profit. Normal: they > are not a charity. > > Elsevier is a very dynamic company, which perfectly knows how to react in > order to maintain and increase profit. > > As a very dynamic and reactive company, Elsevier succeeded, for years, to > reorient, invest, develop and diversify activities, in order to find > revenues in other sectors whenever the income in some others did decrease. > > For Elsevier as for any company, "commercial" ones as well as some of the > so-called "non profit" ones which do it: > > - compelling the authors to sign that they reserve the exclusivity to the > company, as if they had written a novel and been paid for that > > - compelling the authors to sign that they tranfer all their patrimonial > rights to the company for eternity > > - imposing embargoes > > - imposing APCs up to 5.000 $ (in addition to the "normal" page charges in > hybrid journals,) > > means that the company decided to make, maintain, and increase profit on > the publication of the scientific work , at the expense of the missions, > the fund availability and the interests of the scientific community and the > institutions which employ them, ie at the expense of the gain which can be > brought by science to the whole society. > > > > Tell me that. > > I will trust it and, even if I do not find that decision is in accordance > with what I consider to be the social role of a company, I will respect you > in having said that. > > But never call us "partner". > > And never try to tell me that you did it for our benefit. > > Lying does belong to the elements that make a relationship be fruitful and > sustainable between social actors. > > > > There is a quebecois term I find very illustrative of this kind of > behavor: "enfirouaper " (in fur wrapped). > > I hate feeling that somebody tries to m'enfirouaper. > > I positively hate it. > > > > Didier > > > > > > Le 11-06-2015 22:13, Couture Marc a écrit : > > 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] > <[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] > > *Twitter: @wisealic* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > <[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 > [email protected]http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
