Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[William Gunn]

On the infrastructure point, I think we need to be clear what we consider
to be infrastructure, and also what we think must be a public good vs.
something which we are ok with business models being developed around. Not
to make too much of the "roads and bridges" analogy, but I do fear we'll
just end up talking past one another and not make the progress that is
needed on this critical topic of infrastructure if we don't actually mean
the same thing when we say the word.

Right now, the way I think about it is that the identifiers and resolvers
and standards that allow you to point from one object to another and to
reuse an object in another place are infrastructure, but the things and
places themselves aren't infrastructure. A road is infrastructure but a
shop on the side of the road isn't, likewise a DOI is infrastructure, but
the repository which holds the document identified by the DOI isn't. The
pipes which deliver the water to your home are infrastructure, but the
water itself isn't. Water is considered a public good, but it's also sold
for a obscene markup by massive corporations, precisely because consumers
feel value has been added through distribution, filtering, and marketing.
Hmm... sound familiar? Open source software is a public good, but IDEs and
hosting and SLAs and support and stuff are may not be.

This is just the way I'm currently thinking about it - not any sort of
official company position - but if someone has a different idea about
infrastructure, let's hear it, please, so we can mean the same thing and
move this important conversation forward.




(ps: it's worth thinking about how user communities fit in with this. For
example, even if you could fork Mendeley, you couldn't fork our community
of users. This shows to me the value of a healthy ecosystem of apps and why
commercial players shouldn't be feared in the services space - if Mendeley
starts doing bad stuff, people will go use Zotero or Papers or whatever
other tool they like. Different economics entirely from selling access to
unique content.)


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Isidro
>>
>> Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe
>> I saw that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS
>> instead of continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the
>> mostly open source software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise
>> of national research assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there
>> is growing pressure to consolidate research data and expect Elsevier,
>> Holtzbrinck (->Digital Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and
>> whomever acquires the IP & Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests
>> could be acquired by BC Partners, itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer
>> Nature - thus possibly more consolidation on the way) to increase their
>> stronghold on research data and research intelligence.
>>
>> Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge
>> dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large
>> corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies
>> of scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the
>> name of the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to
>> corporate professional solutions, whether we like it or not.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
>> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
>> Science-Metrix & 1science
>>
>> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
>> C. 1.514.518.0823
>> F. 1.514.495.6523
>>
>>
>>
> Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic
> Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued
> this.
>
> Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held
> in non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR,
> Elsevier, DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The
> primary value of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green.
> You can't fork academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley
> (whose contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).
>
> My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage
> university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year.
> Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real
> costs (e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of
> output. Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it
> for half and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed".
>
> We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we
> don't do it in the next 12 months it will be too late.
>
> There is enough Open 

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Should read Holtzbrincksevier, not Digisevier.

;-)

Eric Archambault
1science.com
Science-Metrix.com
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On May 20, 2016, at 07:51, Peter Murray-Rust 
> wrote:



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault 
>
 wrote:
Isidro

Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I saw 
that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS instead of 
continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the mostly open source 
software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise of national research 
assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there is growing pressure to 
consolidate research data and expect Elsevier, Holtzbrinck (->Digital 
Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and whomever acquires the IP & 
Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests could be acquired by BC Partners, 
itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer Nature - thus possibly more 
consolidation on the way) to increase their stronghold on research data and 
research intelligence.

Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge 
dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large 
corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies of 
scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the name of 
the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to corporate 
professional solutions, whether we like it or not.

Eric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523



Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic 
Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued this.

Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held in 
non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR, Elsevier, 
DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The primary value 
of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green. You can't fork 
academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley 
(whose contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).

My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage 
university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year. 
Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real costs 
(e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of output. 
Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it for half 
and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed".

We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we don't 
do it in the next 12 months it will be too late.

There is enough Open technology to do it. If Universities, Funders, Libraries 
scholars and citizens get up and shout for Open infrastructure we can pool 
resources and do it. If we out-source our thinking and planning to Digisevier 
we shall be sidelined within 5 years.



--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Isidro
>
> Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I
> saw that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS
> instead of continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the
> mostly open source software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise
> of national research assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there
> is growing pressure to consolidate research data and expect Elsevier,
> Holtzbrinck (->Digital Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and
> whomever acquires the IP & Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests
> could be acquired by BC Partners, itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer
> Nature - thus possibly more consolidation on the way) to increase their
> stronghold on research data and research intelligence.
>
> Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge
> dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large
> corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies
> of scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the
> name of the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to
> corporate professional solutions, whether we like it or not.
>
> Eric
>
>
> Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
> Science-Metrix & 1science
>
> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> C. 1.514.518.0823
> F. 1.514.495.6523
>
>
>
Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic
Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued
this.

Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held
in non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR,
Elsevier, DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The
primary value of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green.
You can't fork academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley (whose
contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).

My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage
university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year.
Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real
costs (e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of
output. Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it
for half and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed".

We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we
don't do it in the next 12 months it will be too late.

There is enough Open technology to do it. If Universities, Funders,
Libraries scholars and citizens get up and shout for Open infrastructure we
can pool resources and do it. If we out-source our thinking and planning to
Digisevier we shall be sidelined within 5 years.



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

The reason people deposit in ResearchGate is because it keeps going after
them, with impact data and incentives.

That's what institutional repositories ought to be doing, with their own
institutional researchers: alerts, notifications, tracking their own output
weekly in WoK and SCOPUS and contacting their authors, just as
ResearchIndex does.

There is no reason whatsoever why an arXiv deposit or a ResearchGate
posting should have greater visibility or impact than depositing in one's
own Green IR. (IRs should also make sure they are maximally discoverable by
Google Scholar.)

All obvious stuff. Just a matter of doing it.

Ceding to the siren call of predators like Elsevier and its predatory
products and services is an easy and thoughtless institutional cop-out that
just keeps their research in bondage -- and leaves them the loser in the
end.

SH

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Isidro F. Aguillo <
isidro.agui...@cchs.csic.es> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Jessica is right, the number of PURE instances as PUBLIC repositories are
> still low, but probably the number of them as CLOSED CRIS managers is
> probably higher (although still not very large). The problem is there is a
> tendency to use CRIS (managed by burocrats) instead of OA IRs (managed by
> librarians) as commercial people is selling systems like PURE also as good
> repository managers. In my personal view PURE design is greenOA killer as
> deposit it is not its primary aim (not required).
>
> Why authors are supporting the move to PURE? Probably the same reason they
> are depositing far more in ResearchGate or Academia than in the GreenOA
> IRs: Ugly interfaces, no profiles, useless metrics, ...
>
> Your turn,
>
>
> On 18/05/2016 15:01, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
>
> Thank you for checking this.
>
> However, numbers do not tell the whole story. Elsevier, Thomson-Reuters,
> Springer, etc... behave strategically. Like good military leaders, they
> constantly try and test to see what sticks and works. For the moment,
> Pure's presence is small, but the parent company learns through this
> limited presence, and it obviously studies ways to make it more appealing
> to the repository community.
>
> This reminds me of ScholarOne as deployed by Thomson-Reuters.
> Scielo-Brazil had trouble marking its articles in a suitable XML format,
> and did it largely by hand. When Scielo did all it could to be included in
> the Web of Science, they were also "offered" the use of Scholar One. Now
> their work flow is dependent upon this software tool to such an extent that
> moving out of Scholar One will be very costly.
>
> This reminds me also of the recent report by the NSF which, for the first
> time, relies on Scopus rather than the Web of Science. Elsevier is getting
> closer to the the old dream first entertained by Robert Maxwell when he
> tried to coax the Science Citation Index out of Eugene Garfield's hands, so
> as to be both judge and party in the evaluation of journals. Reading how
> they gloat about this is also instructive:
> https://www.elsevier.com/connect/tracking-progress-in-us-science-and-engineering
> .
>
> We, in the OA community, have been rather naive about the ways in which
> power works and how it it is wielded. We had better wise up, and fast.
>
> But thank you again, Jessica, for doing the checking.
>
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
>
> Le mercredi 18 mai 2016 à 12:08 +, Jessica Lindholm a écrit :
>
> Hi Ross (et al.), Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure
> instances as you mentioned that many institutional repositories run on
> Pure.   Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (
> http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas
> e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I
> am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is containing exhaustive data
> (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about
> PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are many..   Regards
> Jessica  Lindholm *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [
> mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Ross Mounce *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54 *To:* Global Open Access List
> (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> <goal@eprints.org> *Subject:* Re:
> [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
>
>
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>
>
>
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software
> that many of world's institutional reposito

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Leslie Carr]

PURE does provide an optional repository function, which hasn't been as well 
developed as other bespoke repository platforms (as you can imagine).

One of the interesting issues of PURE-as-CRIS is that it is often run from the 
Research Management Office, which has a business administration function. Their 
goals in running the system may be significantly at variance with those of the 
library - particularly regarding scholarly support and open access.

Prof Leslie Carr
Web Science institute
#⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess

On 18 May 2016, at 14:44, David Prosser 
<david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>> wrote:

Isn’t there a distinction between the use of PURE as a CRIS system and PURE as 
a repository.  I get the feeling the former is much more common than the latter 
and only the latter will appear in OpenDOAR.

David




On 18 May 2016, at 15:20, Ross Mounce 
<ross.mou...@gmail.com<mailto:ross.mou...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
<jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se<mailto:jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se>> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
<joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
<bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Messa

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Ulrich Herb]

Dear all,


thanks a lot to Ross for pointing us to PURE. Of course (by now!) most 
institutions are using PURE as a CRIS not as a repository. But in the end it is 
the same as it is with dropbox, googledocs or mendeley: they all are offering 
seductive functionalities needed by scholars or people from university 
administrations. Facing declining budegts it may only be a matter of time until 
university administrations will start to question the sense of running a CRS 
*and* a repository - especially if the CRIS (as PURE does) offers 
IR-functionalities.  


Best regards


Ulrich Herb

- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different
institutions including 28 in the UK:
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance
that the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and
yet this doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace.
It's no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within
OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think
from a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm <jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se>
wrote:

> Hi Ross (et al.),
>
> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you
> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure.
>
>
>
> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I
> find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances
> and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree
> openDOAR is containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it
> doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do
> not agree that they are many..
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jessica  Lindholm
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ross Mounce
> *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
>
>
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>
>
>
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software
> that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
>
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further
> monetise academic IP.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>
> wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
>
>
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Shame on SSRN.
>
>
>
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>
>
>
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>
>
>
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
>  is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>
> Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> *Subject:*
>
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
>
> *Date:*
>
>

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Isidro F. Aguillo]

Hi all,

Jessica is right, the number of PURE instances as PUBLIC repositories 
are still low, but probably the number of them as CLOSED CRIS managers 
is probably higher (although still not very large). The problem is there 
is a tendency to use CRIS (managed by burocrats) instead of OA IRs 
(managed by librarians) as commercial people is selling systems like 
PURE also as good repository managers. In my personal view PURE design 
is greenOA killer as deposit it is not its primary aim (not required).


Why authors are supporting the move to PURE? Probably the same reason 
they are depositing far more in ResearchGate or Academia than in the 
GreenOA IRs: Ugly interfaces, no profiles, useless metrics, ...


Your turn,


On 18/05/2016 15:01, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

Thank you for checking this.

However, numbers do not tell the whole story. Elsevier, 
Thomson-Reuters, Springer, etc... behave strategically. Like good 
military leaders, they constantly try and test to see what sticks and 
works. For the moment, Pure's presence is small, but the parent 
company learns through this limited presence, and it obviously studies 
ways to make it more appealing to the repository community.


This reminds me of ScholarOne as deployed by Thomson-Reuters. 
Scielo-Brazil had trouble marking its articles in a suitable XML 
format, and did it largely by hand. When Scielo did all it could to be 
included in the Web of Science, they were also "offered" the use of 
Scholar One. Now their work flow is dependent upon this software tool 
to such an extent that moving out of Scholar One will be very costly.


This reminds me also of the recent report by the NSF which, for the 
first time, relies on Scopus rather than the Web of Science. Elsevier 
is getting closer to the the old dream first entertained by Robert 
Maxwell when he tried to coax the Science Citation Index out of Eugene 
Garfield's hands, so as to be both judge and party in the evaluation 
of journals. Reading how they gloat about this is also instructive: 
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/tracking-progress-in-us-science-and-engineering 
.


We, in the OA community, have been rather naive about the ways in 
which power works and how it it is wielded. We had better wise up, and 
fast.


But thank you again, Jessica, for doing the checking.

--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal

Le mercredi 18 mai 2016 à 12:08 +, Jessica Lindholm a écrit :
Hi Ross (et al.), Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure 
instances as you mentioned that many institutional repositories run 
on Pure. Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories 
(http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 16 PURE-repositories listed, 
whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace has +1300 
instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it 
is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not 
agree that they are many.. Regards Jessica  Lindholm *From:* 
goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf 
Of *Ross Mounce *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54 *To:* Global Open 
Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> *Subject:* Re: 
[GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier 
Elsevier have actually done a really good job of 
infiltrating institutional repositories too: 
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/ 


They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the 
software that many of world's institutional repositories run on. 
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can 
further monetise academic IP. 
Best, 
Ross 
On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
<joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr 
<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> wrote: 


Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ?
Better solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more
efficient, better connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals
etc. 


- Mail d'origine - De: Stevan Harnad
<amscifo...@gmail.com <mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> À: Global
Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org
<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18
+0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier 

Shame on SSRN. 

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley): 


It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no
longer needed, and in which they would not even have been able to
gain as much as a foothold if it had been born digital, instead
of being inherited as a legacy from an obs

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[David Prosser]

Isn’t there a distinction between the use of PURE as a CRIS system and PURE as 
a repository.  I get the feeling the former is much more common than the latter 
and only the latter will appear in OpenDOAR.

David




On 18 May 2016, at 15:20, Ross Mounce 
<ross.mou...@gmail.com<mailto:ross.mou...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
<jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se<mailto:jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se>> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
<joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
<bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com><mailto:ad...@ssrn.com>

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com<mailto:supp...@ssrn.com>

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley<https://www.mendeley.com/

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Hi

Not everyone who uses a CRIS uses it as a repository - few probably do actually 
as they have started a while back with their repository software. If I'm not 
wrong, Symplectic Elements facilitates the workflow from the CRIS to the IR.


Eric Archambault
1science.com<http://1science.com>
Science-Metrix.com<http://science-metrix.com>
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On May 18, 2016, at 09:30, Ross Mounce 
<ross.mou...@gmail.com<mailto:ross.mou...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
<jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se<mailto:jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se>> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
<joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
<bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com><mailto:ad...@ssrn.com>

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com<mailto:supp...@ssrn.com>

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>

[http://static.ssrn.com/Im

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Ross-Hellauer, Anthony]

Hi,

I guess these numbers are just for where PURE is being used for IRs, but PURE 
is more commonly-used as CRIS software – which wouldn’t show in OpenDOAR.

Elsevier claims 200 PURE implementations: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure

But with convergence/interoperability for CRISs and IRs big on institutional 
agendas, this remains an issue for OA advocates.

Best, Tony


Dr. Tony Ross-Hellauer

OpenAIRE<https://www.openaire.eu/> Scientific Manager
University of Göttingen
Email: 
ross-hella...@sub.uni-goettingen.de<mailto:ross-hella...@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
Tel: +49 551 39-31818
Twitter: @tonyR_H<https://twitter.com/tonyR_H>


Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von 
Jessica Lindholm
Gesendet: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:08 PM
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
<joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
<bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com><mailto:ad...@ssrn.com>

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com<mailto:supp...@ssrn.com>

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley<https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> and 
Elsevier<https://www.elsevier.com>
to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
Gordon’s Elsevier
Connect<https:/

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Ross Mounce]

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different
institutions including 28 in the UK:
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance
that the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and
yet this doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace.
It's no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within
OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think
from a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm <jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se>
wrote:

> Hi Ross (et al.),
>
> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you
> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure.
>
>
>
> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I
> find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances
> and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree
> openDOAR is containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it
> doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do
> not agree that they are many..
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jessica  Lindholm
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ross Mounce
> *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
>
>
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>
>
>
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software
> that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
>
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further
> monetise academic IP.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>
> wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
>
>
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Shame on SSRN.
>
>
>
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>
>
>
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>
>
>
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
>  is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>
> Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> *Subject:*
>
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
>
> *Date:*
>
> Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
>
> *From:*
>
> Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com> <ad...@ssrn.com>
>
> *Reply-To:*
>
> supp...@ssrn.com
>
> *To:*
>
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Web Bug from
> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740]
>
> [image: http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>
>
> [image: http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Hea

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Thank you for checking this.

However, numbers do not tell the whole story. Elsevier, Thomson-Reuters,
Springer, etc... behave strategically. Like good military leaders, they
constantly try and test to see what sticks and works. For the moment,
Pure's presence is small, but the parent company learns through this
limited presence, and it obviously studies ways to make it more
appealing to the repository community.

This reminds me of ScholarOne as deployed by Thomson-Reuters.
Scielo-Brazil had trouble marking its articles in a suitable XML format,
and did it largely by hand. When Scielo did all it could to be included
in the Web of Science, they were also "offered" the use of Scholar One.
Now their work flow is dependent upon this software tool to such an
extent that moving out of Scholar One will be very costly.

This reminds me also of the recent report by the NSF which, for the
first time, relies on Scopus rather than the Web of Science. Elsevier is
getting closer to the the old dream first entertained by Robert Maxwell
when he tried to coax the Science Citation Index out of Eugene
Garfield's hands, so as to be both judge and party in the evaluation of
journals. Reading how they gloat about this is also instructive:
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/tracking-progress-in-us-science-and-engineering
 .

We, in the OA community, have been rather naive about the ways in which
power works and how it it is wielded. We had better wise up, and fast.

But thank you again, Jessica, for doing the checking.

-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mercredi 18 mai 2016 à 12:08 +, Jessica Lindholm a écrit :
> Hi Ross (et al.),
> 
> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you
> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure. 
> 
>  
> 
> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories
> (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas
> e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace has +1300 instances.
> However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is containing
> exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either
> lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that
> they are many..
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jessica  Lindholm
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of Ross Mounce
> Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
> 
> 
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the
> software that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
> 
> 
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can
> further monetise academic IP.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL
> <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr> wrote:
> 
> 
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional
> repositories worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the
> green institutional repositories can be replaced by other
> solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more
> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. 
> 
>     
>  
>     
> 
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> <goal@eprints.org>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Shame on SSRN.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and
> Mendeley):
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no
> longer needed, and in which they would not even have been able
> to gain as much as a foothold if it had been born digital,
> instead of being inherited as a legacy from an ob

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Jessica Lindholm]

Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
<joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
<bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com><mailto:ad...@ssrn.com>

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com<mailto:supp...@ssrn.com>

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley<https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> and 
Elsevier<https://www.elsevier.com>
to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
Gordon’s Elsevier
Connect<https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
 post)


Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
reference management and personal library management tools, their
new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
those powered by Scopus<https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus> and
Newsflo<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.newsflo.net>
(a global media tracking tool). In additi

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Isidro

Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I saw 
that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS instead of 
continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the mostly open source 
software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise of national research 
assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there is growing pressure to 
consolidate research data and expect Elsevier, Holtzbrinck (->Digital 
Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and whomever acquires the IP & 
Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests could be acquired by BC Partners, 
itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer Nature - thus possibly more 
consolidation on the way) to increase their stronghold on research data and 
research intelligence. 

Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge 
dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large 
corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies of 
scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the name of 
the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to corporate 
professional solutions, whether we like it or not. 

Eric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523
   






-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Isidro F. Aguillo
Sent: May 17, 2016 4:59 PM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

To my knowledge a few universities are considering to use the CRIS  
software called PURE (by Elsevier, of course) instead of their current  
IRs.

Main reason is the "not enough" added value of current IRs repository  
managers.

Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr> escribió:

> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories  
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional  
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better  
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient,  
> better connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
> Shame on SSRN.
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed  
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no  
> longer needed, and in which they would not even have been able to  
> gain as much as a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of  
> being inherited as a legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its  
> concentrated expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign  
> take-overs) but what's sure is that the distributed network of Green  
> institutional repositories worldwide  is not for sale, and that is  
> their strength...
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk  
> <bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
>  readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>   Forwarded Message 
> Subject:
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN ChairmanDate:Tue, 17 May 2016  
> 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)From:Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com>Reply-To:
> support@ssrn.comTo:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
>
>
> Dear SSRN Authors,
>
>
>  SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
>  joining Mendeley and Elsevier
>  to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
>  services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
>  and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
>  Gordon’s Elsevier
>  Connect post)
>
>
>  Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
>  that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
>  at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
>  committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
>  that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
>  vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
>  reference management and personal library management tools, their
>  new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
>  features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
>  members to authoritative performance measurement tools such a

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Leslie Carr]

The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
independent repositories.

Prof Leslie Carr
Web Science institute
#⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess

On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
<joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> wrote:

Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
<bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:
Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com><mailto:ad...@ssrn.com>
Reply-To:
supp...@ssrn.com<mailto:supp...@ssrn.com>
To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>



[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>
   [http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]


Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley<https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> and 
Elsevier<https://www.elsevier.com>
to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
Gordon’s Elsevier
Connect<https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
 post)


Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
reference management and personal library management tools, their
new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
those powered by Scopus<https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus> and
Newsflo<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.newsflo.net>
(a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and
Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the
divide between the previously separate worlds and workflows of
working papers and published papers.


We realize that this change may create some concerns about the
intentions of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working
paper repository. I shared this concern. But after much discussion
about this matter and others in determining if Mendeley and
Elsevier would be a good home for SSRN, I am convinced that they
would be good stewards of our mission. And our copyright policies
are not in conflict -- our policy has always been to host only
papers that do not infringe on copyrights. I expect we will have
some conflicts as we align our interests, but I believe those will
be surmountable.


Until recently I was convinced that the SSRN community was best
served being a stand-alone entity. But in evaluating our future in
the evolving landscape, I came to believe that SSRN would benefit
from being more interconnected and with the resources available
from a la

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Isidro F. Aguillo]

To my knowledge a few universities are considering to use the CRIS  
software called PURE (by Elsevier, of course) instead of their current  
IRs.

Main reason is the "not enough" added value of current IRs repository  
managers.

Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr> escribió:

> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories  
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional  
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better  
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient,  
> better connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
> Shame on SSRN.
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed  
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no  
> longer needed, and in which they would not even have been able to  
> gain as much as a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of  
> being inherited as a legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its  
> concentrated expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign  
> take-overs) but what's sure is that the distributed network of Green  
> institutional repositories worldwide  is not for sale, and that is  
> their strength...
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk  
> <bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
>  readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>   Forwarded Message 
> Subject:
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN ChairmanDate:Tue, 17 May 2016  
> 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)From:Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com>Reply-To:
> support@ssrn.comTo:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
>
>
> Dear SSRN Authors,
>
>
>  SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
>  joining Mendeley and Elsevier
>  to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
>  services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
>  and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
>  Gordon’s Elsevier
>  Connect post)
>
>
>  Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
>  that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
>  at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
>  committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
>  that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
>  vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
>  reference management and personal library management tools, their
>  new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
>  features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
>  members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
>  those powered by Scopus and
>  Newsflo
>  (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and
>  Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the
>  divide between the previously separate worlds and workflows of
>  working papers and published papers.
>
>
>  We realize that this change may create some concerns about the
>  intentions of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working
>  paper repository. I shared this concern. But after much discussion
>  about this matter and others in determining if Mendeley and
>  Elsevier would be a good home for SSRN, I am convinced that they
>  would be good stewards of our mission. And our copyright policies
>  are not in conflict -- our policy has always been to host only
>  papers that do not infringe on copyrights. I expect we will have
>  some conflicts as we align our interests, but I believe those will
>  be surmountable.
>
>
>  Until recently I was convinced that the SSRN community was best
>  served being a stand-alone entity. But in evaluating our future in
>  the evolving landscape, I came to believe that SSRN would benefit
>  from being more interconnected and with the resources available
>  from a larger organization. For example, there is scale in systems
>  administration and security, and SSRN can provide more value to
>  users with access to more data and resources.
>
>
>  On a personal note, it has been an honor to be involved over the
>  past 25 years in the founding and growth of the SSRN website and
>  the incredible comm

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Ross Mounce]

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software
that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>
wrote:

> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
> Shame on SSRN.
>
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
>  is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
>> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>>
>> Bo-Christer Björk
>>
>>
>>
>>  Forwarded Message 
>> Subject:
>> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
>> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com> <ad...@ssrn.com>
>> Reply-To:
>> supp...@ssrn.com
>> To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>>
>> [image: Web Bug from
>> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740]
>>
>> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>
>>
>> Dear SSRN Authors,
>>
>>
>> SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
>> joining Mendeley <https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> and Elsevier
>> <https://www.elsevier.com>
>> to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
>> services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
>> and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
>> Gordon’s Elsevier
>> Connect
>> <https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
>> post)
>>
>>
>> Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
>> that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
>> at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
>> committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
>> that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
>> vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
>> reference management and personal library management tools, their
>> new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
>> features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
>> members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
>> those powered by Scopus <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus> and
>> Newsflo
>> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.newsflo.net>
>> (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and
>> Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the
>> divide between the previously separate worlds and workflows of
>> working papers and published papers.
>>
>>
>> We realize that this change may create some concerns about the
>> intentions of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working
>> paper repository. I shared this concern. But after much discussion
>> about this matter and 

[GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Joachim SCHOPFEL]

Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. 
- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.
Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.
I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...
Stevan Harnad


On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
<bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
This is an interesting news item which should interest the
 readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.Bo-Christer Björk



  Forwarded Message 
Subject:
Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN ChairmanDate:Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 
(EDT)From:Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com>Reply-To:
support@ssrn.comTo:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi



Dear SSRN Authors,


 SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
 joining Mendeley and Elsevier
 to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
 services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
 and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
 Gordon’s Elsevier
 Connect post)


 Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
 that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
 at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
 committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
 that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
 vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
 reference management and personal library management tools, their
 new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
 features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
 members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
 those powered by Scopus and
 Newsflo
 (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and
 Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the
 divide between the previously separate worlds and workflows of
 working papers and published papers.


 We realize that this change may create some concerns about the
 intentions of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working
 paper repository. I shared this concern. But after much discussion
 about this matter and others in determining if Mendeley and
 Elsevier would be a good home for SSRN, I am convinced that they
 would be good stewards of our mission. And our copyright policies
 are not in conflict -- our policy has always been to host only
 papers that do not infringe on copyrights. I expect we will have
 some conflicts as we align our interests, but I believe those will
 be surmountable.


 Until recently I was convinced that the SSRN community was best
 served being a stand-alone entity. But in evaluating our future in
 the evolving landscape, I came to believe that SSRN would benefit
 from being more interconnected and with the resources available
 from a larger organization. For example, there is scale in systems
 administration and security, and SSRN can provide more value to
 users with access to more data and resources.


 On a personal note, it has been an honor to be involved over the
 past 25 years in the founding and growth of the SSRN website and
 the incredible community of authors, researchers and institutions
 that has made this all possible. I consider it one of my great
 accomplishments in life. The community would not have been
 successful without the commitment of so many of you who have
 contributed in so many ways. I am proud of the community we have
 created, and I invite you to continue your involvement and support
 in this effort.


 The staff at SSRN are all staying (including Gregg Gordon, CEO and
 myself), the Rochester office is still in place, it will still be
 free to upload and download papers, and we remain committed to
 “Tomorrow’s Research Today”. I look forward to and am committed to
 a successful transition and to another great 25 years for the SSRN
 community that rivals the first.


 Michael C. Jensen

Founder &a