[GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new "sharing" policy

Fri Jun 12 01:08:19 BST 2015

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:didier.pelaprat at inserm.fr] 
> ENVOYÉ : 11 juin 2015 05:14
> À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
> CC : frederique.bordignon at enpc.fr; 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 [2] 
> 
> 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 [3] 
> 
> Sorry not to have the English translation yet. Should be available probably in july. 
> 
> have a nice day. 
> 
> Didier 
> 
> DE : goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] 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: a.wise at elsevier.com 
> 
> TWITTER: @WISEALIC 
> 
> FROM: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] 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 [4]), it is stated that in order to help repositories "ensure self-archived accepted manuscripts can be made available in line with publisher's hosting & posting policies", Elsevier will be "taking steps to tag all manuscripts from the point of acceptance with key metadata". And also this: "IRs will have access to the tagged manuscripts if an author self-archives." 
> 
> What I understand here is that these embedded metadata could be used by Elsevier to automatically, and more efficiently, monitor policy compliance (notably embargo). Which they have certainly the right to do, by the way. The point is: do we have, or wish to work for them on this? 
> 
> Finally, I suggest that you read the Comments section of the above-cited page, especially Ms Wise's answers, which are - how to say it - more to the point than what I'd been expected to find. 
> 
> Marc Couture 
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [1]

Links:
------
[1] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[2]
http://poynder.blogspot.fr/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html
[3] http://vimeo.com/127546263
[4]
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi�ce jointe HTML a �t� nettoy�e...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150612/3b331670/attachment-0001.html 