<div dir="ltr"><div>Ecco la risposta di Jon Tennant alla replica di Elsevier all'articolo segnalato ieri.</div><div>
<h2 class="entry-title">Elsevier serves the global research community to deliver open science?</h2>
<a href="http://fossilsandshit.com/elsevier-open-science-monitor-response/">http://fossilsandshit.com/elsevier-open-science-monitor-response/</a></div><div>Jon smonta frase per frase la replica di Elsevier.<br></div><div>Copio solo la parte relativa all'Open Science per darvi un'idea.<br></div><div>
<p style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-weight:400">Elsevier embraces the principles of open science. </span></i></p>
<p style="text-align:justify"><b>Not really, it embraces its own
version of open science, and simply asserting that they do does not make
it so. Their track record in this regard is mixed at best, so that it
might continue to enjoy its </b><a href="https://www.relx.com/media/press-releases/year-2018/relx-group-2017-results"><b>large profit margins</b></a><b>;
something well within its right as a company, but disingenuous to
pretend it is about embracing open science. Indeed, a recent </b><a href="https://openscience.fi/opening-academic-publishing"><b>independent report</b></a><b>
found that Elsevier scores quite low in their openness assessment. I
would love to hear how Elsevier is a supporter of fairness, equality,
rigour, transparency (in pricing, for one), open source, zero-length
embargoes, open data, transparent research assessment, open licensing
(CC BY or CC-0), and </b><a href="https://opencitations.wordpress.com/2017/11/24/elsevier-references-dominate-those-that-are-not-open-at-crossref/"><b>open citations</b></a><b> (or even just some of these).</b></p>
<p style="text-align:justify"><b>At a more fundamental point, you have
provided information that leads us to conclude that around 94% of
Elsevier’s annual article output is still paywalled content (see your
comments, addressed further below). By preventing access to research,
Elsevier actively inhibits the use of useful knowledge and tools that
teachers, citizens, education unions, researchers, policymakers, and
other potential users require in order to meet the everyday challenges
of education systems, and our wider societies. Elsevier’s business model
of knowledge commodification undermines the basic principle that all
people have an equal right of access to knowledge and education,
irrespective of their background or status, but also explicitly
discriminates against the financially underprivileged. I would welcome a
discussion on how this demonstrates Elsevier’s alignment with the
principles of open science. </b></p>
<br></div><div>eg<br></div><div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)">dr. Elena Giglia<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>Unità di progetto Open Access<br>Direzione Ricerca e Terza Missione<br>Universita' degli Studi di Torino<br>tel. +39.011.670<b>.4191</b></span><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)">Skype: egiglia<br></span></div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)"><a href="http://www.oa.unito.it" target="_blank">www.oa.unito.it </a><br></span></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)"><br></span></div><div><b><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)">NOAD OpenAIRE Italy</span></b></div><div><a href="https://www.openaire.eu/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)">https://www.openaire.eu/</span></a></div><div><span><a href="mailto:noad-it@openaire.eu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">noad-it@openaire.eu</a></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(103,78,167)"></span><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>