<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Cavolo, tosto il ragazzo! :-)</p>
<p>Io invece riporto un altro pezzo che smonta un altro elemento che
Elsevier porta spesso a suo vantaggio, cioè che Elsevier pubblica
più articoli aperti di ogni altro publisher...</p>
<p>Ale<br>
</p>
<p>-----<br>
</p>
<p><b>Elsevier</b>: We are one of the leading open access
publishers, and we make more articles openly available than any
other publisher.<br>
<br>
<b>Tennant</b>: OK, it does not matter how many times this is
said, but this is called selective reading of data. In 2012-2015,
Elsevier published almost 1.4 million research articles. In 2016,
it published 25,000 Open Access articles (27,000 in 2017). If it
publishes now 400,000 articles a year (as stated above), this
means that the vast majority of its content is still paywalled. If
Elsevier want to call themselves a leading OA publisher, the same
data indicates that they are still virtually the largest
paywall-based publisher, publishing around 375,000 paywalled
articles each year. Proportionally, this means that around 1 in
16, or around 6% of Elsevier’s articles are actually OA; which
many might say makes it one of the smallest OA publishers, when so
many now have 100%. This also clearly does not lay credence to
your claim that Elsevier are embracing open science.<br>
<br>
Note, that these articles often do not even fulfill the widely
accepted requirements for OA, as authors are asked to transfer
‘nominal copyright’ to Elsevier, which in essence is almost the
same thing as a traditional copyright transfer. Furthermore, the
vast majority of these articles are published in hybrid journals.
This is now becoming widely recognised as an unsustainable
approach to OA, and did not have any of the intended effects that
were first articulated (e.g., in creating a transition to full OA,
and creating a functioning market around APCs). Calling yourselves
a leading OA publisher is factually incorrect, and again also
ignores the history of lobbying against progressive OA policies.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/07/2018 19:31, Elena Giglia
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMn2N3B6mkfua60TVBhp2OeznD31eHg+jpzA=TbYRMVscZJAAQ@mail.gmail.com">
<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/"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<!--'"--><br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
OA-Italia mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OA-Italia@openarchives.it">OA-Italia@openarchives.it</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://liste.cineca.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia">https://liste.cineca.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia</a>
PLEIADI: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/">http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font size="2" face="courier,verdana,arial,sans-serif"
color="grey">
--
<p>Alessandro Sarretta</p>
<p>
skype/twitter: alesarrett<br>
Web: <a href="http://ilsarrett.wordpress.com">ilsarrett.wordpress.com</a>
</p>
<p>Research information:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li><a
href="http://scholar.google.it/citations?user=IsyXargAAAAJ&hl=it">Google
scholar profile</a></li>
<li><a href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1475-8686">ORCID</a></li>
<li><a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Sarretta">Research
Gate</a></li>
<li><a href="https://impactstory.org/AlessandroSarretta">Impactstory</a></li>
<!-- <li><a href="https://impactstory.org/AlessandroSarretta"><img src="https://impactstory.org/logo/small" width="80" /></a></li> -->
</ul>
</font>
</div>
</body>
</html>