[Oa-italia] La risposta di Jon Tennant

Alessandro Sarretta alessandro.sarretta a gmail.com
Mer 4 Lug 2018 01:55:00 CEST

Cavolo, tosto il ragazzo! :-)

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...



*Elsevier*: We are one of the leading open access publishers, and we 
make more articles openly available than any other publisher.

*Tennant*: 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.

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.

On 03/07/2018 19:31, Elena Giglia wrote:
> Ecco la risposta di Jon Tennant alla replica di Elsevier all'articolo 
> segnalato ieri.
>     Elsevier serves the global research community to deliver open science?
> http://fossilsandshit.com/elsevier-open-science-monitor-response/
> Jon smonta frase per frase la replica di Elsevier.
> Copio solo la parte relativa all'Open Science per darvi un'idea.
> /Elsevier embraces the principles of open science. /
> *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 
> **large profit margins* 
> <https://www.relx.com/media/press-releases/year-2018/relx-group-2017-results>*; 
> something well within its right as a company, but disingenuous to 
> pretend it is about embracing open science. Indeed, a recent 
> **independent report* 
> <https://openscience.fi/opening-academic-publishing>*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 **open citations* 
> <https://opencitations.wordpress.com/2017/11/24/elsevier-references-dominate-those-that-are-not-open-at-crossref/>*(or 
> even just some of these).*
> *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. *
> eg
> -- 
> dr. Elena Giglia
> Unità di progetto Open Access
> Direzione Ricerca e Terza Missione
> Universita' degli Studi di Torino
> tel. +39.011.670*.4191*
> Skype: egiglia
> www.oa.unito.it <http://www.oa.unito.it>
> *NOAD OpenAIRE Italy*
> https://www.openaire.eu/
> noad-it a openaire.eu <mailto:noad-it a openaire.eu>
> _______________________________________________
> OA-Italia mailing list
> OA-Italia a openarchives.it
> https://liste.cineca.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia
> PLEIADI: http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/


Alessandro Sarretta

skype/twitter: alesarrett
Web: ilsarrett.wordpress.com <http://ilsarrett.wordpress.com>

Research information:

  * Google scholar profile
  * ORCID <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1475-8686>
  * Research Gate <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Sarretta>
  * Impactstory <https://impactstory.org/AlessandroSarretta>

-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato HTML è stato rimosso...
URL: <http://liste.cineca.it/pipermail/oa-italia/attachments/20180704/28b157bc/attachment.html>

Maggiori informazioni sulla lista OA-Italia