Subject: [AUDITORY] EU monitoring Open Science: make your voice heard! From: Etienne Gaudrain <egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:40:28 +0200 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>--0000000000001360dc057002aabf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, The EU has launched an initiative supporting Open Science, based on the conviction that for science to be useful for society, it has to be transparent and accessible. It has created an Open Science Monitor (OSM) to gather data/metrics meant at guiding policy making on this topic. Now, it has appointed Elsevier as a sub-contractor on the OSM... which is rather shocking when you remember how strongly opposed Elsevier is to open science (like when they patented peer-review...). Here's a nice comment article on this topic: https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2018/jun/29/elsevier-= are-corrupting-open-science-in-europe The reason why I am bringing this to your attention is that the EU is collecting feedback on the metrics they intend to use for the OSM, until August, 31st, 2018. I can only urge you to login to the website below and to voice your ideas about these metrics: https://www.makingspeechestalk.com/ch/Open_Science_Monitor/ You will see that Elsevier is basing most of its proposed metrics, totally or partially, on its own products (Scopus, Mendeley, Plum Analytics). In other words, imagining that Elsevier has a specific agenda for Open Science, it is in the perfect position to alter its own records to support its agenda. For instance, a proposed metric is "Scopus publications that are Open Access". If Elsevier wanted to claim that OA is not widely adopted, they could simply stop referencing OA articles... Nowhere is such conflict of interest acceptable, and as a scientist, such observation-bias makes me cry inside... Cheers, -Etienne --=20 Etienne Gaudrain, PhD Centre de Recherche en Neurosciences de Lyon - CNRS UMR 5292 Universit=C3=A9 Lyon 1 50 av. Tony Garnier 69366 Lyon Cedex 7, FR UMCG, Afdeling KNO, BB20 PO Box 30.001 9700 RB Groningen, NL Phone +31 5036 13290 Skype egaudrain Note: emails to this address are limited to 10 MB. To send larger files, use egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx --0000000000001360dc057002aabf Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Dear all,<br><br>The EU has launched an initiative support= ing Open Science, based on the conviction that for science to be useful for= society, it has to be transparent and accessible. It has created an Open S= cience Monitor (OSM) to gather data/metrics meant at guiding policy making = on this topic. Now, it has appointed Elsevier as a sub-contractor on the OS= M... which is rather shocking when you remember how strongly opposed Elsevi= er is to open science (like when they patented peer-review...). Here's = a nice comment article on this topic:<br><br><a href=3D"https://www.theguar= dian.com/science/political-science/2018/jun/29/elsevier-are-corrupting-open= -science-in-europe">https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2= 018/jun/29/elsevier-are-corrupting-open-science-in-europe</a><br><br>The re= ason why I am bringing this to your attention is that the EU is collecting = feedback on the metrics they intend to use for the OSM, until August, 31st,= 2018. I can only urge you to login to the website below and to voice your = ideas about these metrics:<br><br><a href=3D"https://www.makingspeechestalk= .com/ch/Open_Science_Monitor/">https://www.makingspeechestalk.com/ch/Open_S= cience_Monitor/</a><br><br>You will see that Elsevier is basing most of its= proposed metrics, totally or partially, on its own products (Scopus, Mende= ley, Plum Analytics). In other words, imagining that Elsevier has a specifi= c agenda for Open Science, it is in the perfect position to alter its own r= ecords to support its agenda. For instance, a proposed metric is "Scop= us publications that are Open Access". If Elsevier wanted to claim tha= t OA is not widely adopted, they could simply stop referencing OA articles.= .. Nowhere is such conflict of interest acceptable, and as a scientist, suc= h observation-bias makes me cry inside...<br><br>Cheers,<br>-Etienne<br><br= ><br><br>-- <br>Etienne Gaudrain, PhD<br><br>Centre de Recherche en Neurosc= iences de Lyon - CNRS UMR 5292<br>Universit=C3=A9 Lyon 1<br>50 av. Tony Gar= nier<br>69366 Lyon Cedex 7, FR<br><br>UMCG, Afdeling KNO, BB20<br>PO Box 30= .001<br>9700 RB Groningen, NL<br><br>Phone +31 5036 13290<br>Skype egaudrai= n<br><br>Note: emails to this address are limited to 10 MB. To send larger = files, use <a href=3D"mailto:egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx">egaudrain.cam@xxxxxxxx= om</a>. </div> --0000000000001360dc057002aabf--