Covid-19, « Ouvrez largement l’accès aux publications scientifiques ! » / “Open access to scientifiic publications!” – Appel ADBU, Couperin, EPRIST aux éditeurs académiques | ADBU – Association des directeurs et des personnels de direction des bibliothèques universitaires

From Google’s English:  “To fight the pandemic, doctors and researchers have a crucial need to access all of the available scientific literature, too often subject to paid subscriptions.

Research laboratories and hospital services are currently setting up scientific and bibliographic monitoring cells to access publications and fundamental medical documentary resources to ensure patient care. Access to scientific literature is also essential for other audiences plagued by false information about the virus.

The consortium, ADBU and EPRIST join the press release from the international association ICOLC -and-resources and ask editors to open, in these exceptional circumstances, their publications to all, in order to face, united, an unprecedented global health crisis….”

Open science: researchers advocate open access without constraints

From Google’s English: “Open science: researchers advocate open access without constraints 

The Couperin consortium publishes the results of its investigation into publication and open access by French researchers, carried out as part of the “Plan National for Open Science “announced by the Minister of Higher Education, of Research and Innovation in July 2018.

Unprecedented by its perimeter, by the number of respondents close to 12,000 and by their disciplinary variety, this survey makes it possible to draw some lessons on the perception of scientific communication current research by French researchers, mainly on publication in journals and their relationship to open access. Researchers are generally in favor of open access and understand the major issue: dissemination science results in a free way. However, this objective must be achieved for them without effort, in a simple, readable way and without direct funding from laboratories, all without shaking up too the landscape of traditional journals of their discipline to which they are attached. The contributions of scientific publishers, in particular the “big publishers” are sometimes criticized virulent: their excessive costs are pointed out by more than 85% of respondents. The need for evolution of publishing is allowed but must not be based on an increase in journal titles, resulting in over-information and a decline in the quality of research. The research evaluation criteria, in particularly those using impact factors, are also mentioned as obstacles to the development of scientific publishing. The peer review process remains a recognized tool in many disciplines to guarantee the quality of publications. However, it is considered insufficiently valued and little transparent. It should therefore change, in an internationalized and increasingly competitive context, where the evaluation of researchers through their publications would also evolve. Researchers would like to promote sustainable publishing, with ethical publishers, with an economic model virtuous. However, researchers are not prepared to take on additional efforts to adapt to the complexity of the publication process. Support on these questions could be beneficial. The usefulness of open archives, both institutional and thematic, as vectors for the dissemination of open science is well understood and their functions advanced, when they exist (CV, researcher pages) are appreciated. If the filing is considered simple and rapid for a majority of respondents in the archives many such as HAL, however, report that this should not be their task because they see it as purely administrative, uncorrelated from the process of scientific publication. The preprint archives are acclaimed by the researchers who deposit them, mainly in mathematics, computer science, physics and economics; in particular they use the chat functions around the articles. The fear of finding lower quality articles and the fact that preprints are not not peer-reviewed, still inhibits many communities from using them. Nevertheless, we see to emerge this possibility in new fields, like chemistry and life sciences….”

Results of the survey on the publication and open access practices of French researchers

From Google’s English:  “Couperin publishes the results of the survey on publication practices and open access by French researchers conducted in 2019. Unprecedented by the magnitude of its results (11,658 responses), it was able to reach around 10% of the scientific community. It covers their relationships with publishers as well as their uses of open archives or preprint servers  , as well as the sharing of their research data.”

Better than the German Wiley DEAL? The Couperin Consortium reaches a price reduction of more than 13% over four years in an agreement with Elsevier » scidecode

For some, this may seem better than the Wiley Deal in Germany: French universities and research institutions have agreed in principle, through their Couperin consortium, to renew their national licence with Elsevier. In a letter sent on April 11 to Elsevier by Lise Dumasy, president of Couperin, details of the agreement, which is valid for 4 years, effective as of January 1 this year, are revealed.

With this agreement, French universities and research institutions will have access to the publisher’s „Freedom complete edition“ journal bundle including e.g. The Lancet and Cell Press. However, the consortium does not guarantee to the publisher that all its members will adhere to the national licence….

Here are the main points:

  • Most surprising: This agreement provides for a gradual 13.3% reduction in license costs over 4 years -5% in 2019, -4% in 2020, -3% in 2021 and -2% in 2022, in total -13.305% over four years.
  • There is 25% discount on article processing charges (APC). There will also be a compensatory clause if these APCs increase by more than 3.5%. Excluded from this discount are – as I understand it – only the society journals, e.g. The Lancet and the Cell Press titles. Included are all Open Access journals and hybrid journals. The 3.5% threshold refers to annual price increases.
  • Regarding Green Open Access the agreement allows automatic access 12 months after formal publication to the „accepted author manuscript“ (AAM) or post print directly on Elsevier’s service Sciencedirect. After 24 months the pdf file of this manuscript will be deposited on the HAL platform (the CNRS Open Access Repository). The license to make AAMs available is more restrictive than most Creative Commons licenses. It allows reading, downloading, printing, translating, text & data mining but does not allow redistribution or re-use (neither commercial or non-commercial)….”

Un accord de 4 ans entre Elsevier et la recherche française – The Sound Of Science

“Unlike institutions Swedish and Norwegian or at universities such as California , academic institutions and research French have agreed in principle by the voice of their consortium Couperin, for the renewal of a national license with Elsevier.

In a letter sent April 11 to the scientific publisher that Sound Of Science has procured, Lise Dumasy, president of the consortium, details the terms of the agreement whose duration is 4 years, effective from January 1 2019.

With this agreement, French research institutions will have access to the publisher’s “Freeedom complete edition” magazine package, Lancet included, French Medical Library and Cell Press. However, the consortium does not guarantee the publisher that all its members will adhere to the national license….

This agreement provides for a gradual decrease in license costs of 13.3% spread over 4 years….

The agreement provides for Elsevier to make a 25% rebate on its Article processing charge ( APC ), which can be translated as an Item Processing Fee, which is the price paid by a researcher’s laboratory when it publishes in some journals in Open Access…

A highlight of the agreement is what is known as “green open access”. This term originally refers to how to force open publication of scientific articles by publishing “author” versions of scientific articles. Indeed, the law Republic digital provides that the researchers have the right to publish their article without the modifications that the editor has added (that it is corrections of form or form) after 6 months in STEM (science, technology , engineering and mathematics) and after 12 months in SHS (human and social sciences).

Here, the agreement provides for setting up automatic can access after 12 months’ author manuscript accepted “( MAA ) or postprint streaming directly Sciencedirect, the platform from Elsevier and a manual HAL ( the CNRS open archive ) which points to this streaming. Then, in a second time and after 24 months, the pdf file of this manuscript would be found directly on the HAL platform.

This agreement allows Elsevier to urge French researchers not to worry about the deposit of their articles in “green openaccess” by providing a service that does so but with a broader embargo than allowed by law and in streaming and no with the pdf file accessible directly….”

First results of the crowdfunding OpenEdition Books Select experiment: Six titles published in open access – Open Electronic Publishing

“Six titles from the OpenEdition Books Select package have now been published in open access on OpenEdition Books and will soon be published on OAPEN….

OpenEdition Books Select is the first crowdfunding programme for scientific publishing in French. Launched in 2018 in partnership with Knowledge Unlatched and the Couperin consortium, this unprecedented project aims to publish in open access a bundle of books by major publishers in the humanities and social sciences. The crowdfunding campaign is aimed at libraries around the world, enabling them to offer any reader access to French-language content of the highest quality. This ethical and transparent model is based on a collaboration between publishers and libraries committed to open science….”