Elsevier are corrupting open science in Europe | Science | The Guardian
▻https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2018/jun/29/elsevier-are-corrupting-open-science-in-europe?CMP=share_btn_fb
Now, the European Commission have launched an Open Science Monitor to help provide data on the development of Open Science in Europe. To their credit, the Commission have been relatively transparent about the methods and data sources used for this and who is involved. They are also inviting comments to improve the indicators.
Advertisement
However, a cursory glance at the methodological note reveals something rather odd. The subcontractor for the monitor is Elsevier, the publisher and data analytics provider. Within scholarly communications, Elsevier has perhaps the single worst reputation. With profit margins around 37%, larger than Apple and big oil companies, Elsevier dominate the publishing landscape by selling research back to the same institutes that carried out the work.
It gets worse too. Throughout the methods, you can see that there is an overwhelming bias towards Elsevier products and services, such as Scopus, Mendeley, and Plum Analytics. These services provide metrics for researchers such as citation counts and social media shares, as well as data-sharing and networking platforms. There are now dozens of comments in the note pointing out the clear bias towards Elsevier and the overlooking of alternatives.
With so many glaring issues, we should ask why the European Commission allowed this. It seems like a profoundly undemocratic practice to have a company with such an anti-open history now with such a powerful position in the future of Open Science in Europe. The risk here is that by using Elsevier services for such a crucial task, it creates a perverse incentive for researchers to use those services, and thus become dependent on them. This very real issue became apparent last week when Mendeley encrypted its databases, making it more difficult for users to access even their own data. Researchers could become trapped in a relationship with Elsevier in which they are the service and content providers, the product and the consumer.
It is a cruel irony that Elsevier are to be paid to monitor the very system that they have historically fought against. The European Commission should remove Elsevier as sub-contractor and look into better options such as an independent group with no conflicts of interest. It is time to stand up to these ruthless mega-corporations before they corrupt Open Science.
