Open access?

[Stephen J Bensman]

Henk, 
Thank you very much for the clarification.  I was somewhat stunned to find that thing.  I have already explained in my response to Fil the importance of Google Scholar having access to the Elsevier database.  Without such access it could not deliver valid results, and I was just wasting my time testing its validity.  However, my results are validating the use of GS for evaluative purposes, if only for the different and broader perspective that it offers on matters.

Respectfully,

Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D.
LSU Libraries
Lousiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803






-----Original Message-----
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Moed, Henk (ELS-AMS)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:57 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Open access?


Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your comment on indexing in Google Scholar. There appears to be serious misunderstanding in your communication which we would like to correct. Elsevier allows Google, Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search (and other search engines) to index the full text on ScienceDirect (SD) (referred to also as deep indexing). We have an agreement in place with these search engines and have even set up special processes to facilitate indexing to ensure completeness and provide structure metadata to ensure accurate search results.  

That said, there is clearly a potential for confusion in the policy wording that you came across and we are currently looking to clarify that to prevent further misunderstanding. We thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Kind Regards

Henk F. Moed
Senior Scientific Advisor
Elsevier
Amsterdam, The Netherlands


-----Original Message-----
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J. Bensman
Sent: 11 April 2012 17:00
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Open access?


Quentin,
Thank you for the Guardian articles on Elsevier.  I would like to add 
some observations of my own on this matter.  Elsevier runs a good 
operation and publishes important materials.  I work with their support 
people and find them informative and helpful.  But Elsevier has always 
been non-cooperative, tries to force people to operate within its 
system, and monopolizes its materials to maximize its profit.  This is 
the nature of the beast.

This tendency has recently had extremely negative consequences.  
Since November, 2004, the field of scientometric evaluative data has 
been been in a state of revolution.  In that month Elsevier launched 
Scopus, and Google launched Google Scholar, breaking the monopolistic 
hold Thompson Reuters ISI had on evaluative scientometric data.  Since 
then there has been a Hobbesian battle among these three titans, 
because--if I am correct--production and control of such data is very 
profitable.  Such data is particularly needed in Europe and other
places, 
where science and universities are funded by the central governments, 
which need such data for allocation decisions.  Thompson Reuters ISI 
(The Empire) has struck back by abandoning its long-standing policy of 
relying on mainly journals and launching its Book Citation Index.

Google Scholar was really too difficult to use for evaluative purposes, 
but this has changed with the launching of the Publish or Perish 
program by Anne-Wil Harzing.  This program can be retrieved for free 
from her Web site at http://www.harzing.com/.  It is revolutionary in 
that it establishes effective statistical and bibliographic control over

Google Scholar, making it feasible to use it for evaluative purposes.  I

am doing research with others to test the vaiidity of using Google 
Scholar for evaluative purposes, using data which Anne-Wil has 
graciously given me with her program.  It is the most stupendous and 
interesting data set I have ever worked with.  However, in doing this 
research, I came across this statement on Elsevier's SciVerse Web site 
at the following URL:

http://www.info.sciverse.com/sciencedirect/buying/policies/crawling

If one knows anything how Web seach engines operate, it is quite 
obvious that this is a knife aimed by Elsevier at Google's jugular, 
blocking it from indexing the publications of one of the leading 
publishers of scientific materials.  Since I working with chemistry, I
am 
going to have to check what effect this has on Google Scholar.  
Fortunately Anne-Wil's data allows me to determine from where Google 
Scholar is retrieving its data.  The only question I have is whether
this 
is an advantageous or self-destructive move on the part of Elsevier, 
whose publications and authors will be rated lower by Google Scholar, 
which can be utilized without cost by cash-strapped institutions.

Respectfully,
Stephen J. Bensman, Ph.D.
LSU Libraries 
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
USA 


   

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:29:03 +0100, Quentin Burrell 
<quentinburrell at MANX.NET> wrote:

>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>Members might be interested in these two related articles in today's 
Guardian newspaper.
>
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/09/wellcome-trust-
academic-spring
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/09/frustrated-blogpost-
boycott-scientific-journals
>
>
>Quentin Burrell