EU Open Science Monitor

[...] P(green oa) - # Scopus publications that are Green OA* (Source: Scopus, DOAJ, ROAD, PubMedCentral, CrossRef, OpenAire)
Lluís Revilla
Why restrict only for Scopus?
Lluís Revilla, 15/06/2018 14:55
George Macgregor
I would actually refer anyone reading this to my previous comment, because it addresses this: "It is good to observe important open science tools, such as DOAJ, ROAD, OpenAire, etc. being proposed here; but I worry that there is insufficient emphasis on Green OA. For example, only OpenAIRE will surface data about Green OA, yet OpenAIRE's coverage may be limited. Is probably necessary to seek inclusion of IRs or aggregations outside OpenAIRE infrastructure."
George Macgregor, 18/06/2018 15:30
George Macgregor
But, in addition, by using only Scopus a restrictive - and un-openscience publication ethos - will be imposed on Open Science Monitor. After all, Scopus is only a subset of published literature. An important ethos of open science is promoting the publication of research that might sit outside the scope of Scopus or WoS. The drive to publish in journals indexed by these sorts of services distorts healthy scholarly communication and is precisely why open science principles have been adopted by researchers. Therefore....
George Macgregor, 18/06/2018 15:35
George Macgregor
....Wouldn't Open Science Monitor simply be reinforcing the bias of Scopus within its open science monitoring system?
George Macgregor, 18/06/2018 15:35
Etienne Gaudrain
Publication sources cannot include Scopus. If Elsevier, subcontracted in this monitoring action, had its own open science agenda, they could alter their own criteria for inclusion of Open Access publications in Scopus and steer conclusions about OA. There is clear, immediate conflict of interest.
Etienne Gaudrain, 02/07/2018 12:16
get rid of Elsevier ! There data are fake : - "it is critical to understand that the Journal Impact Factor has a number of well-documented deficiencies as a tool for research assessment" SanFrancisco Declaration - ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics Cenyu Shen and Bo-Christer Björk BMC Medicine201513:230 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 - https://openarchiv.hypotheses.... - https://openarchiv.hypotheses....
odilehennaut, 18/07/2018 16:02
Elena Giglia
Having said that using Scopus is not fair as it's proprietary and immediately opens a conflict of interest, counting the number of green publications included in Scopus is absolutely limitating. You will exclude all the monographs, the book chapters, the SSH journals not included into Scopus and all the emerging communication tools as preprints. "Green" open access is a wider concept, measuring it against Scopus is methodologically flawed. What about all the preprints included in arXiv and not yet published in a journal? They are Green OA and won't be counted excluding also Phyisics. Absurd.
Elena Giglia, 30/08/2018 12:30
Unacceptable restriction to Scopus (for all the reasons mentioned in the previous comment). At the very least it should be complemented by Clarivate Analytics data.
Marc VANHOLSBEECK, 30/08/2018 16:57