From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:58:38 -0400

Making the rounds for the last couple of days is news about the patent
awarded to Elsevier for its "cascading" method.  Controversy about how
patent-worth this really is or should be.   Of possible interest.

*Chronicle of Higher Education:*

https://shar.es/1wJj1e

Elsevier’s New Patent for Online Peer Review Throws a Scare Into
Open-Source Advocates

"Patents on software can be controversial. And often, so is the company
Elsevier, the giant journal publisher. So when word hit the internet
starting on Tuesday night that Elsevier had just been awarded a patent for
an "online peer-review system and method," reaction from people aligned
with the publishing and open-source worlds came swiftly on Twitter and in
other online venues, much of it reflecting suspicion about the company’s
motives.

[SNIP]

"The concern revolves around the patent Elsevier received for its
five-year-old "article-transfer service," a propriety online system the
company uses to manage journal-article submissions and the ensuing peer
reviews.

"The service also includes a feature that allows articles rejected by one
of the company’s 2,500 journals to be automatically referred to another
relevant Elsevier journal for consideration, with the authors’ consent. The
patent describes the driver of the referral system as a
"journal-recommendation tool."


*Electronic Frontier Foundation:*

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-online-peer-review

Stupid Patent of the Month:  Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review

.."We hope that Elsevier will not be aggressive in its own interpretation
of the patent’s scope.  Unfortunately, its early statements suggest it does
take an expansive view of the patent. F or example, an Elsevier
representative tweeted, "There is no need for concern regarding the patent.
It’s simply meant to protect our own proprietary waterfall system from
being copied."  But the waterfall system, aka cascading peer review, was
known years before Elsevier filed its patent application. It cannot claim
to own that process."


*******