From: Dirk Pieper <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:48:52 +0100

Dear all,

we tried within our OpenAPC initiative to develop a data driven
approach. Please see the results here:

https://www.intact-project.org/blog/

Next we will try to analyse the data out of offsetting contracts
(Springer Compact).

Best,

Dirk
-----------------------------
Dirk Pieper
Deputy Director Bielefeld UL

www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de
www.base-search-net
------------------------------


Am 24.02.2017 um 04:13 schrieb LIBLICENSE:
>
> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:03:32 +0000
>
> It would be very interesting to see a rigorous, data-driven study of
> the extent of this problem. Ross has found a handful of articles that
> aren’t being made OA despite an APC being paid, and presumably there
> must be more – but are there ten more, or a thousand more?
>
> I wonder if you could arrive at a valid conclusion through a
> sample-based study: take, say, ten issues each from 20 or 30 hybrid
> journals from a variety of publishers, and see how many of the
> putatively OA articles in them are behind paywalls. (But how could you
> know for certain whether an APC had been paid for any particular
> article? Hmmm.)
>
> The characterizations and inferences in Ross’s piece strike me as a
> bit over the top – but clearly there is a problem. I’d love to get a
> better idea of whether it’s small, medium-sized, or large.
>
> ---
> Rick Anderson
> Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
> Marriott Library, University of Utah
> Desk: (801) 587-9989
> Cell: (801) 721-1687
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> On 2/22/17, 8:12 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of
> LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>      From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
>      Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:00:34 +0000
>
>      I’m sure that many of you will have already see the analysis of Ross
>      Mounce showing that a number of papers in hybrid journals where fees
>      have been paid to make the papers open access are being placed behind
>      paywalls on the publishers site:
>
>      http://rossmounce.co.uk/2017/02/20/hybrid-open-access-is-unreliable/
>
>      That post focusses on Elsevier, but he has found other examples at
>      many other publishers (most recently OUP).
>
>      We know that library colleagues spend a lot of time checking to ensure
>      that where the institution has paid an APC for publication in a hybrid
>      journal the paper is actually open access.  Obviously, some cases slip
>      through and Ross has spotted them.  But is it really the
>      responsibility of librarians and independent researches such as Ross
>      to police these issues.  Surely if one has paid - royally, in many
>      cases - one should expect to get the service one pays for?  The
>      disturbing thing is that this comes up every year or so and the
>      response is usually ‘we’re working on it’ - but it should be fixed by
>      now.
>
>      There is also a wider issue.  We are often told that we can rely on
>      publisher-driven services such as CHORUS to fulfil funder OA mandates.
>      But if publishers don’t know the correct status of the papers they
>      publish (and for which they have received money) how can institutions
>      have any faith in these services?
>
>      David Prosser