From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:53:22 +0100

This is a very interesting case.  On Elsevier's website, we see:

Imprint: Elsevier

Which implies some level of responsibility.  But even more intriguing,
the journal does not appear to be openly available through the
Elsevier website -  papers are only available either to Science Direct
subscribers or for purchase at $31.50 a paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09757619

The papers are freely available from the journal website (which
equally intriguingly carries an Elsevier copyright notice, although
the papers themselves are copyright JPR Solutions):

http://www.ditonline.org/home

As far as I can see, and it is a little foggy to me, this journal is
generating author income, big deal revenue and pay-per-view
possibilities - all for the same articles.  It appears to have all of
the bases covered

David



On 23 Oct 2013, at 22:15, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:59:52 -0400

I was under the impression that Elsevier did not publish the journal
that accepted the "sting" article, but that Elsevier has a services
arrangement with the journal's publisher.  Am I mistaken about this?
It's a material item.  In a service relationship, Elsevier ( or any of
the publishers that do this kind of thing, including Wiley, OUP,
Cambridge, Springer, Sage, etc., etc.), the service provider has not
involvement with editorial selection.  Consider the alternative:
would anyone want a service provider to be telling the professional
societies whose journals they host and distribute what to publish?

Assigning responsibility in a situation like this is complicated.  But
once again we should thank Bohannon for making everybody pay
attention.

Joe Esposito