From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:17:58 +0000

Hi David and Joe,

I'm writing to respond to the thread you started about Drug Invention
Today.  As a result of the Bohannon article we have been investigating
this title, and have uncovered a number of issues.  There is a formal
process underway at present to address these.

We are indeed committed to the integrity and quality of the scientific
record, and hold this as one of Elsevier's fundamental principles.  In
our contracts with organizations for whom we host content, as in this
case, we clearly lay out quality assurance expectations.  In this case
there was poor - very poor - compliance.  We are reviewing our
compliance monitoring and tracking procedures.

The title was included in the Freedom Collection as part of the
complementary title list, had no assigned cost, and subsequently no
"big deal' revenue.

With kind wishes,

Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier
[log in to unmask]
@wisealic


-----Original Message-----
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:07:48 +0000

I agree, it's not at all an easy call.

intuitively, I'd say that it depends on the level of service.  I don't
think that anybody would suggest that a typesetter, to take an extreme
example, has any responsibility for the editorial content.  I would
suggest that neither does a hosting service such as HighWire.

But the publisher?  What if a publisher says something along the lines of:

"Access peer reviewed full-text articles...Looking for trusted
content?"  (http://info.sciencedirect.com/sciencedirect?utm_source=sciencedirect&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=aboutsd)

as Elsevier does for ScienceDirect (and I'm sure if I checked all the
publishers would say something similar about their own platforms)?
Does the customer not have some expectation that what they are paying
for is actually peer reviewed?  Obviously, we can balk at service
providers making the editorial decisions, but surely it is not
unreasonable to expect that the providers can at least verify the
claims they are making to customers.

David


On 27 Oct 2013, at 22:11, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:56:06 -0400

"Which implies some level of responsibility."  I am not arguing with
that, nor do I have any reason to defend Elsevier.  I am asking a
different question:  How does one assess a service provider?  If
HighWire or Atypon provide Web hosting for a bad journal, do we object
to them?

I don't know the specifics of Elsevier's relationship with the journal
in question, and I am not trying to reopen the Bohannon debate.  What
I am wondering about, in the abstract, is whether or not service
providers are responsible for editorial decisions.  It's not an easy
call.

Joe Esposito


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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