From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:28:45 +0000

Hi Alicia

Thanks for this - very helpful.

I must admit that in my ignorance I didn't realise that some of the
journals in the Freedom Collection were complementary - a sort of "buy
2000, get 50 free"?  Is there a list of these titles - I was probably
looking in the wrong place, but I couldn't find one.  All I found was
the general Freedom Collection list
(http://info.sciencedirect.com/techsupport/journals/freedomcoll.htm)
and it's not mentioned there.

Thanks

David


On 30 Oct 2013, at 23:40, LIBLICENSE wrote:

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