From: Kathleen Folger <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:05:16 -0500

Wellcome Trust has been doing some analysis of the articles for which
they have paid an APC. There was a blog post discussing what they
found for 2013-14 (see
https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/03/03/the-reckoning-an-analysis-of-wellcome-trust-open-access-spend-2013-14/)

Of the 2,556 articles for which an APC was paid, 17 were not OA on the
publisher website. Wellcome has other requirements they demand from a
publisher in exchange for the APC--deposit in PubMed Central (PMC) and
attaching a CC-BY license. According to Wellcome, 61% of the articles
for which an APC had been paid in 2013-14 were in full compliance.
But, not being available OA on the publisher website was an issue with
fewer than 1% of the articles.

-Kathleen

_________________________________________
Kathleen M. Folger, Electronic Resources Officer
University of Michigan Library
312 Hatcher North
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1190
V:(734) 764-9375
F:(734) 764-0259
[log in to unmask]

"Nevertheless, she persisted"


On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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