From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:39:02 +0000

Thanks for this, Rick -

It is never our intention to charge for material or rights that should
be free, however mistakes do occasionally happen and when they do we
are responsive and correct them.  Other publishers d0 the same, as
Robert Kiley from the Wellcome Trust has noted in his comment on the
blog (see https://disqus.com/by/disqus_bvM2syaWDt/).  He goes on to
add:  "With regard to the two specific examples relating to articles
published by Elsevier, I have spoken with Alicia Wise and we agreed
that the best way to make sure any administrative errors are dealt
with is to email [log in to unmask] (and feel free to cc
[log in to unmask]). This will ensure that any issues are
logged properly with them and can be rectified."

With best wishes,
Alicia


Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: @wisealic



-----Original Message-----
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