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