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