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