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