From: Dirk Pieper <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:48:52 +0100 Dear all, we tried within our OpenAPC initiative to develop a data driven approach. Please see the results here: https://www.intact-project.org/blog/ Next we will try to analyse the data out of offsetting contracts (Springer Compact). Best, Dirk ----------------------------- Dirk Pieper Deputy Director Bielefeld UL www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de www.base-search-net ------------------------------ Am 24.02.2017 um 04:13 schrieb LIBLICENSE: > > 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