From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:39:02 +0000 Thanks for this, Rick - It is never our intention to charge for material or rights that should be free, however mistakes do occasionally happen and when they do we are responsive and correct them. Other publishers d0 the same, as Robert Kiley from the Wellcome Trust has noted in his comment on the blog (see https://disqus.com/by/disqus_bvM2syaWDt/). He goes on to add: "With regard to the two specific examples relating to articles published by Elsevier, I have spoken with Alicia Wise and we agreed that the best way to make sure any administrative errors are dealt with is to email [log in to unmask] (and feel free to cc [log in to unmask]). This will ensure that any issues are logged properly with them and can be rectified." With best wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Access and Policy Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [log in to unmask] Twitter: @wisealic -----Original Message----- 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