[Open-access] [open-science] Elsevier caught selling articles that should have been open access

Tue Mar 10 01:17:57 UTC 2015

Anybody want to buy some reprints
<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=Wiley&publication=CLM&title=HIV%20infection%20en%20route%20to%20endogenization%3A%20two%20cases&publicationDate=18%20DEC%202014&author=P.%20Colson%2CI.%20Ravaux%2CC.%20Tamalet%2CO.%20Glazunova%2CE.%20Baptiste%2CE.%20Chabriere%2CA.%20Wiedemann%2CC.%20Lacabaratz%2CM.%20Chefrour%2CC.%20Picard%2CA.%20Stein%2CY.%20Levy%2CD.%20Raoult&startPage=1280&endPage=1288&copyright=%C2%A9%202014%20The%20Authors%20Clinical%20Microbiology%20and%20Infection%20%C2%A9%202014%20European%20Society%20of%20Clinical%20Microbiology%20and%20Infectious%20Diseases&contentID=10.1111%2F1469-0691.12807&orderSource=Wileyonline&orderBeanReset=true&oa=creativeCommonsBy-nc-nd>?
Would it be "quintuple dipping" if so? One of the reasons the more old
school publishers are thought to be trying to cling on to the NC clauses in
their "OA" offerings is that they don't want to lose revenue from reprints
and other similar transactions.

On 10 March 2015 at 01:42, Couture Marc <marc.couture at teluq.ca> wrote:

>  Wow! We are now witnessing quadruple-dipping :
>
>
>
> 1. Author of an article pays Wiley 3 000 USD OA publication charges
>
>
>
> 2. Libraries pay Wiley hefty subscription fee (journal is hybrid OA)
>
>
>
> 3. Elsevier pays Wiley commercial distribution rights
>
>
>
> 4. Ross Mounce pays Wiley 31,50 USD (plus tax) access fee
>
>
>
> Sadly, all this seems entirely legal. Authors choosing Wiley OnlineOpen
> option keep their copyright but grant Wiley a license allowing it to
> exercise the NC (non-commercial) condition of the CC-license. It’s this
> other license that allows Wiley to sell Elsevier the distribution rights.
>
>
>
> Note that for an article published with CC BY, there would still be
> triple-dipping (step 3 wouldn’t be necessary).
>
>
>
> But what is more troubling here is that when one envisioned or mentioned
> such a scenario (a commercial entity selling a CC-licensed paper while
> hiding its free availability), it was usually with shady, predatory
> publishers in mind. What will we call those giants (Elsevier, Wiley) now?
>
>
>
> So even more reasons (as if there weren’t enough) to avoid hybrid OA (and
> Elsevier, of course, but this has become commonplace).
>
>
>
> Marc Couture
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>

-- 
Scott Edmunds PhD
*GigaScience*
BGI-Hong Kong Ltd.

Tel: (+852) 3610-3531
Cell: (+852) 9249-0853
Twitter: @GigaScience <http://twitter.com/GigaScience>
ORCID: 0000-0001-6444-1436 <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6444-1436>
scott at gigasciencejournal.com
http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/
http://gigaDB.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20150310/3cdf1599/attachment-0002.html>