<div dir="ltr">[Andrew Gray]<div>Thanks Andrew,</div><div><br></div><div>I completely concur with your concern.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Andrew Gray <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Andrew.Gray@lshtm.ac.uk" target="_blank">Andrew.Gray@lshtm.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="MARGIN:4px 4px 1px;FONT:10pt Segoe UI">
<div>it happens all the time, I've recently had this situation with an Informa paper where we've paid them the money but there is no indication anywhere on the paper or in the html that its open, and it becomes an extra thing to chase up and these are only the papers that I have come across, I'm sure there are many more that should have the information displayed correctly</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In my view this is close to breaking Trade Description Acts. If someone pays for a service they should get it clearly labelled. I have blogged about this repeatedly - with "OA" papers covered with All rights reserved, links to RightsLink, etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There are legal, ethical and moral duties on publishers. We might have hoped that in scholarly publishing companies accepted all these as compelling. Certainly if a scholarly society fails to honour its OA commitment they are break all three. If a for-profit breaks it then it is a sad day for the industry. Unfortunately every week is full of sad days.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If we are really fighting the publishing industry some of whom are trying to take advantage of our goodwill and reluctance to chase this up, then we need regulation. Regulation that says - you guaranteed to make this Open Access - there are basic *trading* standards you must adhere to. If it's OA it must be labelled as such and misleading labels and links should be removed. Otherwise it's no different from cheap shops offering "free" products with hidden strings.</div>
<div><br></div><div>IMO the failure to honour the OA contract by mislabelling is far more serious than "predatory OA publishers"</div><div><br></div><div>P.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="MARGIN:4px 4px 1px;FONT:10pt Segoe UI">
<div> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-WEIGHT:normal">
<div><br></div>
<div>Andrew Gray</div>
<div>Manager LSHTM Research Online</div>
<div>London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine</div>
<div>Keppel St</div>
<div>London WC1E 7HT</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/" target="_blank">http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/</a></div>
<div><a href="http://lshtmlib.blogspot.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://lshtmlib.blogspot.co.uk/</a></div>
<div>020 7958 8193</div>
<div><a href="mailto:andrew.gray@lshtm.ac.uk" target="_blank">andrew.gray@lshtm.ac.uk</a> </div>
<div>Follow us on twitter
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:115%;FONT-FAMILY:'Segoe UI','sans-serif';FONT-SIZE:10pt"><a href="https://twitter.com/LSHTMlibrary" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">@LSHTMlibrary</font></a><br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/LSHTMarchives" target="_blank">@LSHTMarchives</a></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:115%;FONT-FAMILY:'Segoe UI','sans-serif';FONT-SIZE:10pt"><u></u><u></u><u></u></span> </div></div>
<div>
<div>My working days are</div>
<div>Monday to Thursday</div></div></span><br><br>>>> Graham Triggs <<a href="mailto:grahamtriggs@gmail.com" target="_blank">grahamtriggs@gmail.com</a>> 24/01/2014 07:00 >>><br></div><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">On 24 January 2014 05:38, Peter Murray-Rust <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">The commonest offender is Elsevier where CC-BY papers frequently link to RightsLink and are charged. I have highlighted many examples on my blog (<a href="http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr" target="_blank">http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr</a>) and Elsevier says it's "technical problems" and "please give them time to fix it". It should never have happened. I have no idea whether they refund money.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Although the first port of call is usually an Elsevier website. As there may be other routes in to RightsLink, it would be good to fix that - however Elsevier really haven't got an excuse for not making the rights of an Open Access article clear on their own website and not routing through to RightsLink in the first place.<br>
<br></div>
<div>G <br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069
</div></div>