[open-science] [Open-access] Open Science Anthology published
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Jan 27 17:02:22 UTC 2014
I completely concur with your concern.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Andrew Gray <Andrew.Gray at lshtm.ac.uk>wrote:
> 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
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.
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.
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.
IMO the failure to honour the OA contract by mislabelling is far more
serious than "predatory OA publishers"
> Andrew Gray
> Manager LSHTM Research Online
> London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
> Keppel St
> London WC1E 7HT
> 020 7958 8193
> andrew.gray at lshtm.ac.uk
> Follow us on twitter
> @LSHTMlibrary <https://twitter.com/LSHTMlibrary>
> @LSHTMarchives <https://twitter.com/LSHTMarchives>
> My working days are
> Monday to Thursday
> >>> Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com> 24/01/2014 07:00 >>>
> On 24 January 2014 05:38, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The commonest offender is Elsevier where CC-BY papers frequently link to
>> RightsLink and are charged. I have highlighted many examples on my blog (
>> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr) 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.
> 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.
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science