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

Tue Mar 10 06:26:23 UTC 2015

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:17 AM, S.C. Edmunds <scott at gigasciencejournal.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I have done a lot of checking in the past in this respect and it's very
common. Haven't checked this one...

Yes, you are right. The NC is driven by reprints and the justification for
it is - that publishers give to authors - is almost completely specious.
Unfortunately some academics believe CC-NC protects their moral rights (it
doesn't) and the whole area is seriously MUDdied and FUDdled. CC-NC:
* prevents reuse (without permission) of material for teaching
* protects the publishers reprint market.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20150310/0ebc3f2d/attachment-0003.html>