[open-science] Elsevier are telling "mis-truths" about the extent of paywalled open access

Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Feb 20 22:26:26 UTC 2017

I want to thank Ross for the hard work he has put in on this. I know how
hard is it because I did much the same 4 years ago in exposing Elsevier
failure to make Open Access articles visible, and to charge rights fees on
CC BY articles. This led to their seemingly uncaring "bumpy road" dismissal
of the seriousness of misselling.

Nothing seems to have changed. Elsevier either cannot or doesn't care to
put in place a system that works without error. Prices are so high that
even a small error rate effectively deprives the world of significant
amounts of money.

It seems that the most of the University/Library/Funder world does not care
enough to take effective action when sold unacceptable goods and services.
I have consistently argued that until we have a regulator with legal teeth
the waste of public money and knowledge will continue.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> Remember last week I found an article that had been paid-for by the
> Wellcome Trust to be hybrid open access, except it was for sale behind an
> Elsevier paywall at the journal *Mitochondrion* for $35.95 + tax? [0]
> Well, Elsevier have responded, first by sowing doubt on the claim, then 3
> days later admitting I was correct. But stranger still, they said:
> “We’ve gone through the system, this [the Mitochondrion article] is the
> only article affected.”
> Which would be great if this were true but it isn't. There are more
> paywalled "open access" articles that are currently on sale at
> ScienceDirect right now, including one at The Lancet, which Wellcome Trust
> paid Elsevier £5,280 to make open access [1]. Which makes me think:
> A) Elsevier’s entire system for handling hybrid open access is broken
> B) Elsevier are evidently incapable of accurate self-assessment
> In 2014 they eventually refunded "about $70,000" to readers who had
> mistakenly been charged to access articles that should have been open
> access. I wonder how much they will pay out this time...?
> Please do share this with colleagues. I am outraged.
> Links:
> [0] http://rossmounce.co.uk/2017/02/14/elsevier-selling-access-
> to-open-access-again/
> [1] http://rossmounce.co.uk/2017/02/20/hybrid-open-access-is-unreliable/
> --
> --
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
> /-/-
> Ross Mounce, PhD
> Software Sustainability Institute Fellow 2016
> Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge
> www.rossmounce.co.uk <http://rossmounce.co.uk/>
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
> /-/-
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170220/adf83807/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list