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

Ross Mounce ross.mounce at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 22:52:54 UTC 2017

Actually Heather this has nothing to do with CC-BY licensing.

As you should know from the 2015 paywalling incidents, it doesn't matter
which license Elsevier puts on the article: whether CC BY NC ND, or even
standard copyright "all rights reserved".

 The problems begin before the article is even published: it is Elsevier's
standard practice to get academics to transfer all copyrights to Elsevier
before the article is published. After this Elsevier can do what they want
legally-speaking, including selling access to the article.

So I repeat, this has nothing to do with CC-BY.

One real way to ameliorate this problem could be to ensure that there are
clear clauses in the publication agreements / contracts that are signed
prior to publication, that clearly forbid the publisher from making the
article available behind a paywall, with severe penalties written into the
contract if the company is observed to be in breach of the contract. I'm
not sure that Elsevier or any other legacy publisher would agree to publish
under these strict terms and conditions though.

On 20 Feb 2017 10:41 pm, "Heather Morrison" <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>

> CC-BY permits downstream use without restrictions except for attribution,
> including commercial use.
> While it is problematic to define precisely what constitutes "commercial
> use", with respect to copyrighted works the paradigmatic meaning is sales
> of the works per se.
> This is where copyrighted started, back with the Statute of Anne. Printers
> who had invested in preparing works for commercial sales objected to others
> making copies of their work and selling them.
> If one does not wish for works or rights to be sold, do not use a license
> that grants blanket downstream commercial rights.
> With respect to Elsevier, setting aside the ethics of the matter, they are
> on solid legal ground if they sell works that are licensed CC-BY. So is
> anyone else.
> best,
> Heather Morrison
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> Date: 2017-02-20 5:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com>
> Cc: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: Re: [open-science] Elsevier are telling "mis-truths" about the
> extent of paywalled open access
> 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-t
>> o-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
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069 <01223%20763069>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170220/c4a6ddf7/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list