Someone needs to take formal action against Elsevier. Like taking them to court. In this case Wellcome.
Two days ago I posted /pmr/2014/03/24/today-at-elseviergate-more-potholes-and-bumps-on-the-shared-journey-please-help-us-find-paywalled-openaccess-elsevier/ where I mentioned an APC-paid Open Access article behind a paywall. In response to this Elsevier lifted the paywall.
Prompted by a tweed from Ross Mounce I looked again. Now they have put the article back behind the paywall. Requiring non-subscribers to pay for Open Access. Unethical, Immoral and I suspect a clear breach of contract law.
Here’s todays’ screen shot
I simply don’t know what to say. Does anyone care? Or do we continue to pour public funds into an arrogant, avaricious, unprincipled company?
UPDATE: I’ve checked the earlier paywalled Open Access articles and they are not accessible to anyone (“we are experiencing technical difficulties”);
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- pm286 on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Hiperterminal on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Next steps for Text & Data Mining | Unlocking Research on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Publishers prioritize “self-plagiarism” detection over allowing new discoveries | Alex Holcombe's blog on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Kytriya on Let’s get rid of CC-NC and CC-ND NOW! It really matters
-
Archives
- June 2018
- April 2018
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- November 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
-
Categories
- "virtual communities"
- ahm2007
- berlin5
- blueobelisk
- chemistry
- crystaleye
- cyberscience
- data
- etd2007
- fun
- general
- idcc3
- jisc-theorem
- mkm2007
- nmr
- open issues
- open notebook science
- oscar
- programming for scientists
- publishing
- puzzles
- repositories
- scifoo
- semanticWeb
- theses
- Uncategorized
- www2007
- XML
- xtech2007
-
Meta
I guess being available to no one at all is less embarrassing to Elsevier than having a system that charges people money for things they shouldn’t. Keep up the pressure.
(PS I made a comment here a few days ago and it vanished, and when I tried to post again, it told me it was a duplicate comment. It was in the post with “today-at-elseviergate-are-elsevier-are-dishonouring-their-contract-with-wellcome-trust-open-access-behind-paywall/” in the url (I’m not posting full address to avoid triggering any potential spam filters))
Same thing happened to Stephen Curry today:
http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2014/04/02/open-access-reasons-to-be-cheerful-a-reply-to-agrawal/
His ‘OA’ article demands $39.95 baksheesh: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138514000600
To add insult to injury, the doi is broken.
Pingback: Are commercial publishers wrongly selling access to openly licensed scholarly articles? - Creative Commons
Pingback: Are commercial publishers wrongly selling access to openly licensed scholarly articles? - Creative Commons Blog - Creative Commons