In reply to my post on OUP's failure to remove the Rightslink page Josh has pointed out something even worse. I am so mad that I have to breathe deeply. This is an industry which trumpets its integrity and quality. The following shows the reverse end of both scales.
The link he gives points to this [screenshot]:
- MY article
- is being resold - NO option for free access
- without my permission
- expressly violating the licence I attached and violating copyright
- without any notice of Open Access
I am not prepared to spend 37 USD to see whether the have retained the Open Access licence on the paper itself - perhaps some reader can tell me. But imagine a reader who paid 37 USD and then found that the article itself was free - is that not close to deliberate deceit?
I and my co-authors deliberately pay for Open Access because we ant as many people as possible to read it. By removing the Open Access ntice Ingenta are insulting our integrity - we do not appear as Open Access scientists who have paid to free our work.
So this is in fragrant violation of both ethics and law. How did Ingenta get the article? Did OUP licence it to them? In which case OUP has a much more serious case to answer than failing to remove Rightslink. Did OUP get paid for this? I don't know. If they DID then they are also guilty of violating my copyright as commercial re-use is forbidden:
the CC-NC licence requires that it is retained on our work but this has been deliberately and contemptuously removed.
IT GETS WORSE:
Note the keywords. These are garbage. The article is about an enzyme database. There is no way in which any of the 3 keywords bears the slightest resemblance. So, by doing this, Ingenta have corrupted our work and besmirched our reputation - it appears we are incompetent to provide metadata. I care very much about metadata - it's a significant part of my research. Ingenta couldn't care about anything as long as the money rolls in.
I shall wait to see how OUP and Ingenta reply to this blatant theft and corruption of intellectual property.
The scary thing is that I wasn't even looking for this. I casually visited an article I had written and discovered this disgrace. Do those statistics scale to all TA publishers and all journals. I wouldn't be surprised.
Publishers often shout about how wonderful they are in preserving the scientific record - "the private sector" is fitter to maintain archives than government.
It's clear that significant sectors of the publishing industry are incompetent, careless of ethics, indifferent to quality. If THEY violate copyright, they cannot complain if we do. It's time to end this stupidity and release scientific work to the world.