I am delighted to report that OUP has responded rapidly to my concern about charging for Author-pays Open Access papers which are intended to be free to read and free to re-use non-commercially for all:
PMR: Good to have the rapid response and the promise of remedial action. There are still a number of outstanding points:
- How much money did Ingenta (and others) receive for selling free articles?
- What are they going to do with the money?
- Why is this “oversight” endemic in non-OA publishers? (I have found this in Springer and ACS as well and I haven’t stopped looking)
PMR: How much damage has this done to the reputation of the toll-access publishing community? It claims “high quality”, “responsible preservation”, the “private sector” is the appropriate place for maintenance of the scholarly record. Yet it cannot manage the simple task of differential access to sites.
From now on I shall assume that all major science publishers are aware of this blog and therefore aware of this problem. I expect them to check that their PAID “open access” does proper justice to the concept. Anything less is a mixture of deceit, arrogance, cynicism, incompetence, or business-driven non-compliance. Any single one of these makes a publisher unfit to be the paid guardian of science. At present the ACS has failed to meet my criteria.
PS – I don’t ENJOY doing this – I’d rather write code. If anyone – like Steve Bachrach has – wants to help it’s easy:
- find a publisher who offers some form of paid open/free access
- find a paper offered under such a scheme (very rare in some publishers)
- see if it is possible to find access controls to read the paper
- report it
… and let me write about it.