I ask Julian Huppert and David Willetts to formally investigate Elsevier's unacceptable "Gold Open Access"

Readers of this blog will have seen many posts where I (and by proxy Mike Taylor and others) highlight the unacceptable practices of Elsevier when publishing Gold Open Access. The facts appear to be undisputed – Elsevier is mis-labelling and thereby misselling articles which author have paid for.
My only avenue of contact has been Elsevier’s “Director of Universal Access”.  I have alerted the Director to my concerns and the response has been minimal – assurances that Elsevier have been putting things right and flippant comments such as “Good things take time”. I have yet to be convinced that the Director has any power beyond trying to play down issues and there is no indication that Elsevier take the problem seriously at a high level.
I have therefore written to my MP (and thence to David Willetts – this is the way it is done). Julian and I know each other well – he researches on DNA quadriplexes.  I sincerely hope he and David can redress the balance from the corporate to the public good.
 
Dear Julian,
APPARENT MISSELLING OF GOLD OPEN-ACCESS BY ELSEVIER
I am writing to alert you to the unacceptable quality of Elsevier’s paid Open Access products. I ask you to take this forward and to bring this to the attention of David Willetts and UK research funders. I know you and he are very familiar with Open Access and omit the background.
In essence Elsevier have been selling Gold Open Access and Hybrid Gold Open Access and failing to deliver what the authors/funders paid for. This has happened over a period of two years, and although Elsevier have been alerted many times by individuals they continue to do it.
The evidence is anecdotal but I believe the practice is widespread. Mike Taylor (honorary researcher at Bristol) first announced the
problem two years ago (http://svpow.com). Seven months ago the practice was endemic in Elsevier journals and I have documented many independent problems on my blog (http://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr). I summarise here, but can collate the examples if required.
The problem takes several forms:

  • Elsevier take money for an OpenAccess article and put it behind a paywall, thereby requiring the citizens of the world to pay to read Open Access.
  • Elsevier claim IP rights over the article. Most funders require CC-BY or similar licences with no handover of rights. I find ubiquitous statements such as “(C) Elsevier” or “All rights reserved” which are presumably in breach of the contract that Elsevier and the authors signed. I believe that Elsevier may be breaking both contract law and copyright law.
  • Elsevier state that permissions can (often should) be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Centre (Righstlink). In some cases the  website is so constructed that it effectively convinces readers that Elsevier owns the downstream rights of the article and that all re-use permissions must go through Rightslink. I would compare this closely to other recent misselling of products. It is easy for a reader to pay many thousands of pounds for “permissions” which they do not need to buy.

As our information is anecdotal and only Elsevier knows the details I cannot judge the scale of the problem. I noted 7 months ago that when Elsevier announced new Gold OA journals all of them had severe failings. When I asked Elsevier for a list of Hybrid Open Access papers in their journals they were unable to give it to me.
I am not imputing motive in this letter (it could be incompetence, indifference, or deliberate mislabelling).  However I strongly believe that Elsevier has obtained and is continuing to obtain revenue that they are not entitled to and which they should return to both authors and readers/re-users. I leave it to you as to whether further punitive action is possible and appropriate.
There is a wider cost than the monetary one. By providing mislabeled and mis-sold products Elsevier’s practice has devalued Gold Open Access. As the largest publisher their practice may suggest to other publishers that they need not take care and attention. The opportunity cost is large – readers will not have read articles to which they are entitled and, deterred by the Rightslink cost, will have failed to re-use materials. Authors may have been held to account by funders for “failing” to publish Open Access when it was Elsevier’s fault. It causes delay and waste in scholar’s research.
Elsevier (through their “Director of Universal Access”) have effectively acknowledged fault in messages left on my and Mike Taylor’s
blogs. They state that they are rectifying problems and that this will take “some months”.  They ask us to be patient with the flippant comment “Good things take time”. I regard this as completely unacceptable – a corporation should give a formal believable high-level response to a major problem.
I believe the primary cause is because the scholarly publishing industry is unregulated at any level. Your government is putting many
millions into Open Access with no controls on the quality of the product.
As you are a professional bioscientist and author I will leave it to you as to how you take this forward. My suggestions would be that David Willetts should:

  • write to the board of Elsevier and demand a full public account of what has happened
  • require them to provide a full audit of every paid Open Access paper.
  • require them to identify individuals and organisations who have been mis-sold by Elsevier and to appropriately refund their payments.
  • consider how to build a regulatory process for paid Open Access.

I hope you will forward this to UK government funding bodies such as RCUK. I shall separately copy Robert Kiley (Wellcome Trust).
Best wishes
Peter
[PS I shall shortly be sending you a separate mail on Content Mining – please keep the issues separate.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to I ask Julian Huppert and David Willetts to formally investigate Elsevier's unacceptable "Gold Open Access"

  1. Alicia Wise says:

    Dear Peter:
    We appreciate your concerns about this matter, and I can assure you that Elsevier is taking the issues you have raised seriously and that we are working as diligently as possible to have these resolved. Some elements we were able to address in short order last week, including disabling the links from open access content on ScienceDirect to Rightslink. Please also note that we rapidly committed to reimburse anyone who has made an unnecessary payment. We have completed the investigation for open access content published by us under a CC-BY license and there appear to be 11 customers who may have been impacted and to whom we will reach out in the coming days. We need a little more time to look into other license types.
    We’re currently working on a more complete and official update that will reaffirm our commitment to this shared journey to implement the UK government’s OA policy, while noting that there will be some bumps on the road. But rest assured we take smoothing these out very seriously.
    Thank you,
    Alicia
    Dr Alicia Wise
    Director of Access & Policy
    a.wise@elsevier.com
    @wisealic

    • pm286 says:

      Thank you – I shall blog this so it gets the widest publicity.
      I am disturbed to find that 11 customers have been impacted. I would be grateful if you could show this in Open audit with suitable anonymity.

    • Dear Alica,
      how come a huge company like Elsevier does not have a proper testing framework in action? I know testing is hard and expensive, but looking at the margins Elsevier is getting, I cannot imagine Elsevier cannot do an equally well job as, say, the Linux kernel community… the problems have been discussed before and Elsevier has seen this coming for years already.
      How can you explain that? Where did you outsource your IT development too? I think they are ripping you off… don’t let your scientific customers suffer from that.
      Egon

  2. Charles Oppenheim says:

    “Shared journey”? “Bumps on the road”? Elsevier has shown itself to be utterly incompetent in this sorry saga. It should never have started the journey without proper technical planning and implementation. An analogy would be that I decide to fly to USA, book my tickets, but forget to take my passport with me to the airport.
    This is a PR disaster for Elsevier. I hope that whoever was responsible for the fiasco has been disciplined.

    • pm286 says:

      >> Shared journey”? “Bumps on the road”?
      Yes, this is mindless PR drivel. It seems to have infected Mike Taylor with Stockholm syndrome
      >> Elsevier has shown itself to be utterly incompetent in this sorry saga.
      yes – and I think it’s useful to show that to UK government.
      >> It should never have started the journey without proper technical planning and implementation. An analogy would be that I decide to fly to USA, book my tickets, but forget to take my passport with me to the airport.
      I’d say it’s more like failing to tighten up the wheel nuts on the car. You can hurt others.
      >> This is a PR disaster for Elsevier. I hope that whoever was responsible for the fiasco has been disciplined.
      I hope Elsevier gets disciplined.

  3. Pingback: Current Earth Sciences Library News, No. 518 The Late Adam Sedgwick Edition | The Passion & The Fury: the glamour of libraries

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *