<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Heather Morrison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca" target="_blank">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Elsevier is now one of the world’s largest open access publishers as measured by the number of fully OA journals published. What are the implications? I’d love to hear your thoughts, on list or on the SKC blogpost (see link below).<br></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A practice termed author nominal copyright is observed, where copyright is in the name of the author although the author contract is essentially a copyright transfer. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you very much Heather for highlighting this appalling practice. It deserves the widest possible publicity and condemnation. For me it oversteps the boundaries of ethical practice.<br><br></div><div>Unfortunately I doubt very much whether it was discussed in the recent Jisc "negotiations" with Elsevier and so is probably part of the model where Elsevier is supporting "open science" through "helping authors". <br><br></div><div>This is an area where the Universities and their libraries should be proactive. Relying on a few brave activists outside the system is a recipe for publishers to continually change their terms in their favour.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069</div></div></div>
</div></div>