<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 March 2017 at 16:49, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:A.Wise@elsevier.com" target="_blank">A.Wise@elsevier.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-312666873483008912WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Dear Ross,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">As you are already aware from my comments on your blog, we have reimbursed your payment for the first article described below.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I checked my bank account - far better proof than just a blog comment. I thank Elsevier once again for reimbursing this one article purchase.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_-312666873483008912WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We have not reimbursed your payment for the second article, and it’s not yet clear to us that it should be Open Access. </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>If it is "not yet clear to us" [Elsevier] that the 'Invasive non-typhoidal salmonella disease: an emerging and neglected tropical disease in Africa' Lancet article should be Open Access, why then, subsequent to my purchasing of the article from where it was paywalled at Elsevier's ScienceDirect website, was the paywall removed? </div><div><br></div><div>Why has Elsevier un-paywalled this article and retrospectively ADDED the below statements on the article landing page?: </div><div><br></div><div>"Open Access funded by Wellcome Trust </div><div>Under a Creative Commons license"</div><div><br></div><div>Interested readers can see this for themselves right now here: <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673611617522">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673611617522</a></div><div><br></div><div>That very same article landing page on February 18th 2017 (and for years before this) had no such "open access" statements and made it clear that it was for sale for $35.95 + tax to those without an institutional subscription.</div><div><br></div><div>One can see a screenshot of this very same article landing page, taken on February 18th 2017 here:</div><div><a href="http://rossmounce.co.uk/2017/02/20/hybrid-open-access-is-unreliable/">http://rossmounce.co.uk/2017/02/20/hybrid-open-access-is-unreliable/</a><br></div><div>as a well as a receipt for a PayPerView purchase for access to this article.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't doubt that Elsevier is "not yet clear" about open access - they seem deeply confused about what open access is, how to do it, and when (only after someone complains it seems?). </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_-312666873483008912WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> I appreciate you have discovered a crowd-sourced
spreadsheet that states an APC has been paid for this article, and would be open to receiving evidence that this is in fact the case. </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The source data I used in this instance was not "crowd-sourced", it came from Robert Kiley of the Wellcome Trust. Here is the source data: <a href="https://figshare.com/authors/Robert_Kiley/3230210">https://figshare.com/authors/Robert_Kiley/3230210</a></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_-312666873483008912WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> You, and other readers, may be interested to learn that there are false positives when using these sort of data, as illustrated
here on 23 February: <a href="https://www.intact-project.org/blog/" target="_blank">https://www.intact-project.<wbr>org/blog/</a></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree. In this effort (independent of my investigations) some false positives were identified BUT one true positive was also identified. Well done to Christoph for identifying another wrongly paywalled open access article at an Elsevier journal (Chest), that makes THREE this year alone so far.</div><div><a href="https://openapc.github.io/general/openapc/2017/02/23/elsevier_hybrid_access/">https://openapc.github.io/general/openapc/2017/02/23/elsevier_hybrid_access/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_-312666873483008912WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">There is a broader issue, I suppose, and that is the most constructive and efficient way to check that the data are correct so that the occasional genuine error
can be resolved swiftly.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Here again I agree. This IS a broader issue. This year I have discovered open access articles being sold by LWW, Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press. It is not just Elsevier that are engaged in this practice.</div><div><br></div><div>As I have suggested in previous emails, one way in which Elsevier could ameliorate this problem is through greater transparency. Publish a FULL list of all articles (including authors, titles, journals, and DOIs) for which Elsevier knows it has been paid to make open access. Institutions and funders can then cross-check their data against this list and report any that are 'missing' and hence possibly mistakenly behind a paywall at Elsevier.</div><div><br></div><div>Until we know the full extent and identity of hybridOA articles at journals we may never know the full extent of this problem.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Finally, I return to perhaps the most pressing question, which remains unaddressed:</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">What about other readers around the world who may have also paid for 'mistakenly' paywalled open access articles at Elsevier?</span> </div><div><br></div><div>Last time in 2014, Elsevier reimbursed or credited customers a total of "about $70,000" (source: <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/connect/open-access-the-systems-journey">https://www.elsevier.com/connect/open-access-the-systems-journey</a> ) </div><div><br></div><div>How much will Elsevier pay-out this year to defrauded readers? Has Elsevier even started an audit yet?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div><br></div><div>Ross</div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>