Elsevier Still Charging For Open Access Copies, Two Years After It Was Told Of The Problem
from the work-in-progress dept
For some reason, Elsevier seems to take delight in being hated by the academic world. Its support for the awful Research Works Act back in 2012 led to a massive boycott of the company by researchers. More recently, it has cracked down on academics posting PDFs of their own research. Now Peter Murray-Rust, one of the leading campaigners for open access, has caught Elsevier at it again. Here's a good summary of what happened from Mike Taylor, whose post "If Harry Potter Was An Academic Work" appeared on Techdirt recently:1. Two years ago, I wrote about how you have to pay to download Elsevier’s "open access" articles. I showed how their open-access articles claimed "all rights reserved", and how when you use the site's facilities to ask about giving one electronic copy to a student, the price is £10.88. As I summarised at the time: "Free" means "we take the author's copyright, all rights are reserved, but you can buy downloads at a 45% discount from what they would otherwise cost." No-one from Elsevier commented.Stung by Murray-Rust's outraged post, the Director of Access and Policy at Elsevier, Alicia Wise, replied as follows:
2. Eight months ago, Peter Murray-Rust explained that Elsevier charges to read #openaccess articles. He showed how all three of the randomly selected open-access articles he looked at had download fees of $31.50. No-one from Elsevier commented (although see below).
3. A couple of days ago, Peter revisited this issue, and found that Elsevier are still charging THOUSANDS of pounds for CC-BY articles. IMMORAL, UNETHICAL , maybe even ILLEGAL. This time he picked another Elsevier OA article at random, and was quoted £8000 for permission to print 100 copies.
As noted in the comment thread to your blog back in August we are improving the clarity of our OA license labelling (eg on ScienceDirect) and metadata feeds (eg to Rightslink). This is work in progress and should be completed by summer. I am working with the internal team to get a more clear understanding of the detailed plan and key milestones, and will tweet about these in due course.Although that sounds superficially reasonable, it's not, as Taylor points out:
First of all, either this is deliberate fraud on Elsevier's part -- charging for the use of something that is free to use -- or it's a bug. Following Hanlon’s razor, I prefer the latter explanation. But assuming it's a bug, why has it taken two years to address? And why is it still not fixed?To put things in context:
Elsevier, remember, are a company with an annual revenue exceeding £2bn. That’s £2,000,000,000... Is it unreasonable to expect that two years should be long enough for them to fix a trivial bug?Once more, Elsevier does not come out of this well. It was told two years ago that there was a problem with the way it presented open access articles, since the impression was given -- for whatever reason -- that you had to pay for things that were actually freely available. As Taylor points out, even under the most generous interpretation, it is simply not acceptable for a multi-billion dollar publishing company to ignore this problem for so long. Until it fixes this throughout its portfolio of journals -- and maybe offers some refunds for the fees it has taken without any justification -- the academic community is bound to feel that despite the boycott and bad publicity surrounding its aggressive actions against scholars, Elsevier has learnt nothing and cares less.
All that's necessary is to change the "All rights reserved" message and the "Get rights and content" link to say "This is an open-access article, and is free to re-use". We know that the necessary metadata is there because of the "Open Access" caption at the top of the article. So speaking from my perspective as a professional software developer of more than thirty years' standing, this seems like a ten-line fix that should take maybe a man-hour; at most a man-day. A man-day of programmer time would cost Elsevier maybe £500
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: academic journals, open access
Companies: elsevier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Because money
If academics and schools really want to teach that company a lessen, punish them for their parasitic and greedy actions, then they need to take that boycott and make it permanent. Drive the company into the dirt by starving them of revenue, and I bet the company/companies that show up to replace them will be a lot more willing to work with the people who are providing the content that makes the service valuable.
Also, a 'bug' that charges people, or makes them think they need to pay for documents that are supposed to be free... yeah, if anyone actually believes that's due to a bug, I've got some nice real-estate they might be interested in, maybe an anti-tiger rock or two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because money
Uploading it to piratebay would still be a better solution than this.
Create a fuckin' wikipedia or confluence for CC publishings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? That's what CC-BY means.
I don't see that they don't do this. There is no obligation for a business to tell people "you can get this elsewhere cheaper" (but classifying this as "open access" actually does that as well).
Customer relations would likely make it prudent to tell people at least for electronic copies that they can be redistributed freely before someone springs the money for 10000 copies. Even then, they provide the access and download capacity for that number of copies.
So no, I don't see anything wrong with that. Richard Stallman financed the early FSF by selling tapes with GNU software on it (freely redistributable) for $150 a pop.
They may have a problem regarding bad customer relations here (we are talking Elsevier, right?), but not really a legal problem.
If they were not attaching the licenses, or if they were suing people for further redistribution or anything like that: sure, we are talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what? That's what CC-BY means.
Elsevier is using a misleading labeling, which casts doubts on the CC indicator. While the can charge for the original download, they are charging for users making their own copies. That is they are saying we are denying you the rights granted by a CC license, by requiring you to pay us for copies you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what? That's what CC-BY means.
And it can cost up to 6000 GBP for the authors so the service should be gold-plated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what? That's what CC-BY means.
Frankly, distributing a CC-BY paper through Elsevier is likely not using CC-BY the way it was envisioned, but as long as the author or anybody else does not set up parallel channels, there might even be some royalties getting back.
It's not a convincing fit for me, but if Elsevier manages to make it work, they are just better at finding suckers.
It's not like RedHat does not make a killing with marketing Free Software as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elsevier's explanation
In summary:
Every article on ScienceDirect had a link offering readers the opportunity to purchase additional rights which in some cases were not needed.
We never intended to charge for material or rights that should be free. This problem should not have arisen, and now that it has, we are taking all possible steps to correct it and reimburse those affected. We are immediately refunding all those we are aware of, as well as others we learn of.
About 50 customers have paid unnecessarily. Eleven of the articles were published under a CC-BY license (totaling less than $1,200) and the rest under other CC licenses or the Elsevier User License. The total value of all these orders is about $4,000.
We are stopping the means that led to inadvertent requests for payment and expect the issue to be largely resolved as a result. We readily invite users to contact us via universalaccess@elsevier.com immediately if they find remaining loopholes.
In this article we provide insight into the many systems changes that Elsevier and other publishers are making to support growing interest in open access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elsevier's explanation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elsevier's explanation
_____________
And yet you did. Scumbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What bug?
Bug? Looks to me like this is a feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What bug?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What bug?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What bug?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]