Show me the data!
Header

April Clyburne-Sherin asked an interesting question on the OpenCon Discussion List recently:

I am an author on a manuscript that my lab wants to publish in a subscription journal that normally retains the copyright. The manuscript is a desirable one so they are “willing” (haha) to provide it “open access” (that was my stipulation to my lab when they started speaking with the publisher). My lab is happy with this, but I do not trust the publisher and want to be able to negotiate a publishing agreement that guarantees:
  • We retain the copyright;
  • The article will be open access forever and no version will be behind a paywall at their journal ever;
  • That there are no sign-ins, registrations, DRM viewing issues, or other ‘free” obstacles to viewing the article.

Comment: Quite rightly, April does not trust the publisher to make the published work fully open access in perpetuity, and wants to do more as an author, with the publishing agreement (a formal contract) to ensure that the publisher will actually provide the exact services she wants.

Recent events this year, whereby Elsevier, Wiley and Springer have all been caught red-handed selling access to hybrid open access articles justifies this lack of trust. It’s a sad state of affairs that authors such as April & myself no longer trust some service providers to actually provide the services we pay them for (e.g. Open Access).

Some helpful links & pointers have been provided on the discussion list, and this may be a concern many other scholarly authors have so it’s valuable to collate, discuss and publicise possible solutions to the thorny problem of publishing agreements with legacy publishers. I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers here and I think organisations like SPARC might want to act on this one.

Lorraine Chuen links to the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) ‘Resources for Authors’ page which amongst other things discusses the Canadian SPARC Author Addendum. I knew about the US SPARC Author Addendum, but I never knew there was a Canadian version too!

Matt Menzenski links to the University of Kansas Authors & Copyright page. I particularly like An Introduction to Publication Agreements for Authors (Armstrong, 2009) that they link to at the very top – it’s really useful information.

My Suggested Solutions

For my part, I chipped-in with four different ways that in their own way either partially or wholly fulfil some or all of the criteria April is looking for:

1.) Wait for them to send you their proposed publishing agreement & change the terms to ones you find agreeable

If they send you a standard CTA (Copyright Transfer Agreement) form as PDF, you can modify the wording of that PDF to terms you prefer and send it back to them and they probably won’t even notice as long as it’s signed & doesn’t look too different. It’s cheeky, but I got away with it for a book chapter once. Be careful to remove / replace the term ‘work for hire’ – it may look like an innocuous statement but apparently this is fairly key in legal terms – I neglected to remove that from my book chapter agreement.

 

2.) Transferring away your copyright away to another person
Not as easy perhaps for multi-author papers but Mike Taylor has a good (successful-ish) anecdote about transferring his copyright to his spouse, thereby preventing the Geological Society from taking the copyright of the work.

 

3.) Claim that one of the authors is a US federal government employee
Use Section 105 of the US Copyright Act by pretending that at least one of the authors is an employee of the US Government. Works of the U.S. federal government cannot be copyrighted by their authors in the US – they must be public domain, which is in practice achieved by applying the Creative Commons Zero waiver to the paper. The CTA form may contain a check box asking about this. If not, just email them about it. Michael Eisen famously, successfully liberated a NASA space research paper from behind a paywall at Science (AAAS), using Section 105 as justification.
Will publishers really bother fact-checking your assertion about the employment of one of the authors? I don’t think so. It could land them in big trouble if they dare disregard the US Copyright Act.

 

4.) Simply do not sign, or do not return the unfavourable publishing agreement
Another risky approach is simply not to sign or not to return the CTA the publisher sends you after acceptance (with the obvious risk that this could delay publication). I think this is perhaps the most promising approach, there is strong evidence that many academics currently employ this practice. When you think about it: publishers actually need our papers or they’ll go bust. They need a constant stream of content to justify their existence. If you don’t sign-off on their stipulated terms and conditions, after acceptance, they do have real pressures to get on and publish the paper anyway, especially with the increased focus on optimising submission to publication times these days.

 

I’ll let Reinhard Diestel (mathematician, University of Hamburg) have the last word on this post, it’s a solution I’m keenly interested in trying myself:
I stopped signing away my copyright on journal papers in the late 1990s. Interestingly, almost all publishers reacted either positively or not at all when I did not return the copyright form signed as requested: in all cases did they print the paper in question, usually without additional delay, and sometimes with unexpected understanding and support. (Yes, there have been one or two cases where things were a little more difficult at first, but these too were resolved amicably in the end.)” — http://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/home/diestel/copyright.html

 

Springer admits wrongdoing in selling open access article

May 7th, 2015 | Posted by rmounce in Open Access | Wrongly selling OA articles - (Comments Off on Springer admits wrongdoing in selling open access article)

Roughly ten days after I first blogged about this (see: Springer caught red-handed selling access to an Open Access article), Springer have now made a curious public statement acknowledging this debacle:

Statement on Annals of Forest Science article


Berlin, 6 May 2015

A number of tweets posted by Prof. Luis Apiolaza on 27 April, and by others active on social media, suggest that Springer is charging for access to open access articles published in Annals of Forest Science. After looking into this issue, there is indeed an issue with the status of the article, but this has to do with the background of the journal itself.

Annals of Forest Science is a journal owned by INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique). In 2009, when the article in question first appeared, the journal was being published by another company that allowed readers to read the articles without paying a fee (“free access”). When Springer started working with INRA in 2011 we agreed to add the 2007-2010 archives to SpringerLink, Springer’s online platform, in order to ensure a smooth transition and to give a wider distribution to the most recent articles. Since the copyright was not assigned to the author, and since there is no mention of the licensing used, we incorrectly assumed that the article was not open access.

It is clear that this article was intended to be open access, and it will be made so on SpringerLink as quickly as possible. Anyone that has purchased the article will, of course, be reimbursed.

Please note that we support Green Open Access and we feed all articles from INRA journals to the HAL repository after the 12-month embargo, making the articles freely downloadable there (this is clearly written on the journal’s webpage, with a link to the HAL platform). The article in question can also be found there for free (since 2011).

This has been an oversight, and we apologize for not being more thorough and vigilant.

Contact

Ruth Francis | Springer | Corporate Communications
tel +44 203192 2732 | ruth.francis@springer.com

—————END———————-

I am pleased that Springer are committing to reimbursing all (reader) purchasers of wrongly-paywalled articles, and I shall check my bank balance regularly in the coming weeks to see if they honour this promise.

I am also pleased that Springer see fit to formally apologize for their carelessness of publishing. I note that AFAIK neither Wiley nor Elsevier have apologised for similar incidents this year.

But I’m rather bemused by this wording they have chosen: “It is clear that this article was intended to be open access, and it will be made so on SpringerLink as quickly as possible”

Indeed it seems they chose this wording carefully, because as far as I can tell with my browser, Luis’s open access article is still on sale (see screenshot below).

Update: As of 2015-07-05 13:20 (BST) the article is now no longer paywalled. At the time of writing, as can be seen below it was clearly paywalled.

screenshot

 

Springer SBM as an entity makes nearly a billion euros per year in turnover. Despite the considerable size, wealth and ‘experience’ in publishing, Springer can’t seem to unpaywall Luis’s article. Astonishing.

Last Friday, I genuinely thought Elsevier had illegally sold me an article that should have been open access. This post is to update you all on what we’ve found out since:

The Scale of the Problem

No one really knows how many articles are wrongly paywalled at all of Elsevier’s various different sales websites. So far, Alicia Wise (Elsevier’s Director of ‘Universal Access’) has admitted that 27 articles were wrongly paywalled in this latest incident and that “a handful” of these were sold to readers for $31.50 per article (source).

This wrong paywalling of paid-for ‘open access’ content also happened in 2014. I have a feeling it will happen in 2016 too…

Do we have the time and resources to keep checking all articles, at all providers of ‘hybrid OA’, to see if they are wrongly or illegally on sale?

Can we trust publishers of ‘hybrid OA’ to keep those paid-for articles outside the paywall, in perpetuity?

A lot of credit for unveiling this latest incident should be given to Marlène Delhaye, whom to my knowledge was the first person to uncover this latest round of problems at Elsevier.

Duration of Imprisonment

If one assumes that these 27 falsely paywalled articles were all from the transfer of the journal Clinical Microbiology and Infection from Wiley to Elsevier, which happened on January 1st, 2015, then we can perhaps assume that these articles were wrongly paywalled for a duration of 2 months and 9 days.

How many readers did these articles lose in that duration because the prospective readers could not get cost-free access to the full text from Elsevier’s websites? Most publisher websites track failed access attempts. For example JSTOR memorably admitted it turned away 150 million people attempting to read paywalled articles in one year.

I have been promised reimbursement for my purchases of articles that should never have been on sale in the first place, but what of the authors & funders of these articles? What compensation do they get? Their articles weren’t freely available to read for over 2 months – I’d be hopping mad if I was an author of one of those works. I think an appropriate calculation of financial compensation would be the price the article was on sale for, multiplied by the number of days it was wrongly behind a paywall.

Thus for this latest incident involving 27 articles, wrongly paywalled for 67 days, at a sale price of $31.50, I estimate the total bill for compensation owed to all the authors is: $56,983.50.  Considering the Elsevier STM publishing division had an adjusted operating profit in 2013 of £826 million, I think they can spare that loose change amount.

Apparently it was not ‘illegal’

Various people, Alicia Wise included, have been telling me that selling access to hybrid OA in this instance was NOT illegal. After a lot of discussion, I think I believe them.

Despite the article being clearly intended to be freely available to readers upon publication by the authors, all parties agree they paid Wiley to make the article freely available, not behind a paywall.

Despite the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 license clearly marked on the article at the Wiley site.

How?

Well, author-publisher contract trickery is the answer, I believe.

Conventional open access publishers simply confirm, via an informed consent process, that the author knows and wants their work to be published typically under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY). If it gets through the editorial & review process, it is published online solely under the terms of the CC-BY license, and this is clearly marked on the paper. Copyright is fully retained by the authors over their work at all times. It’s a clear one-step process. The publisher AND readers are both bound by the terms of the chosen CC-license.

But Elsevier, Wiley and other merchants of ‘hybrid OA’ do things differently. Typically, they grant themselves carte blanche rights for commercial usage in an author-publisher contract and then afterwards, they publish online the article under a Creative Commons (or other) license. In this case only the readers are bound by the terms of the ‘end-user’ licence – the publisher can to some extent do what they want with impunity.

Needless to say, I think this incident has unveiled a significant flaw / legal loophole in the way that legacy publishers offer ‘hybrid OA’. Authors under these ‘hybrid OA’ systems appear to lose the right to sue their own publisher for wrongful commercial usage of their work.

At the very least I think publishers should print the terms and conditions of the author-publisher contract within each publication itself, so that readers like myself are informed of their ‘special rights’, over-and-above those indicated by the Creative Commons license chosen.

No apologies, no formal statements …so far

I’ve seen a few blog comments here and there from Alicia Wise which has been helpful. It is noted that she has even “thanked” me for raising this issue. I have also been promised a refund for my article purchases.

But thanks is not what I wanted. I didn’t intend to do Elsevier’s system-checking work for them. I want a public apology for this incident, that includes the word ‘sorry’:

  1. To myself and others who were wrongly charged for access to ‘open access’ articles
  2. To the authors & research funders of those 27 articles that were paid-for to be made available to readers for free, ‘open access’.
  3. To all the prospective readers, who didn’t get to read those 27 articles for over 2 months because they were behind a paywall.

 

I accept that these articles were ‘mistakenly’ paywalled, but even when innocent mistakes are made, it is still polite to formally apologise for making them.

For my part, I’m happy to apologise for alleging that these article sales were ‘illegal‘ – it was a logical, justified statement to make at the time, but with hindsight it might not be factually correct. Sorry Elsevier, what you did was not quite ‘illegal’ it was just wrong.

Now I’ve said my public apology for my innocent mistake, perhaps Elsevier could publicly make their apology too?

A Eulogy for Hybrid OA

March 9th, 2015 | Posted by rmounce in Open Access | Open Science | Publications | Wrongly selling OA articles - (Comments Off on A Eulogy for Hybrid OA)

RIPhybridOA

  • you weren’t much loved in your short existence
  • you weren’t much use to readers or text-miners because we often couldn’t find where you were – hiding amongst shadows.
  • you were significantly more expensive than your ‘full’ open access cousins

 

In March, 2015 ‘hybrid OA’ died after a short-life of neglect. Elsevier put the final nail in the coffin, but it wasn’t just they who were responsible, other publishers were plainly guilty of hybrid OA neglect too.

Publishers gave birth to the cash-cow that was hybrid OA not long ago. The profits were immense: $5000 for a single article in some greedy cases. Yet after each ‘hybrid OA’ article was born, and the profit raked in, the hybrid OA articles were completely neglected post-publication. Much like their shuttered, not-allowed-to-play-outside-the-paywall brothers & sister articles. They were forgotten about, even though their authors had stumped-up significant funds upfront to ensure their freedom forever.

Hybrid OA - a cash-cow

Hybrid OA was a wonderfully profitable system for the publisher/carers. It enabled bountiful double-dipping – additional revenue for providing exactly the same content. Laughably, the publisher/carers claimed  that it was “not happening at all“, but anyone with a brain knew better.

But too much neglect of the hybrids over the years led to many high-profile instances of triple-dipping: subscription revenue, APC fees, AND $31.50 (+ tax) per article reader charges (for content that had already been paid to be made free for readers, forever).

A variety of rightly concerned funders started a trend banning authors from sending their articles to hybrid OA profiteer-merchants, for their own good. Only full OA venues could be trusted to actually do the job and the keep the articles outside paywalls.

In short, legacy publishers themselves killed hybrid OA through their own carelessness. Authors, librarians, research funders and readers simply didn’t trust publishers to do hybrid OA properly, and had amassed plenty of evidence of their ineptitude. They tried to sweep the problem of a flawed and difficult system under the carpet as just ‘bumps in the road‘ to open access but actually hybrid OA was just a wrong turn all along.

Hybrid OA Is The Wrong Way

Hybrid OA Is The Wrong Way