Show me the data!

I sent my local MP (Don Foster, Lib Dem) a simple, fairly short (~265 words), clear & concise formal letter 18 days ago – I blogged the draft of it which is virtually the same here.

It’s been at least 13 working days now by my count and I still haven’t received a proper reply, so I tweeted @DonFosterMP last night:



I soon also got a reply from Don Foster’s press officer, email below:


From: “ROBERTS, Nick”
To: “‘Ross Mounce’”
Subject: RE: Letter from your constituent Ross Mounce
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:12:06 +0000

Dear Ross,

I’ve just seen your tweets to Don. Apologies for the mix up. acts as a middleman and forwards your query on to our casework folder as opposed to Don directly. There is nothing wrong with this, it just means that our acknowledgment email goes to them and does not get forwarded to you.

We did receive your email of the 17th and rest assured we will get that response to you asap. However, we get over 500 emails a day so as you’ll appreciate there are backlogs. This is especially true in the summer when there are staff holidays. Our small team then have to prioritise “urgent” cases.

Once again, please accept my apologies for the delay in Don’s reply.



Nick Roberts
Caseworker & Press Officer
Office of the Rt Hon Don Foster MP

31 James Street West, Bath, BA1 2BT
t: 01225 338973
f: 01225 463630

NOTE: Information in this email is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You should not otherwise copy it, retransmit it, use or disclose its contents unless permission to do so is explicitly stated. Views expressed in personal emails do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the Liberal Democrats.

Personally I don’t care if my MP occasionally receives 500 emails a day – he can still send confirmation of receipt messages automatically surely? It would have been nice to know that my letter had at least been looked at.

I can’t help feeling that I’m being fobbed off here.

But it appears I’m not alone in being ignored. According to 2008 statistics from
Don Foster only replied to 57% of letters sent to him with their service (and in fairness this makes him far from the ‘worst’ MP in terms of response rate for that year; stats here).

With so many young people today completely apathetic towards UK politics, myself included, this hardly sets a great precedent. It was my first attempt to engage, and so far it’s been largely unsatisfactory.

So what to do next? I don’t know frankly. I await a fuller response from Don Foster himself.

I’ll keep this post updated with any further relevant correspondences.


It’s that time again… time to write my monthly Panton Fellowship update.

The trouble is, as I start writing this it’s 6am (London, UK). I arrived back from the Hennig XXXI meeting (University of California Riverside) after a long flight yesterday and am supremely jetlagged. I still can’t decide whether this is awesome (I can get more work done, by waking up earlier), or terrible as I can’t keep my eyes open past 9pm at night!

At this conference I shoe-horned some of my Panton Fellowship project work into the latter half of my talk (slides below), as it fitted in with the theme of the submitted abstract on supertrees.

Supertrees are just one of many many different possible (re)uses of the phylogenetic tree data I am trying to liberate from the literature for this project. I tried to stress this during my talk, as a lot of people at Hennig aren’t too keen on supertrees as a method for inferring large phylogenies. In fact, there was a compelling talk with solid data from Dan Janies given later on in conference, critiquing supertree methods such as SuperFine and SuperTriplets, which were outperformed in most tests in terms of both speed and optimality (tree length) by supermatrix methods using TNT. That’s fine though – there are so many other interesting hypotheses one can investigate with large samples of real phylogenetic estimates (trees).


  • Do model-based phylogenetic analyses perform better than parsimony? [Probably not, judging by the conclusions in this paper]  -  I’d like to see this hypothesis re-tested more rigorously using tree-to-tree distance comparisons between the different method trees. Except we can’t currently do this very easily because there’s a paucity of machine-readable tree data from published papers
  • Meta-analysis of phylogenetic tree balance and factors that influence balance e.g. (this thesis, and this PLoS ONE article).  Are large trees more imbalanced than small trees? Are vertebrate trees more balanced than invertebrate trees?
  • Fossil taxa in phylogenetic trees – are they more often than not found at the base of the tree? Is this ‘real’ or perhaps apparent ‘stem-ward slippage‘ caused by preservational biases?
  • Similarity and dissimilarity between phylogeny and measures of morphological disparity as studied  by my lab mate Martin Hughes

So, I hope you’ll appreciate this data isn’t just needed for producing large supertrees.

I could go on about the conference – it was excellent as ever, but I’ll save that for a dedicated later post.

Other activities this month included:

  • submitting my quarterly Panton report to the Fellowship Board
  • attending the OKFN Bibliohack session at QMUL’s Mile End campus (13th & 14th June) helping out with the creation of the OKFN Open Access Index, and learning how to use & debug a few issues with PubCrawler (a web crawler for scraping academic publication information, not a beer finder app!), with Peter Murray-Rust
  • discussing Open Access, Open Data and full text XML publishing with the Geological Society of London. The GSL have a working group currently investigating if/how they can transition to greater openness. Kudos to them for looking into this. Many a UK academic society may currently be hiding their heads in the sand at moment ignoring that the UK policy-wise is now committed to Open Access as the future of research publishing. It probably won’t be easy for GSL to make this transition as their accounts[PDF] show they are rather reliant on subscription-based journals and books for income. It’s hard to see how Open Access article processing charges could immediately replace the £millions subscription income per year from relatively few books & journals. Careful and perhaps difficult decisions will have to be made at some point to balance the goals of this charitable society, the acceptable level of income and the choice and amount of expenditure on non-publication related activites (e.g. ‘outreach events’).Interestingly, I note The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has recently decided to outsource their publications to an external company. Does anyone know ‘who’ yet? I just hope it’s not Elsevier.

Finally, the audio for the talk on the Open Knowledge Foundation and the Panton Fellowships, I gave in Cambridge recently, has now been uploaded, so I can now present the slides and the actual talk I gave together (below) for the first time! Many thanks for the organisers of the conference for doing all this work to make audio from all the talks available – it’s really cool that a relatively modest, small PhD student conference can produce such an excellent digital archive of what happened – I only wish the ‘bigger’ conferences has the resources & willpower to do this too!

…and if that’s not enough Panton updates for you, you can read Sophie Kershaw’s updates for June too, over on her blog

Taking inspiration from Cameron Neylon, I have written a DRAFT letter to my local MP urging him to support the recommendations in the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property.

[UPDATE: Letter now sent :) ]


Dear Don Foster,

As a graduate research student at the University of Bath, currently using textmining techniques to do scientific research in an efficient and comprehensive manner, I urge you to sign this early day motion (no. 151, tabled 11.06.2012).

Aside from my tweets to @DonFosterMP last night I have never before been moved to formally contact you, but this urgently requires your action.

Simple desktop computers can interpret vast amounts of digital information. The capacity, tools and eagerness already exist to enable scientists to do systematic reviews, knowledge syntheses, and innovative analyses on a scale never before imagined. But there is one barrier alone that stifles all this strong potential for good: current UK copyright law.

The exceptions for digital content proposed by Professor Hargreaves in his review would be a boon for research (; Chapter 5). It is galling that 87% of the research contained within UK Pub Med Central cannot be legally mined for information (p47 of the report). Especially exasperating when we are allowed to manually ‘human-read’ nearly all of this content. We just are not allowed to efficiently use machines to read the literature for us.

Current UK copyright law is outdated and is sometimes the *only* factor holding back scientific research. We need to remove this unnecessary artificial barrier to let UK scientists perform world-class research with modern and innovative tools and ideas. Otherwise we will be left in the Dark Ages, instead of the Bright, Shiny Digital Economy of the Future.
Yours sincerely,

Ross Mounce

PhD Candidate & Panton Fellow
Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
University of Bath,

Further resources:
* The Hargreaves Report
* PMR’s response to the Hargreaves report
* TechDirt – UK Publishers Pretend To Embrace Copyright Reform… In Order To Kill Copyright Reform
* Glyn Moody’s – Review of the UK Government Response to the Hargreaves Review



[A monthly update on my Panton Fellowship related activities]

Last month I was slightly late with my monthly report, so this month I’m going to get things back on track and write my post now, on this leisurely sunny Sunday afternoon…

It’s been a good month:

First of all, I had the chance to speak about my Fellowship work for the Ede & Ravenscroft Prize final. I made a few choice comments to our Pro-Vice-Chancellor who was present, about the plurality of benefits of Open Access & Open Data, and the difficulties of trying to do content mining research on subscription-access journals. I didn’t win the prize in the end, but getting to the final, and being recognised as one of the top 5 research students at the University of Bath was pretty cool. I then immediately went out and spent part of the £50 runners-up prize on Michael Nielsen‘s excellent Open Science book Reinventing Discovery. I gave it a read, then immediately passed it on to another lab for a friend to read, and it now resides with my supervisor who will also hopefully find time to read it (part of my not so subtle attempt to help spread the knowledge of how digital, networked, openness can hugely benefit research).

I bought some other books too, but this was the important one

Then on the 11th of May, PMR came Bath to give a talk to our Biology & Biochemistry Department. Those who came (including our subject librarian – thanks for coming!) were wowed with the ways in which PMR and colleagues have helped make semantically-enriched Linked Open Data available on chemicals for everyone, not just academic chemists! It’s brilliant to have an expert demonstration of the ways in which projects like CrystalEye have made the data underlying some chemical research publications far more easily searchable, open, and re-usable across many thousands of publications. There’s a strong, easily-justified need for more of this type of post-publication data scraping in biology (and palaeontology I might add!). We share a strong belief that research publications should be made open and explicitly re-usable without restriction.

Sadly, most of the biological literature in my domain is neither open, nor re-usable without permission (more of which in a later post) – which makes my highly integrative data-focused research, that much harder than it otherwise could be. As I’ve said before on the internet – I have all of PLoS on my USB stick, I’ve no doubt I could put all the relevant papers I need & scrape data from them, on just my desktop computer hard drive – yet subscription-access paywalls, and current copyright law prevent me from doing this for much of the literature (PLoS and other Open Access literature aside). I can understand how we arrived at this strange situation (we didn’t used to have such computational power to analyze large volumes of data, nor the Internet with which to freely & easily distribute research) but now we *do*, it seems like utter madness to continue to publish research in ways (e.g. subscription-access, copyright-transferred to the publisher) which make it very hard to analyze or re-use en masse.

The Panton Principles

So I’ve been joining the nascent OKFN working group Skype calls on Content Mining and soon we will hopefully have some interesting things to announce…

PMR also got the chance to meet my PhD supervisor and the rest of the lab which is great since I’m doing this fellowship work concurrently with my PhD work on fossils & phylogeny.

Later on in the month, I suggested the excellent Panton Discussions be made more amenable for podcasting. An OKFN group are now working on producing an audio-only version of all of them, and making them more easily integrable on personal listening devices (mobile phones & MP3 players).

Finally, the past week has been a whirlwind:

On Tuesday (22nd May) I was at the Natural History Musuem, London to talk with Dr Mark Wilkinson about some PhD project-related work – he’s kindly supplied me with some source code (among other things), so I can recompile his programs to run on my linux machines. I told him all about the OKFN & Panton Fellowship and he was very supportive of the goals. Time and time again, I encounter such enlightened, high-up academics and wonder why & how academic publishing is still in it’s current state – it’s not for want of researcher support for Open Access in my experience!

On Wednesday, I was back with PMR in Cambridge hacking PDFs, focusing particularly on BMC literature as this is BOAI-compliant Open Access and we can do what we want with such material. Towards the end of the session we had a think about what metadata would desirable to extract from the text of the papers and figure labels that might add context and information to the phylogenetic analysis performed, and phylogenetic tree presented in each of the papers. By coincidence the Open Tree of Life group have also just republished the MIAPA working group list of desirable metadata for phylogenies. We certainly won’t be able to get all this information, and the information we can extract may not necessarily be interpreted and associated 100% correctly, but it will certainly be hugely valuable as this information would otherwise take 4 years to re-digitise(!) by some estimates.

On Thursday, I went to ProgPal (Progressive Palaeontology), a conference also in Cambridge. There I gave a short ‘announcement’ talk with slides to explain to everyone there a) what the Open Knowledge Foundation are about, and b) why they might be of interest to academic palaeontologists. I touched upon Open Access and Open Data issues in palaeontology and encouraged those with an interest to visit the website, join the Open Science mailing list, listen to or watch the Panton Discussions, and consider applying for a Panton Fellowship next year if they had any innovative ideas for paleo-data. This talk tied-in very well with the other announcement talks for Palaeontology Online (a new free outreach & education initiative) and Palaeocast (a new paleo podcast).

Which reminds me, I should really pop them both an email to explain why they should post their content with a Creative Commons Attribution Licence, so their materials can be re-used, re-posted and remixed as Open Educational Resources

Best of all, on Friday I travelled down to London to my alma mater to attend & furiously tweet the Open Access debate at Imperial College London, in the very same lecture room I sat most of my undergrad lectures! There were rather a many palaeontologists also there, including Tori Herridge and Nick Crumpton and a large volume of tweets under the #OAdebate hashtag were sent (archived here if you’re interested). Graham Taylor of the Publishers Association said some rather provocative things that got me rather hot under the collar including:

…we [publishers] are the stewards of genuine science…

Which I think could all too easily be misinterpreted to overstate the importance of the role that publishers play in organising peer-review, spell-checking, typesetting and other such tasks. I also couldn’t help laughing out loud at Graham’s straight-faced proposal for subscription-access publishers to offer ‘fee-waived walk-in access at public libraries‘ as a way to provide taxpayer access to taxpayer funded research. Stephen Curry (also on the panel) thankfully quickly interrupted to state how ridiculous that was. I’ll leave it to Mike Taylor’s post here to explain just how ludicrous that proposal is in light of 21st century technology. I will however give Graham Taylor credit for further disavowing the Research Works Act, he said of it [and presumably his organisation's initial support for it]: “the RWA was not such a good idea, don’t ask me to defend that one”, which elicited a pleased response from the audience.

There will be another debate held after the release of the Finch report which I suspect will be rather more exciting. A lot of the issues were aired at this debate, but the brevity of the time slot allowed for the event meant that there was not enough time for in-depth discussion IMO.

That’s just about it for the month. I can’t wait for what the next month will bring!


I have previously commented elsewhere on other blogs, that uniquely, with BOAI-compliant Open Access literature, one is able to re-distribute research however one wishes (provided proper attribution is given). I believe this to be hugely beneficial and perhaps a rather under-appreciated facet of the plurality of benefits offered by Open Access publishing.

Below is an expanded version of the comment I made on Cameron Neylon’s excellent blog Science in the Open on this very theme (and please do read Cameron’s post too for greater context):

Decentralized journal/article distribution is already happening.

I have 20,000+ PLoS articles on my computer right now. You can get them too – via BioTorrents. When compressed (as initially provided there) it’s less than 16GB’s of files – a trivial amount for anyone with a broadband connection. I can now (and do!) take PLoS on a USB stick with me wherever I go, allowing me to do research on trains, planes, and remote locations completely hassle free without even an internet connection. It was easy to download (pretty much 1-click) too via my high-speed institutional connection – and didn’t overload PLoS’s servers because I didn’t *get* the articles from their servers. With peer-2-peer file sharing the load is balanced between seeders (and in turn, I’m now seeding this torrent too, to help share the load). If all institutions/libraries agreed to help seed the world’s research literature, without copyright restriction on electronic redistribution (which we could do tomorrow if it weren’t for the legal copyright barriers imposed by most traditional subscription-access publishers) doing literature research would be pretty much frictionless! We could even get papers & data on campus much quicker over campus LAN rather than the internet.

Institutions already agree to help distribute code e.g. R and it’s multitude of packages – this is hugely beneficial, and helps share the costs associated with bandwidth — why not for research publications? The PLoS corpus is a great way to try out content mining ideas – it shows you how easy academic life *could* be if everything was Open Access. I’ve run some simple scripts on it myself. I’m not sure the simple things I did such as string matching could be classified as ‘text mining’ – but one thing I do know is – it was 100,000x times easier/quicker doing this locally, machine-reading files, rather than doing it paper by paper negotiating paywalls (where do I click, how many hoops do I have to jump through before I’m let in, what information are the ‘helpful’ tracking cookies keeping about me…) and getting cutoff by publishers. It’s worth pointing out as well, that once you have all the literature you need on your computer – you don’t even need the internet to do your research! For research in lesser economically developed countries, with weaker telecomms infrastructure – I’d imagine this would be a real boon for research.

It’s a window on the world that *could* be possible if we just changed our attitude WRT to copyright and research publishing. That PLoS, BMC and other Open Access publishers use the Creative Commons Attribution Licence makes this all possible.

I predict that the rights to electronically redistribute, and machine-read research will be vital for 21st century research – yet currently we academics often wittingly or otherwise relinquish these rights to publishers. This has got to stop. The world is networked, thus scholarly literature should move with the times and be openly networked too.

In short, I think research would be a whole lot easier to do, and ultimately (all things considered) be more cost-effective, if all future publicly-funded research could be made BOAI-compliant Open Access. This is just my opinion – you are welcome to disagree in the comments section below, I sincerely hope I don’t sound like an Open Access ‘zealot‘ for this is certainly not my intention.

If you haven’t heard yet – I was successful in my Panton Fellowship proposal
Logo for the Panton Fellowships

I wasn’t the only successful applicant either – huge congratulations to Sophie Kershaw and her excellent proposal to train doctoral students how to do Open Science at Oxford University. We’ll be working together on shared goals throughout the year I suspect

As part of the Fellowship process I’ll be making monthly short reports on progress and more lengthy quarterly reports.

So without further ado, here’s what I’ve been getting up to in April:

  • For the main component of my proposal – extracting phylogenetic data from PDF’s – I’ve spent the month getting up to speed with things with the expert guidance of PMR. I even spent a whole day (16th Apr) in Cambridge with PMR working on this. Things are coming on in leaps and bounds.
  • Visited Digital Science HQ in King’s Cross to have a chat with them about all the exciting web technology they’re working on.
  • Successfully arranged for the Open Knowledge Foundation to have a stall, and possibly a talk at the upcoming Progressive Palaeontology academic conference in Cambridge later this month.
  • Raised transparency and Open Data issues at the Systematics Association council meeting. As a result of this, we will soon upload our official constitution to our website to make it crystal clear what our guiding principles are. Additionally, all council members unanimously agreed in principle that we should try and make the data underlying our future Systematics Association special volume publications Open Data online somewhere, somehow – but we need to get feedback and agreement from our publisher, Cambridge University Press before we proceed further with this.
  • Together with Sophie Kershaw we agreed a strategy for our OKFest plans and with the excellent help of Laura Newman submitted a talk session proposal for the OKfestival, Helsinki later this year.
  • Attended the OKFN London Open Science hackday, further details on that are in my previous blogpost.


and of course this is all concurrent with my ‘regular’ PhD work which included, two manuscripts currently being prepared, 3 conference abstract submissions (and associated work to actually have something to write about!), undergrad demonstrating work and all the other day to day stuff.

I even had time for a small holiday over the long Bank Holiday weekend, to St Austell to see The Lost Gardens of Heligan & The Eden Project amongst other things.

It’s been a busy month!


PS I’ve been enjoying the new HTML classes on Codecademy. Below I’m going to see if some of these new HTML tricks work in WordPress:

This box should have rounded corners
This box should have a black shadow

I can guess the number you are thinking of

Follow the Rules and then hover the card below

  1. Think of a number below 10
  2. Double the number you have
  3. Add 6
  4. Divide it by 2
  5. Subtract the original number from your answer

Yesterday, I dragged myself out of bed (it was a Saturday!) to go to my first ever ‘hackathon‘. Thankfully it was a lot less geeky than it sounds – just a cosy little get together of people interested in Open Science, to work on things in a shared public space.

Nick Stenning, Stefan Wehrmeyer, Jenny Molloy, Caspar Addyman and I all beavering away on our laptops at the Barbican Centre, later joined by surprise guest Todd Vision (Dryad & UNC) in the afternoon. We also had online participation from afar communicating with us via Etherpad & IRC, including Rufus Pollock giving me a few pointers on PDF image extraction tools and James Casbon working on notebook.js.

You can see a record of all the things we worked on here on the official Etherpad for the event.

I have to say, I didn’t make all that much progress on my tasks for the day for a variety of n00by errors. The tools I wanted to use were rather large to download, particularly the Eclipse IDE which took a fair while to get over the public WiFi we were using. I was also using a small netbook. This is handy for my regular train journeys between Bath & London but not so useful when you need simultaneous windows open e.g. IRC + PDF manual + terminal + browser. The 24″ desktop screens I usually do work on have probably led me astray into such less efficient multi-window habits! Although by using a translucent dropdown terminal (Tilda) I saved on some window switching, but not enough to make things easy…

So for next time I’ve learn’t:

1.) Bring a comfortably sized laptop. Unless you really know what you’re doing on the command-line, you’re gonna need screen real estate

2.) Download all the large files you’ll need before you go

3.) Consider bringing your own food, drink & snacks! I think I must have spent over £10 just on lunch there, and the canteen only had over-priced tuna sandwiches :/

All in all though, the session was great. There’s no substitute to meeting people IRL. There was time for excellent therapeutic #PhDchat with Jenny, tactical discussions on how to encourage more palaeontologists into publicly archiving research publication data with Todd, and meeting other people in the Open Science community I’d never met before. As we discussed at the hackday – it’s not something we would do every weekend, but as a special event every now and again – it’s well worth going to!

Perhaps I might see YOU at the next one? All are welcome


This is a parody of a recent blog post over in Elsevier-land by David Tempest. If you haven’t read it yet, you really should – it’s an interesting insight into the mind of the DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS (their caps-usage, not mine) at Elsevier.

Here’s my remix tribute post, words in blue are my insertions, and strikethough words are words I’ve chosen to delete because they don’t represent my opinion.

Copyright in an Open Access World

Copyright plays a significant vital role in the current world of publishing scientific, medical and technical content. It provides commercial publishers authors with a set ofrights to enable them to utilize these their works to generate subscription access profits and to be recognized as the copyright holder creator of the work. Commercial publishers are empowered to act on behalf of their shareholders the author to use copyright transfer or exclusive license to copy, publish, and adapt works, whilst protecting their profit margins integrity. In this way, publishers are empowered to do various things on behalf of the author, for example to ensure that the article is paywalled widely disseminated, that all requests for the rights to re-use content are denied and provision of permissions are answered efficiently, and to ensure that the original is correctly attributed. Each month, Elsevier receives more than 10,000 rights and permissions requests for content – both books and journals – and we have developed sophisticated systems to deny facilitate these requests and make the process as awkward, daunting and untimely simple and timely as possible. We take this role very seriously.

The importance of protecting profit generating content

But what about copyright in an open access world? Does it make a difference that articles are being made available to all and should we be concerned? The answer is…well, yes and no.

To all intents and purposes, the fact that journal articles are being made available to all through open access, is a big threat to our current business model or to subscribers under the subscription model, should not really affect things. Issues can arise, however, as there is a common misperception [citation needed] that open access means anyone can do anything with an article – in fact, the rights in the content must still be understood and upheld.

In addition, from an editorial perspective, copyright does not prevent elements such as plagiarism, multiple submission and fraud in journal articles. and whilst is It does not actually help detect these elements, so it cannot acts as a protective measure to uphold the quality of journals.

Within open access publishing there seems to be no a dilemma over copyright: author’s should definitely and the three choices facing an author: retain copyright share it or transfer it. Elsevier believes that it remains a fundamental role of a commercial publisher to pretend to act on the author’s behalf, and by continuing to transfer copyright, we can ensnare ensure and uphold the copyrights of the authors and handle all subsequent toll access profits generated permission requests. If copyright is retained by the publisher, then this process remains with the publisher and, if it is shared, there is a greater risk that profit loss fraudulent use may occur, which is why we continue to advocate the transfer of copyright for our journals.

Clearing up the dangerous ‘confusion that threatens our excessive profit margins

Some believe that in an open access world these factors become blurred and journal articles are easier to copy and incorporate into other works – because it’s true! This is a good thing. Science is based on building on, reusing and openly criticising the published body of scientific knowledge – we need to be able to do this as frictionlessly as possible. For example, open access journals offer additional usage rights which help enable re-use may introduce some confusion in relation to copyright. These open access ‘factors may help the speed and progress of science threaten the rights of the author and make it difficult for publishers to make excessive profits from academic works enforce copyright policy. However, if it is clear where copyright lies through consistent application, the usage rights of the article in question become independent of the publishing model and work for both subscription and open access content.

Of course, one of the main issues with copyright in general is that it is often widely misunderstood and interpreted in a different way by each individual. A study published by JISC in 2005 investigated the level of understanding of researchers towards copyright. It found that from a pool of 355 respondents, 30% of researchers did not know who initially owned the copyright of their own research articles and a further 26% of the respondents indicated that they had a low interest in the copyright issues of their own research articles! Clearly, this continues to be one of the important roles a commercial publisher must embrace: ensuring that it is clear and easy to understand what cannot be done with toll access content.




But seriously. I hope this goes to show it’s very easy to write and publish a very one-sided opinion and present this opinion as authority on a website. I dread to think anyone reads those Elsevier editorials uncritically.