Updated 2017-02-01: Mathematical equation rendering failures spotted at the journal ‘Molecular Biology & Evolution’ (MBE). Added to the lengthy list.
In this post I shall try and summarise the different types of error that are occurring across Oxford University Press (OUP) journals at the moment.
It appears OUP have changed their underlying platform software this year, and that they haven’t done enough testing before putting it into production. The variety of different errors encountered is truly astonishing.
1.) Missing Articles
As documented yesterday with an example, OUP have failed to do the most basic task of a publisher: preserve access to paid-for subscription content. 24 hours later after I reported it missing, the Bayes Factor article is now available, but the DOI URL (http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw101) still doesn’t resolve to it. Speaking of which…
2.) Paywalling Open Access Articles (update 1)
Oddly OUP have managed to paywall an article at the normally fully open access journal ‘Nucleic Acids Research’: the article ‘A novel method for crosstalk analysis of biological networks: improving accuracy of pathway annotation‘ appears to be inaccessible at OUP’s site. Additionally, through Rightslink, they are selling the re-use rights to this article. To determine if this was real or not I made a test purchase, specifying that I wanted to re-use this article in a non-commercial setting, in a presentation. I was charged and paid 42.14 GBP for the right to re-use 1 page of this article in an educational, non-commercial presentation. You can see a screenshot of my receipt for this rights purchase here.
3.) Broken DOI’s that don’t resolve to article landing pages
DOI’s are an integral part of modern 21st century publishing infrastructure. They are supposed to be reliable, persistent links to content. I tested 1735 recently minted DOI’s across 21 different journals published my OUP that are indexed in PubMed. The log files to provide full evidence of my testing are available on github. When a DOI fails to resolve to an article landing page it gives a 404 error. I found that 106 (over 6%) of the recently minted DOI’s I examined gave 404 errors. Remarkably 82 of these failures all come from article DOIs at one journal: the Journal of Medical Entomology.
4.) Editors appearing (erroneously) listed as additional authors of papers
I haven’t observed this myself, but apparently keen eyes at Systematic Biology have spotted this occurring to some article pages.
5.) Journal Articles Appearing as Published by a Totally Different Journal
Yesterday I found that 15 Systematic Biology articles appear to be published in the “Logic Journal of the IGPL” (as of today, I think some have been fixed and inevitably they will all get fixed eventually, so I have a screenshot below to prove it)
6.) Unexpected lack of indexing in PubMed
I happen to really like the journal Gigascience – they unfortunately decided to move from BioMedCentral to publishing with OUP starting this year, and they seem to have been hardest hit by the problems at OUP. For unknown reasons it is readily apparent that PubMed hasn’t indexed any Gigascience articles since November 2016! See for yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Gigascience%22%5Bjournal%5D
This is a really serious problem. If I was an author of a recent Gigascience article I would be furious about this. Recent articles there are completely invisible to literature searches performed at PubMed. This has affected 49 articles in the December Issue (Vol 5 Issue 1), as well as 15 advance access articles that haven’t been assigned an issue yet. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of authors are affected by this. If I were OUP I would make this bug the highest priority to fix.
7.) Mathematical equations failing to render in the HTML (on any browser) [update 2]
As spotted by Brian O’Meara and independently confirmed by Joseph Brown. See below for an example:
8.) Article landing pages with no article title or authorship details visible
This bug is affecting articles at Evolution, Medicine & Public Health, Gigascience, Nucleic Acids Research and probably more. I’m certain it is not a ‘deliberate’ style choice.
— R⓪ss Mounce (@rmounce) January 24, 2017
— Egon Willighⓐgen (@egonwillighagen) January 24, 2017
9.) Some DOIs redirecting to placeholder PDFs (instead of actual content)
— R⓪ss Mounce (@rmounce) January 24, 2017
10.) Article Views data appears to have been reset to zero
. @NAR_Open access metrics seem to have disappeared – did you canvas author opinion on this?
— Christopher Southan (@cdsouthan) January 30, 2017
— Christopher Southan (@cdsouthan) January 31, 2017
I note that OUP have put out a statement to “apologize sincerely” for these issues. But I am not convinced a mere apology is enough compensation when many of the errors remain unfixed.
I call upon libraries, authors of recent articles in OUP journals, and academic societies that publish with OUP to seriously consider taking further action about this matter. Many of these problems have been present at OUP journals since at least January 13th 2017. OUP have been incredibly slow to identify and fix these problems and many of them should not have been problems in the first place – completely avoidable with adequate testing.
Tomorrow I will assess the situation again and update with any new reports of errors or action taken.