I found mail! From Elsevier, and in my Junk folder (where it belongs)

Got mail from Elsevier, out of sheer courtesy to inform me that a final PDF could be found on ResearchGate that people should pay for to view. Thank God for the Coalition of Responsible Sharing correcting such errors.

After all, it would be strange that people often paid by tax-payers (directly or indirectly), spending their time doing research mainly funded by the public hand and published in a journal where most of the time-consuming work is done voluntarily and unpaid by other researchers should have free access to the results of such research without paying another 3000 bucks for it. Because this is what Elsevier charges for "Gold" Open Access.

Responsible Sharing
This is how responsible sharing looks like.
I hope, I'm allowed to share this, couldn't find anything in the FAQ about sharing the Coalitions' icon. Tentatively, I'll assume it is. Please let me know if a © is missing if not.

Well, now that our results are securely hidden behind paywalls again, thanks to the caring and good work of the Coalition, maybe the public that paid for it wants to know the reason. A paper which, by the way, illuminated a two-decade ongoing science fraud. It and its sister paper (which was published in an open access-transparent peer review journal) may not have ended it, but made it more difficult to get it through without primary documentation of the used data.

Here's Elsevier's courtesy mail in full (additions by me in []).

[received 24/8/2018]
For your information only; no action necessary.

Dear Guido W. Grimm,

Regarding your article: Fables and foibles: A critical analysis of the Palaeoflora database and the Coexistence Approach for palaeoclimate reconstruction [here's the link to the bioRxiv pre-print for those without access to Elsevier's World of Valuable Scientific Knowledge; and here's the open data-archive – Elsevier couldn't manage putting it up back then, too big — 8 MB; wrong sort of files — only PDF were allowed. So much for professional science publisher being in business for half a millennium...]
Published in: Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology [not recommendable anymore, not even for fringe scientists like me]

Publication year: 2016
[submitted 9/3/15; first decision received 1/6/16!!! – see also One date missing in most scientific publications, related to the politics affecting shadow peer review processes — the latter a general feat of Coalition journals; revision submitted 23/6/16; final decision 1/7/16; published online, not proof-set yet and pitted by errors: 2/7/16. 
Finally spend an entire week correcting all the errors in the proof-PDF which arrived much later; also contacted them regarding the online version — e.g. all internal references were fucked up, the reference reformatted to an Elsevier style not used by the journal; 80% of the errors in the proof were inserted by Elsevier's surely highly paid and qualified employees, who – on the other hand – didn't caught a single of the errors in our finally submitted version, such as missing closing brackets etc.]

I am writing to you with regards to the scholarly collaboration network ResearchGate that currently hosts, modifies [?!] and distributes large numbers of journal articles without permission or license. [Oh, no.]

Following numerous unsuccessful attempts to agree an approach with ResearchGate [well, it happened behind walls, but I suppose it had to do with money] to facilitate the sharing of articles in ways that respect the publishing agreements between journals and authors, in accordance with the STM Association’s Voluntary Principles for Article Sharing on Scholarly Collaboration Networks, ResearchGate has requested that publishers issue take down notices (TDNs) for articles which it should not be hosting. [I noticed. I also got a mail from the German lawyers who took down the paper – is this the good ole' good-cop-bad-cop thing?]

The Coalition for Responsible Sharing [well characterised by the tweet above; see also this post from October last year when the cleansing had just started], a group of several publishers, societies and information analytics organizations that includes [headed by] Elsevier, has been left with no other choice [like the German and Swedish libraries cancelling their subscriptions] but to now respond accordingly. [I totally understand. Elsevier, i.e. RELX, needs now every cent.] Members of the Coalition for Responsible Sharing include [sorted alphabetically]: the American Chemical Society, the American Medical Association, the American Physiological Society, BMJ, Brill, Elsevier, Future Science Group, IEEE, International Water Association, Oxford University Press, Portland Press (wholly-owned by the Biochemical Society), Wiley, Wolters Kluwer, and World Scientific Publishing. [I published with both Elsevier and Wiley, and the services they provide are unsatisfying to incompetent, but the price for Gold Open Access is right-on...]

Elsevier will send TDNs to ResearchGate to request that they remove PDFs of the final version of papers published in Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology. [Link to the journal's homepage, pretty nichy, but that was my paid work — I'd like to thank the German, Swedish and Austrian taxpayers for making it possible.] Any articles published as Gold Open Access will of course  remain unaffected.
[Odd to see this stated, after all the tax-payer paid – directly or indirectly for this Gold Open Access a nice sum, info from the journal's homepage retrieved today:
 "Gold Open Access Publication Fee. To provide gold open access, this journal has a publication fee which needs to be met by the authors [all public-employed scientists in this case, niche science, no money in it] or their research funders [i.e. the public hand] for each article published open access. The gold open access publication fee for this journal is USD 3300, excluding taxes."
A price quite high, even compared to what the Coalition generally charges. In addition to 
a) the lack of transparency during the review process, 
b) the poor author/proof-setting service provided by Elsevier, 
c) a reason, I published all my last papers (given my co-authors let me) with PeerJ. Current article processing charge including very responsive service to authors: 1095 US$, but you can also purchase life-long memberships.]

It is important to note that the TDNs are directed at ResearchGate not at authors. [Hohoho! Of course, who slaughters a healthy milk cow? ] We understand that you may not have personally uploaded this article [WITCHHUNT! NO Collusion with ResearchGate]. This situation requires no action on your part [I like that] however we felt it important to inform you as a courtesy and to point out that if ResearchGate wrongly hosts a PDF of the final version of your article, it might not be available via the site in the future. [This is the most considerate and positive line I ever received from Elsevier per e-mail. And so timely.] We do not take this action lightly and recognise that ResearchGate is a popular platform for researchers [which is probably the reason why your German lawyers are not sending out invoices, there lies an unsurmountable power in swarms].

Publishers have offered user friendly solutions [and cost-intensive, I'm sure, after all somebody has to pleasure RELX' shareholders]  to ResearchGate that would make sharing via its site seamless and easy for researchers while bringing the platform into copyright compliance. ResearchGate has shown no interest in these solutions [why would you not take a big deal, after being drawn to court; see also this multi-lingual link list].
Hosting final published articles without permission undermines the long-term sustainability of journals [a dream come true]. We are also concerned that ResearchGate undermines the integrity of research by, for instance, altering articles and missing important retractions and corrections. [Hahaha, when reading this, my eyes watered. Reality is that Elsevier and Wiley journals adhere usually to the completely obscure single-blind peer review process, covering up such errors during and after publication!]
The Coalition for Responsible Sharing [aka the Spanish Inquisition] has provided a statement explaining the action in more detail and has published a list of FAQs [please read them in case you still consider publishing or working for free for an Elsevier journal as editor or peer]. Information on how to share your articles can be found at How Can I Share It [see also this post on my experiences with Coalition buddy Wiley and "Bronze" Open Access].
If you have any questions [never had] or comments [see here], please feel free to contact us at [I'm tempted to, just to see if one gets a quicker answer than from the Elsinders handling our papers and usually took a week or two to answer, but not really respond, to questions/problems we had].
Thank you for publishing in our journal [when we submitted this one, it was only for sentimental reasons, I'm afraid; I promised the then Editor-in-Chief an add-on to our 2012 paper; and back in 2012, I didn't know better ... too busy with science, no time for politics] and we look forward to continuing our partnership with you. [Uh, sorry, I know it's a bad thing to break up not facing each other, but we don't have a future. That may explain why your nice and caring mail ended up in my junk folder with the many mails of obviously predatory publishers. But I'm sure you will do well without me, noticing the many willing horses in your stables (i.e. authors, peers, editors).]

Kind regards, [a fare well from my side]
Philippe Terheggen
Managing Director, STM Journals, Elsevier

Related posts with further links dealing with the reality of scientific publishing and on how the Coalition or other high-profit publishers misuse the current system can be found under the tags #FightTheFog, bad science, free science (like in Free Willy), public interest (after all you pay for it, and I was paid by you), and science-related ('cause it's not about but affects science).

A last note to active scientists reading this post. Scientists should still boycott Elsevier in no matter what capacity, and others members of the Coalition. Timothy Gower's call-to-boycott (see e.g. this Nature 2013 article) is still running, and one can still sign-up to join (currently 17218, now 17219):

No comments:

Post a Comment

Enter your comment ...