@Dean, in case of such a RG sale to a gigantic corporation like Elsevier, we will simply get away and find another RG-like place. The game has been lost, but the losers have not realised it. And certainly the losers are not the free scientists...

Rafael - a good question to ask. The answer is not a simple one though. There are always 'two sides to the coin' - and commercial enterprises probably recognise the need to 'box clever'. Elsevier (as with other major publication houses) cannot police the entire 'green' open access community. Even if it could - it would be unwise to threaten every individual - as well as impractical. I'm sure that there are executives who are saying 'watch this space'. They no doubt realise that they cannot prevent it without expensive lawsuits etc - and without 'stirring up a storm' in the academic community i.e. 'biting the hand that feeds it'. Instead, they are probably looking towards ways of harnessing the phenomenon i.e. as with Mendeley previously, perhaps they are looking for the right conditions to buy out RG. It has been mentioned before.

I have to admit though, and obviously nothing to do with you, but (to me) the article you link to is not a very well written or compelling one - and doesn't really help the cause - one way or another; maybe that's also part of the issue.

It may depend on laws in the country in which the author lives. If the publishing house has ways to pursuit the author in a lawsuit in his/her country that there is a chance for them to "win that war".

However, one must have in mind that even if a publishing house finds out that in some country (for say Serbia) another publishing house has already had the lawsuit of the same kind, and won, it does not mean that it will automatically win. Some countries do not have a legal system like those in Anglo-Saxon law where a an old lawsuit can be used a precedent to "win" the current pursuit. Here, in Serbia, every case is inconsiderate of old cases that may be considered as a model or precedent for the current decision.

Also, this applies to the author as well. If the author is in a situation to be sued he/she should not be relieved if finds out that earlier there was already a case like his/hers and that the previously sued author won in the lawsuit.

@Dean, in case of such a RG sale to a gigantic corporation like Elsevier, we will simply get away and find another RG-like place. The game has been lost, but the losers have not realised it. And certainly the losers are not the free scientists...

Correct Demetris - where there is a will there is a way - and then there is always the like of PubMed etc to fall back on.

Hello,

Thanks for the discussion so far... well, we cannot share whatever is published with anyone - now, I cannot upload my articles on RG as the copyright is for the original publishing house... or has this changed! so, RG might still be a long way away from being considered the source of all articles!?

Regards

Theodora Issa

I understand that Elsevier allows uploading of post print versions of papers to RG. It is the same information as the final paper just without the formatting of the publisher.

I've had requests from Elsevier to remove uploaded papers from a research project website I created, but so far, they've not asked me to remove any of my uploaded papers from RG. Has anyone received such requests for removing copyrighted papers from RG?

Mr. Bjornsson, you should read again under which clauses you are transferred your intelectual ownreship (i.e. publication, results, and more) to the corresponding Publisher (Elsevier and/or another one). If you are delegated full rights under not-open access, than you have not any rights to upload in an fully open forum like RG proofs. In fact you delegate to the Publisher rights for operation with your scientific 'production'. They have therefore rights to request you too remove the proofs.

Towards the comments aboout the 'bad image' of Elsevier, Mr. Barros, I do not think that Elsevier has such image. Please thake into account that I am author (and/or co-author) of more nan 200 papers, where in 95 % i am the corresponding author as well as I have personal experience with 8 Publishers world-wide. Nevertheless that had/have known (unknown) situations of dissonance, missunderstanding, (even conflict situations) with the manadging staff of the givfen Publisher (and/or Reviewers), these relationships cannot be avoided within the frame of public-relation area in the world communities of million accademics and researchers. This do not means however bad reputation (immage). Generally what you understand under the 'bad image' of a Publisher!? The proper functioonalization of the science operation related intelectual ideas and coontributiions of the authors is of primmary interest for the authors themselves at firts place. All Publishers which I visualized (Elsevier, Springer, RSC, ACS, Taylor and Francis, Wiley and few paper in other 3 Publishers) have strict rules according the laws for the intelectuzal ownership and its transfer. Finaly the science-operation process, and support of the publisher data-bases online, off-line and more, it is not free-of-charge processes. It just has not currently free-of-charge science and science-operation. When given author/Institution would like to has access to the scientific achievements, they should pay. And costs are exactly to ensure proper operation with the already publisher results, on which base effectively is possible to achieve novelty in given field without to lost time, efforts and financing to repeat already known discoveries. The 'Copiright Transfer form' has legal heavity!

Bjorn - personally, I've not had requests to remove anything. Most of my uploaded publications are via either Elsevier or Wiley. It's back to my earlier point that they may well be watching (I wouldn't be as egocentric to think that they are watching me per se) - but I'm certain that they have to think it all through very carefully. RG is perhaps too large a site to police whereas, in the case of your project experience, it's easier to target those that can't 'bite back'.

This is an interesting development to the discussion - well, I did not upload any of my articles that were published in peer-reviewed journal articles unless they have been approved by Wiley, or CGPublisher... but not the others - interesting comments worth thinking about!

Regards

Theodora Issa

Hi, very interesting discussion. I think the Elsevier "bad image problem" is with their customers, especially Libraries who are at the receiving end of their predatory pricing policy. There has also been a question in the past about Elsevier's use of journals as a marketing tool for the Pharma industry. More recently they seem to have found their customer service e-mail account and in taking over Mendeley, and its staff, may be making a move towards a more open publishing culture.

The bottom line is that Reed Elsevier is a multinational commercial organisation whose capital is us and the work we produce (although I have to admit nothing I have written would ever get published in an Elsevier journal!).They protect their cash flow by enforcing the agreements authors have signed with them. They do allow Green Route publication of pre and post prints. See Sherpa Romeo.

There is no concrete evidence that Open Access increases citations, but it does most definitely increase downloads and opens up access to alt metrics. This is true also in publishing in a full on Open Access environment like Biomed.

I can't be said to be a fan of Reed Elsevier, but they do have a point. If you sign agreements that limit the availability of your article then you should abide by that agreement. From that point of view you could argue that Reed Elsevier have been reasonably tolerant of breaches of copyright. The solution is I think to change the system and publish in Open Access journals and use the system and create Green Route access to your work.

The point missed here I think is that for a publishing industry to thrive their have to be quality control, effective distribution mechanisms and respect for the copyright of authors and publishers and that costs money. Reed Elsevier's business model is one answer, but now there are alternatives. BW Matt

Good points Matt. I'm a little torn here. I have uploaded most of my Elsevier journal publications. That said, I've not uploaded any of my Elsevier books or book chapters. To me - the royalties issue makes it far more transparent. With regard to the 'bad image' - I personally have never had a bad experience with them (or should I say their usually friendly and supportive production staff (journals and books) - and I've had a lot of dealings with them. People do sign copyright agreements with them - but I think that's usually as a 'matter of course' - and, often, people don't read the fine print or always understand the technical legal-speak. I agree Matt - I think that they have been tolerant - but perhaps their hands are tied. I also like your point about is there any evidence that open access increases citation. I suppose we have to wait a few more years to tell. I've only been with RG for about 6 months so, on a personal level, I will not know for a few more years if my citation rates go up or not.

Hi Dean, yes my dealings with Elsevier, as a customer have been excellent, and I am sure achieve the highest standards of customer service and care. This should not be confused with "past" company strategy. I found this blog post that gives a flavour of [ http://www.mhpbooks.com/5000-profs-join-boycott-of-elsevier-publications-in-international-academic-spring/ ]. BW Matt

Hi Matt - good to see that we are on the same page. The link is a good one to demonstrate that, at the end of the day, there will always be supporter and dissenters and, probably like you and I, those that sit somewhere in-between. It's good to know that people do take a stand but, on the other hand, if a company offers a useful product why would you boycott it to try and get rd of it? Once it's gone - what is the alternative?