Rosie Redfield has an agonizing and interesting series on her blog about her attempts to pay for an article of her’s coming out in the Journal of Molecular Biology to be “Open Access” under the Elsevier OA option (note – this is not fully OA, but it is better than the standard option for this journal). Here are some of her postings worth looking at:
- Open Access and other sliminess at Elsevier
- More Elsevier hassles about open access
- The saga continues…
- Open access frustration more powerful than princip…
- More from Elsevier (names removed…)
In her latest post she says
“The Elsevier sponsored-access system is confusing, the policy is not clearly explained, and the necessary information is hard to find.
The Journal of Molecular Biology is an excellent journal, and we’re proud to have our article appear there. The submission and review process went very smoothly, the copy editing was very professionally done, and the 50 free offprints are a nice treat. But I feel strongly that taxpayer-supported research should be published where the taxpayers can see it, so I won’t be submitting to any Elsevier journals in the future.”

any NIH funded project has to put in BMC. Some journals put the onus on you, some make you pay extra (called jerks), but its the law that it has to be in there within 12 months
LikeLike
, but if it is not NIH funded, Pubmed central will not necessarily take it … something that needs to be fixed
LikeLike