The stories from December 2013 (Do high impact journals damage science?) were critiquing impact factor as a poor measure of article quality and encouraging selection of other journals instead of Cell (Cell Press is part of Elsevier), Nature and Science. But, based on stories this month, it seems like we may want to challenge some of those high impact publishers for their publishing practices as well.
Some Elsevier-related stories this month:
-- German University Tells Elsevier 'No Deal'
-- Elsevier STM publishing profits rise to 39%
-- LIBER response to Elsevier’s text and data mining policy details why Elsevier's policy does not give researchers the rights they need and want. (LIBER is Association of European Research Libraries.)
-- Notes on Wellcome Trust data about open access APCs not yielding open access articles on ScienceDirect and elsewhere
Kevin Smith, from Duke, posted about Nature Publishing Group (NPG) Attacking Academic Values. The first 6 paragraphs deal with waivers which NPG has begun to request from Duke authors; at WUSTL this is irrelevant since we have an open access resolution, not the sort of open access policy which they have at Duke. But then NPG's License to Publish is discussed. This is relevant to all WU authors who publish in NPG journals because all must sign or amend and sign the License to Publish. There is at least one comment from NPG on the post. (Smith's post was mentioned in the Chronicle of Higher Education Nature Publishing Group Requires Faculty Authors to Waive ‘Moral Rights’.)