Christian Gutknecht published an exciting posting on the Swiss EUR 57 million Elsevier deal in which he outlines the transformative Open Access agreement between Elsevier and swissuniversities. Since Germany has been trying for years to reach such a contract with Elsevier, it is worth comparing it with the two transformative contracts with Wiley and Springer Nature in Germany, which were reached and coordinated by Project DEAL.

For a number of years now, publishers who expect losing revenue in a transition to Open Access have been spreading fear about journals which claim to perform peer-review on submitted manuscripts, but then collect the publishing fee of a few hundred dollars (about 5-10% of what these legacy publishers charge) without performing any peer-review at all.

The Norwegian consortium for higher education and research and the publishing house Elsevier agreed two days ago to a national license. This provides Norwegian researchers not only access to articles published in Elsevier’s journals (including the society journals as The Lancet or CELL Press) but also the opportunity to publish their results Open Access. Seven universities and 39 research institutions will benefit from the two-year agreement.

Published April 8, 2019 by Kate Shuttleworth on the Radical Access Blog The University of California recently took a bold step in support of open access publishing by terminating subscriptions with Elsevier, the world’s largest scientific publisher. We asked SFU Faculty for their thoughts on the cancellation and what this means for open access. What happened?

In late 2016, Martin Eve, Stuart Lawson and Jon Tennant referred Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority. Inspired by this, I thought I would try referring a complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about some blatant fibbing I saw Elsevier engage-in with their marketing spiel at a recent conference.

For completeness, this post, also based on analyses performed by Daniel Ecer of eLife (<d.ecer@elifesciences.org)> on data he downloaded from Crossref in September 2017 (Ecer, 2017), complements the two preceding posts, and details the openness of references from scholarly publishers other than Elsevier.

Yesterday (November 23rd 2017) I was working with Daniel Ecer of eLife (<d.ecer@elifesciences.org)> to dig some hard facts out of the analyses he undertook on data he downloaded from Crossref in September 2017 (Ecer, 2017).  Because of its dominant position in the scholarly publishing world, in this, the second of two related posts, I report the results for references from works published by Elsevier.

Yesterday (November 23rd 2017) I was working with Daniel Ecer of eLife (<d.ecer@elifesciences.org)> to dig some hard facts out of the analyses he undertook on data he downloaded from Crossref in September 2017 (Ecer, 2017).  In this, the first of two related posts, I report the results for all publishers . **The analyses show that, of the 33,672,763 journal articles documented in Crossref that have accompanying

Academic publishers in general and Elsevier in particular have a reputation for their ruthless profiteering, using professional negotiators pitting hapless librarians against their own faculty during journal subscription negotiations.

Wissenschaftsverlage haben erklärt, Veröffentlichungen zum Zika-Virus frei zugänglich zu machen. Das ist löblich, führt aber erneut vor Augen, wieviel Potenzial sonst verschenkt wird, kommentiert Christian Gutknecht. Es ist ein zynisches Schauspiel, welches Subskriptionsverlage immer dann wieder vorführen, wenn der freie Zugang zu Forschungsresultaten ein bisschen höher auf der Agenda ist als sonst.