Did Elsevier break its own rules?

Written byAndrea Gawrylewski

| 2 min read

A science publisher that holds copyright supreme has a double standard, a science blogger is arguing. This week, science blogger Mike Dunford of linkurl:The Questionable Authority;http://scienceblogs.com/authority/ posted a linkurl:blog;http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/08/reed_elsevier_caught_copying_m.php saying that Reed Elsevier had copied some of the content from his blog without permission. While checking out links to his blog, Dunford came across a page run by LexisNexis (a Reed Elsevier company), which contained excerpts from one of Dunford's posts on open access from a few weeks ago, which mentioned Elsevier's profits from 2007. Dunford's name didn't appear anywhere on the LexisNexis page, although there was a link back to the original blog post. Reed Elsevier has some open access content but primarily operates under the traditional publishing model. They have been vocal in their linkurl:opposition;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54442/ to open access. In his post this week, Dunford said: "I was not asked for, and did not give, permission for my work to appear on that page, much less in that format. Needless to say, I felt a little slighted." In a statement from LexisNexis sent to the The Scientist, the company said that the page is part of an internal database set up for Elsevier to keep track of what's being said about them in the media. So what's Dunford's beef? "I guess on a scale of one to 10 this does not even register too highly when talking about things like copyright," he told The Scientist. But the frustration, he added, is that "Elsevier expects people to properly attribute their products." Just this June, Elsevier, the publishing arm of the company, filed a copyright infringement suit against Encyclopedia Britannica over medical illustrations appearing in the encyclopedia. "If they want standards with how to treat intellectual property," Dunford added, "that type of thing begins at home." In the statement, LexisNexis agreed that proper attribution was not given on the page. "Whenever Web content generated by third parties is used in this way, it is the practice of LexisNexis to use only a small amount of that content, and to provide attribution to the content's author, along with a link to the relevant blog or Web site," the statement noted. "Our investigation concluded that, in this particular instance, these procedures were not adhered to fully." LexisNexis added that it will apologize to Dunford, remove the content in question, and implement refresher training for their employees to make sure content is attributed properly. "LexisNexis is committed to respecting the rights of copyright holders and content owners," the statement concluded.

Did Elsevier break its own rules?

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Andrea Gawrylewski

Related Research Resources

Why Do We Feel Butterflies in the Stomach?

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Long-Read RNA Sequencing Reveals a Regulatory Role for Splicing in Immunotherapy Responses

Research Roundtable: The Evolving World of Spatial Biology

Exploring the State of the Art in Gene Editing Techniques

Simplifying Early Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis with Blood Testing

Products

Product News

LabVantage Solutions Awarded $22.3 Million U.S Customs and Border Protection Contract to Deliver Next-Generation Forensic LIMS

Evosep Unveils Open Innovation Initiative to Expand Standardization in Proteomics

SPT Labtech and Alithea Genomics Collaborate to Automate Ultra Sensitive Single-Cell Transcriptomic Workflows

OGT expands MRD detection capabilities with new SureSeq Myeloid MRD Plus NGS Panel