Second academic journal, publisher say pressed to censor China content, East Asia News & Top Stories – The Straits Times

“A second academic journal has received requests to censor content in China, following an international outcry after Cambridge University Press (CUP) temporarily agreed to block sensitive articles from another publication under pressure from Beijing.

The United States-based Association for Asian Studies (AAS) said Tuesday (Aug 22) that CUP, its online publisher, had received a request to remove 100 articles from the Journal of Asian Studies.

It was the second time in days that a journal published by CUP revealed that it had received such a demand from China….

Separately on Tuesday, LexisNexis, a provider of legal, regulatory and business information, said it had withdrawn two products from the Chinese market in March this year after it was asked to remove some content.  “Earlier this year LexisNexis Business Insight Solutions in China was asked to remove some content from its database,”LexisNexis said in a statement. 

“In March 2017, the company withdrew two products (Nexis and LexisNexis Academic) from the Chinese market.” LexisNexis is owned by information group Relx. …”

Second academic journal, publisher say pressed to censor China content, East Asia News & Top Stories – The Straits Times

“A second academic journal has received requests to censor content in China, following an international outcry after Cambridge University Press (CUP) temporarily agreed to block sensitive articles from another publication under pressure from Beijing.

The United States-based Association for Asian Studies (AAS) said Tuesday (Aug 22) that CUP, its online publisher, had received a request to remove 100 articles from the Journal of Asian Studies.

It was the second time in days that a journal published by CUP revealed that it had received such a demand from China….

Separately on Tuesday, LexisNexis, a provider of legal, regulatory and business information, said it had withdrawn two products from the Chinese market in March this year after it was asked to remove some content.  “Earlier this year LexisNexis Business Insight Solutions in China was asked to remove some content from its database,”LexisNexis said in a statement. 

“In March 2017, the company withdrew two products (Nexis and LexisNexis Academic) from the Chinese market.” LexisNexis is owned by information group Relx. …”

Finland takes a step back in the openness of academic journal pricing — Mostly Physics

“Although I have not lived in Finland since 2013, I’ve kept in touch with the open science community there as well as with current open access discussions. On January 17, I got a rather unpleasant birthday present in the form of an announced three-year, 27 M€ deal between FinELib, a consortium of Finnish research institutions, and Elsevier, perhaps the most egregious of the big publishers. The deal was reached after two years of hard negotiations, supported by almost 3000 Finnish researchers who had committed in the #nodealnoreview boycott to refuse reviewing for Elsevier if the negotiations fail.

The glowing press release, seemingly written purely by Elsevier, compounded with an almost complete lack of details, left an immediate bad taste in my mouth. My opinion did not much improve through discussions in the Finnish Open Science Facebook group, and with journalist Richard Poynder whom I urged to try and get more details. He just published his Q&A with FinELib, which I warmly recommend you read. I have two principal concerns with the deal: the lack of transparency over the actual terms, and the hybrid OA discount option — especially as it was immediately implemented at the University of Helsinki….”

South Korean universities reach agreement with Elsevier after long standoff | Science | AAAS

“After a monthslong standoff, a consortium of hundreds of South Korean universities has reached a new deal with scientific publisher Elsevier for access to ScienceDirect, a database containing content from 3500 academic journals and thousands of electronic books. The agreement, which includes price hikes between 3.5% and 3.9%, was concluded shortly before 12 January, the day Elsevier had threatened to cut access to ScienceDirect. The publisher had pushed for a 4.5% increase….”

Elsevier declines to cut off German universities that cancelled journal subs | News | Chemistry World

“Efforts to reach a deal between the publishing giant and 200 institutions protesting prices continue after January deadline passes German universities and research institutes that cancelled their subscriptions to Elsevier journals in a protest over pricing still have access to them. This is despite a breakdown in talks last month. A consortium of German institutions, Project Deal, has been trying to negotiate a nationwide deal for the entire portfolio of electronic journals from the Dutch publishing giant since 2016. The consortium, which includes the country’s National Academy of Sciences, the Fraunhofer Society and the German Research Foundation, wants all papers authored by the country’s researchers to be open access in Germany and pricing that ensures costs are only incurred at publication. This would mean that corresponding authors could make papers freely available without paying any more. It’s understood that if these demands were met the amount that these institutions pay to Elsevier would be halved….”

UvA’er verruilt vermaard Elsevier-journal voor open access-platform – Folia

From Google’s English: “Gianfranco Bertone, UvA physicist and until recently editor-in-chief of Elsevier’s Physics of the Dark Universe…announced Friday his departure as editor-in-chief of the renowned physics journal Physics of the Dark Universe on Twitter. ‘I have resigned as editor-in-chief of Elsevier’s’ Physics of the Dark Universe ‘and intend to support open access not-for-profit publishers such as @scipost_dot_org,’ Bertone wrote….When he joined Physics of the Dark Universe in 2011, the plan was to change the subscription model in such a way that the entire magazine would be open access, says Bertone. ‘It has been a fantastic scientific adventure, but in the end we did not manage to create the business model that we had in mind. It was time for me to look at other possibilities to realize my vision. ‘ …”