Nature again, well, SpringerNature

Posted by Paywall Watch on 05 Dec, 2017

It was brought to our attention today on Twitter that a paper published in Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (part of SpringerNature) is wrongly paywalled.

., why isn't open access yet? According to the correction () from 2017-11-25 it should now be CC-BY 4.0, but I'm still seeing a paywall. At least the correction itself is CC-BY 4.0, which is something, I guess...

The correction reads as follows:-

Correction to: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2017) 101:8237–8248

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8548-2

The article “Industrial antifoam agents impair ethanol fermentation and induce stress responses in yeast cells”, written by Jens Christian Nielsen, Felipe Senne de Oliveira Lino, Thomas Gundelund Rasmussen, Jette Thykær, Christopher T. Workman and Thiago Olitta Basso, was originally published Online First without open access. After publication in volume 101, issue 22, page 8237–8248, the author decided to opt for Open Choice and to make the article an open access publication. Therefore, the copyright of the article has been changed to © The Author(s) 2017 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

The original article was corrected.

---

So after the correction, why oh why is the original paper STILL PAYWALLED ? "The original article was corrected", err, no it wasn't.

10

Did you pay an APC to make it OA or is it covered by some institutional offsetting agreement? cc


  • , thanks for chiming in (I remembered your other posts on publishers charging for open access work)! I'm not affiliated with the authors, although I know the last author from years ago, so I could inquire.


  • Hmmm, so why do you think it should be OA? (Sorry, it’s not so clear to me, needs a little explanation)


  • See correction: "article .. was originally published .. without open access. After publication .. the author decided to .. make the article an open access publication. Therefore, the ... article is forthwith distributed under [CC-BY 4.0]"


  • Ah thanks for explaining it. Doh! How bizarre! Issuing a correction for a publishing issue which doesn’t even affect the content of the article. Copyright & licensing is just metadata really, not integral. Did it really need a correction to do that?


  • Yeah, it seems a bit superfluous. I stumbled on the correction via an email alerts for new yeast papers, and then found to my surprise that the supposedly open accessed article isn't open access (yet).