Apparently, Oxford University Press' recent journal platform upgrade (details pdf) got super screwed up. A bunch of scientists are (rightfully) quite upset about various issues such as missing years of archives, access being denied for certain subscribers, misdirected and non-directing urls and dois, and missing supplemental data.
Don't get me wrong, this is pretty horrible. What tickles me is the response of writing an open letter.
Typically, when these upgrades go wrong, the scientists scream at us, their librarians. We in turn call and e-mail and fuss at the vendor who then eventually fixes it and then sends an apology to our acquisitions team and sometimes relevant listservs. I don't think we ever actually get any credits on our bills, though.
What a pleasant surprise that the scientists are actually blaming the publisher!
When I say typically, I mean like probably every month or so something like this happens to some extent. Some vendor platform upgrades are smooth, but I think most have some subset of the issues OUP has had.
Sage gave free access for like a month and then redirected all URLs. RefWorks is running 2 platforms in parallel for like 3 years. LexisNexis is going to SOOPRIZE change us all over during the summer to a completely new platform... It is more typical to change over during the summer instead of screwing things up during prime paper writing season. Of course, OUP did start this late fall ... so...
Anyway, I hope OUP gets their stuff squared away quickly.