On 28 April 2015 at 22:45, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
wrote:
There is nothing in any of the CC licenses that requires that works be
made available free of charge, either by the downstream user or by the
original licensor. It is true that a CC license cannot be revoked,
Graham makes some good points.
Anyone who is sharing a work under any Creative Commons license, or any other
type of license, has no obligation to keep the work available at all, or under
the same license, in perpetuity. I can post a picture to flickr under whatever
terms I choose, immediately
It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a
particular license even at the time of publication.
When an author submits a paper to a journal they often get a selection of
licenses to choose from. Surely that’s part of the contract to publish?
David
On 29 Apr
Blogpost by Alexis Calvé-Genest Heather Morrison
An introduction to alternatives to market economy.
From the Sustaining the Knowledge Commons project, this short text wants to
introduce a few ideas on alternate modes of exchange.
In order to rethink the current publication system, a little
I've always been amazed how Thomson/ISI categorized English language journals
(mostly published in de US/UK) as international journals and all other
journals as regional journals. Should ask them.
BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence? Will
Science Metrix launch
On 2015-04-29, at 8:43 AM, David Prosser wrote:
It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a
particular license even at the time of publication.
When an author submits a paper to a journal they often get a selection of
licenses to choose from. Surely that’s
May I ask a couple of naïve questions?
Why do we count journals? If we are all looking forward to a global,
hopefully distributed archive of knowledge, shouldn't we counting papers or
some other way of displaying solutions?
El 29/4/2015 11:13, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) j.bos...@uu.nl escribió:
On 29/04/2015 14:09:40, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:
It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a
particular license even at the time of publication.
When an author submits a paper to a journal they often get a selection of
licenses to choose
Good question. And while we're at it, why after 20 years do we still use a
stovepiped, disaggregated, print model construct as the primary vehicle for
digitally networked scholarly communication?
Paul F. Uhlir, J.D.
Scholar, National Academy of Sciences, and
Consultant, Data Policy and
Jeroen
You are right on the dot, but Thomson is certainly not the only one to do this,
many practitioners in the bibliometrics community also have this habit, albeit
somewhat unconsciously. This is why we haven't had a much needed debate a
proper debate on linguistic and national
Jacinto
The question is not naïve, it is important. The reason there should be a
conversation on journals, and their numbers, is to establish the population.
And we need to determine this to speak about representativeness of current
sources of data, of sampling biases, and generally of
I agree with Graham. The likelihood of CC-BY being used against the
community is effectively zero.
The reverse is NOT true. CC-BY-NC actually grants the publisher an
effective monopoly to charge for re-use rights. This is not hypothetical.
Publishers are making millions out of papers which are
Paul
I think librarians are still highly concerned about journals, as opposed to
papers. The reason is that this is how their invoices are structured - they buy
journals and now bunches of journals. But this is changing because end-users
increasingly do not see journals, they see results in
If one wants to see how excluding foreign references can have adverse effects
on citation analysis, here the list of references for a randomly picked up
Japanese paper.
Most, if not all, Japanese language references are currently ignored in
citation analysis, this science is considered
Elsevier has much in common with Public Library of Science: both are scholarly
publishing organizations, focused on science, and in my opinion both
aggressively advocate sometimes for the best interests of scholarship, but
often primarily for their own business interests.
If policy-makers are
15 matches
Mail list logo
