On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Iryna Kuchma <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Sridhar,
I agree with you that CC BY ND license is quite restrictive and that
CC BY is an optimal solution. Perhaps in your advice you can refer
to:
There are very few "Gold" open access journals among the major publishers (BMC
and PLoS, and presumably eLife being exceptions). Those three - and the small
amount of material in nonBMC-Springer - are under CC-BY.
Many publishers offer "hybrid Open Access" where authors pay large amounts for
their material to appear as "Open Access". This term is not operationally
defined and almost all publishers have declined to offer CC-BY, ranging from
CC-NC to homegrown conditions that are more restrictive than normal copyright.
Ross Mounce (http://science.okfn.org/blog/) has done a survey of over 100
publishers and their "Open Access" offering and shown that only 5% are CC-BY.
There are several possible explanations
* ignorance of the issues
* incompetence
* copying what others do
* an attempt to reduce the value of "Open Access".
Given that some fees can be 5000 USD or more per paper for a substandard "Open
Access" product this does considerable damage.
P.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
