[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
Dear Sridhar, CC-BY without a doubt. I share your views on the ND element. Almost all science is derived from earlier work. And ND would encumber, or make impossible, usage by modern scientific analyses, which are increasingly using ? needing ? text- and data-mining and then publishing those analyses. Best, Jan Velterop On 26 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Sridhar Gutam wrote: Dear All, In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India (MAPAI) http://www.mapai.co.nr we have asked a question on a OA forum on what should be the suitable CC license to apply for the OAJMAP. We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY ND. But now as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'. Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works ? You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new things would be built on the existing. I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the Management Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY. Whats your suggestions pleases?? Sridhar __ Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP Biotech. (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture Rehmankhera, Kakori Post Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL at eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120426/63a84c4f/attachment.html
[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Sridhar Gutam gutam2000 at gmail.com wrote: Dear All, In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India (MAPAI) http://www.mapai.co.nr we have asked a question on a OA forum on what should be the suitable CC license to apply for the OAJMAP. We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY ND. But now as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'. Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works ? You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new things would be built on the existing. I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the Management Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY. Whats your suggestions pleases?? Sridhar I would strongly support CC-BY. There has been a lot of discussion recently about this and two papers by Mike Carroll and others arguing convincingly that only CC-BY makes sense. CC-NC is impossible to define or operate in practice and only serves to prevent useful things happening. CC-ND prevents any normal scholarly and other re-use. The funding agencies are all now insisting on CC-BY for Open Access. So by adopting that you become acceptable target for publishing their funded work. P. __ Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP Biotech. (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture Rehmankhera, Kakori Post Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL at eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120426/069a9b36/attachment.html
[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Iryna Kuchma iryna.kuchma at eifl.netwrote: 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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120426/808cb4ac/attachment-0001.html
[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
Dear Sridhar, CC-BY without a doubt. I share your views on the ND element. Almost all science is derived from earlier work. And ND would encumber, or make impossible, usage by modern scientific analyses, which are increasingly using â needing â text- and data-mining and then publishing those analyses. Best, Jan Velterop On 26 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Sridhar Gutam wrote: Dear All, In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India (MAPAI) http://www.mapai.co.nr we have asked a question on a OA forum on what should be the suitable CC license to apply for the OAJMAP. We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY ND. But now as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'. Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works â You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new things would be built on the existing. I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the Management Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY. Whats your suggestions pleases?? Sridhar __ Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP Biotech. (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture Rehmankhera, Kakori Post Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
ND doesn't stop people building on the output;  but it does stop them amending it, so any reproduction must be of the text verbatim. Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim --- On Thu, 26/4/12, Sridhar Gutam gutam2...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sridhar Gutam gutam2...@gmail.com Subject: [GOAL] what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal To: GOAL@eprints.org Date: Thursday, 26 April, 2012, 11:38 Dear All, In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India (MAPAI) http://www.mapai.co.nr we have asked a question on a OA forum on what should be the suitable CC license to apply for the OAJMAP. We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY ND. But now as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'. Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works â You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new things would be built on the existing. I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the Management Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY. Whats your suggestions pleases?? Sridhar __ Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP Biotech. (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture Rehmankhera, Kakori Post Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/ -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
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: The Online Guide to Open Access Journals Publishing developed by Co-Action Publishing and Lund University Libraries Head Office with support from the National Library of Sweden and Nordbib, which says that The easiest and most recommended means of meeting this Open Access standard is to adopt one of the Creative Commons licenses, in particular the CC-BY (the most liberal license, allowing all forms of re-use)...(http://www.doaj.org/bpguide/set-up/3/#2-3-3-4-adopt-licensingcopyright-policy) ; The SPARC Europe and the Directory of Open Access Journals SPARC Europe Seal for Open Access Journals: In order for open access journals to be even more useful and thus receive more exposure and provide more value to the research community it is very important that open access journals offer standardized, easily retrievable information about what kinds of reuse are allowed. Therefore, we are advising that all journals provide clear and unambiguous statements regarding the copyright statement of the papers they publish. To qualify for the SPARC Europe Seal a journal must use the Creative Commons BY (CC BY) license, which is the most user-friendly license and corresponds to the ethos of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempltempl=080423); Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) response to the OSTPâs request for public comment on Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding Agencies Across the Federal Government - free re-use is as important as free access: One of the key motivations of Open Access publishing is to maximize the potential impact of any piece of published research by removing any barrier to access or reuse of that work. The best way to achieve that is to attach a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY) to each and every publication. Among other things, the use of a CC BY assures that researchers and institutions are free to post the final published version of that work in any repository, archive, etc., removing concerns about the circulation of multiple versions of a particular article. Moreover, from an Open Access publishing perspective, archives and repositories also provide additional channels for disseminating authorsâ work and encouraging re-use, leading to greater impact. (http://oaspa.org/blog/2010/01/); and SURF recommendation to use the most liberal Creative Commons license for articles, which is CC BY (for the detailed recommendations please read the report Reuse of material in the context of education and research produced for SURFdirect, the digital rights expertise community for higher education; authors: Paul Keller - Creative Commons Netherlands, Wilma Mossink â SURFdirect; editing Annemiek van der Kuil, SURFdirect: http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/Reuseofmaterial.aspx). Best wishes, Iryna Iryna Kuchma EIFL Open Access Programme Manager iryna.kuc...@eifl.net skype: iryna.kuchma twitter:@irynakuchma _ EIFL: Knowledge Without Boundaries Follow EIFL on Facebook, Twitter and RSS.   View EIFL photos and videos on Flickr and YouTube. Sign up for the EIFL newsletter. On 26 April 2012 13:38, Sridhar Gutam gutam2...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India (MAPAI) http://www.mapai.co.nr we have asked a question on a OA forum on what should be the suitable CC license to apply for the OAJMAP. We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY ND. But now as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'. Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works â You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new things would be built on the existing. I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the Management Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY. Whats your suggestions pleases?? Sridhar __ Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP Biotech. (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture Rehmankhera, Kakori Post Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: Attached Text ]
[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Iryna Kuchma iryna.kuc...@eifl.net 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 GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal
The Mounce list of OA publishing with copyright options and definitions is available at: https://sites.google.com/site/rossmounce/misc/a-survey-of-open-access-publisher -licenses   --- Charles Hamaker M.L.S | Associate University Librarian Collection Development and Electronic Resources UNC Charlotte | J. Murrey Atkins Library 9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223 Phone: 704-687-1106 | Fax: 704-687-2322 caham...@uncc.edu | http://library.uncc.edu/ --- --- If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or other use of any of the information in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone at 704-687-2825. Thank you.     From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:14 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal   On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Iryna Kuchma iryna.kuc...@eifl.net 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 GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
