Dear Heather,
thanks again for your comments.
>Our ability to choose which venues to publish in is dependent on both the
>market and our means, whether we are >discussing cars, houses, or academic
>publishing.
I totally agree with this. For acting rational on a market you also need
Allow me to reply to Rob Johnson about one of his points: "navigating the many
vested interests". This attitude was all too obvious in the report drafted for
OpenAIRE (see the whiterose URL below) which, I understand, was strongly
criticised internally within the European Commission. The reason
Dear Jean-Claude, Heather,
In haste, but thanks for flagging the concern on the NDA clause, I was aware
this might be contentious, and will feed this back.
Certainly there are similar transparency requirements in the UK to those you
describe in Ontario, including freedom of information requests
Thank you for pointing out the NDA clause, Jean-Claude.
Copyright collectives such as CCC lobby for legislation that in effect directs
$ to their members. At least this is the case in Canada where local copyright
collectives believe they should have a legal right to demand that blanket
I just would like to attract the attention of the readers of this group to the
last line of the first screen of the application form
(https://www.surveygizmo.eu/s3/90158934/OA-Advisory-Panel).
It simply says: Some of the work carried out as part of this Group will be
confidential. Therefore,
A few more points about CCC.
* it is totally unregulated by external bodies.
* it takes 15% of income so it has an incentive to generate as much income
as possible
* it is a total monopoly - there is no other org that manages rights
* all the income goes to the publisher (and CCC). None to authors
Thank you, this is helpful Peter. Confirmation or refutation by CCC and/or its
publisher members would move this discussion further.
One point of correction: re "CC NC and CC ND licences are treated as
effectively controlled by the publisher".
Creative Commons licenses are a means for
Typical example,
Skimmed through Cell to the first CC - NC - ND article:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.055
Copyright
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
User LicenseCreative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0)
It seems to me, Rob, that if you were aware that it "might be contentious"
(), you might have also considered mentioning the fact, if only for the
sake of honest transparency... Practising some analog of the caveat emptor
philosophy in the field of copyright is not a good starting point.
