This percentage is a bit higher in developing and transition countries. Last year I checked 2,489 open access journals in EIFL partner countries, 556 journals used CC licenses and 94% of these journals used CC BY (524 open access journals in Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Lithuania, Macedonia, Nigeria, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Thailand). 524 out of 2,489 is 21% CC BY ( http://www.eifl.net/news/implementation-open-content-licenses). And I plan to check how this looks like this year (with 3,400+ open access journals in EIFL partner countries).
I agree with your several possible explanations, in my context especially with * ignorance of the issues * incompetence * copying what others do Best wishes, Iryna Iryna Kuchma EIFL Open Access Programme Manager iryna.kuchma at eifl.net skype: iryna.kuchma twitter:@irynakuchma _____________________________________ *EIFL: Knowledge Without Boundaries* <http://www.eifl.net/home> Follow *EIFL* on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/eIFL.net>, Twitter <http://twitter.com/eIFLnet>and RSS <http://www.eifl.net/rss-all>. View *EIFL *photos and videos on Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/eifl/>and YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/eiflnet/featured> . Sign up for the *EIFL *newsletter <http://www.eifl.net/newsletter>. On 26 April 2012 15:13, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Iryna Kuchma <iryna.kuchma at > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/fb8944ff/attachment.html
