On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Heather Morrison <heath...@eln.bc.ca>wrote:
> On 28-Jan-13, at 8:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > Comment: I know how much you appreciate quantitative evidence, PMR, so > here are some quick figures that suggest that scientists do very much > want NC: > These are not scientific observations - at best anecdotal. > > Nature's Scientific Reports provides an interesting case study. This > journal is similar to PLoS ONE - except that they give authors their > choice of CC licenses. I just checked the 8 journals on the front page > of scientific reports, and here are the CC license choices of the > scientists themselves: > > CC-BY-NC-ND: 6/8 or 75% > CC-BY: 1/8 or 12.5% > CC-BY-SA: 1/8 or 12.5% > > My understanding is that Nature charges more for CC-BY than CC-NC, in which case I hypothesize that price is the determining factor. A larger study would be useful - anyone interested? This is one of the > advantages of the leaving the choice in the hands of the author. > > A quick glance at the DOAJ General Science list shows that about 20 of > the 143 journals on this list use the NC element. This compares with > about 19 journals on the same list using CC-BY. > There is no evidence that this policy is set by scientists. I strongly suspect this is done at non-academic editorial level. I suspect that it is due to simplistic decision-making in the office. In several cases where I have pubklicly challenged editors on this they have changed their policy from NC to BY > > This means that scholars on editorial boards who are making decisions > about gold open access publishing in the area of science are looking > at the CC options and deciding that it makes sense to use > noncommercial. Note that the majority in this sub-list still are not > using CC licenses at all. > > The lack of knowledge in journals about licences is almost certainly an important factor. >> To summarize: there is evidence that given a choice, scientists tend > to prefer CC licenses including the noncommercial element. > > There is no evidence to support this claim. This can only be established by a proper controlled study not assumptions from anecdotes. 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
