Thanks you very much, Peter. Figures are important and these are valuable.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Peter Suber <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter MR, > > I have some data and links in this article from last summer. > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/07-02-11.htm#copyright > > Here's the key excerpt (from #9): > > When I checked last week (June 24, 2011), 1,448 out of 6,647 journals in >> the DOAJ, or 21.8%, used some kind of CC license. > > http://www.doaj.org/?func=licensedJournals >> > > > As of the same date, 747 or 11.2% had the SPARC Europe Seal of Approval, >> which requires CC-BY. >> http://www.doaj.org/?func=sealedJournals >> > > > OA repositories are rarely in a position to obtain the permissions needed >> for libre OA. Hence, we can't criticize or complain when most of their >> deposits are gratis, not libre. > > I don't complain - I accept this as one way forward. If we don't pay this is what we can strive for > But OA journals can easily obtain the permissions needed for libre OA. >> When they don't offer libre OA, they have no excuse. > > Agreed. > This is one of the largest missed opportunities of the OA movement to >> date. >> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-09.htm#2 > > Peter - this is exactly my argument. I have nothing against Green, but it cannot give the permissions we need to do modern informatics-based science. The question is how we change it. I think *some* publishers do not realise the problems with non-libreOA and may change if given rational evidence. If we can get a few to flip, then we might make slow but constant progress. I'd like a place where this strategy can be discussed rationally without being swamped with GreenOA assertions and ill-thought-out assertions about how authors want CC-NC. Every funder I have talked to would like completely libreOA and - within limits - is prepared to pay for it. How one fixes prices in an artificial monopoly is a problem of politics, not economics. > >> > > Today most libre OA is gold OA. But unfortunately it's not yet the case >> that most gold OA is libre OA, and unfortunately it's not even close. > > Agreed. Pubmed has ca 20 million articles. Many of those don't even have publicly visible abstracts. Of the rest only 1% are OAlibre and that is the only amount that we are allowed to index, mine, serach for images, transform data, etc. I don't think people in A&H have any idea what a loss the full article is to a modern informatics scientist. > > Best, > Peter S. > > Peter Suber > bit.ly/suber-gplus > > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
