Further down in this blogpost I commend the Nature Scientific Reports
options. For further details and explanation of why I consider author
choice to be optimal, see the blogpost.
Author choice is absolutely fine if the author(s) 100% fully-funded the
research they are reporting on. Although
Following on from Heather's post, Nature Publishing Group can offer some more
data on author choice of licenses on Scientific Reports. Since we introduced
CC-BY as an option in July 2012, authors have chosen CC-BY on 5% of papers.
1 January 2011 to 30 June 2012
* Two license choices were
I would be interested in who took the decision to offer a range or licences
and whether this has had any consultation outside NPG.
From my viewpoint I see it as a publisher taking unilateral decisions about
the dissemination of knowledge without community involvement. NPG will
(naturally) do what
To state the obvious: Nature is offering researchers the choice to
make their own decision about a range of CC licenses. This is not a
unilateral decision! On the contrary, it is publishers who offer only
one choice (such as CC-BY) that are making a unilateral decision.
As an open access
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.cawrote:
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
I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals
with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC.
First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that
anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free?
Our long review articles would make
Dear Frank
In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell
them on amazon,
Yes. Anyone can do this because wikipedia articles are openly licenced.
This is a good thing. People are happy with paying for a hard (paper) copy
of something. Printing on real paper, with real
On 01/28/2013 10:44 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
Question: are you saying that allowing any third party to make use of a
scholar's work to advertise their own products and/or to sell their
advertising services is one of the reasons people are advocating for CC-BY?
I don't know exactly why
Frank,
This is an interesting point and probably the first solid argument in
favor of CC-BY-NC that I've heard. But I want to highlight a few
circumstances that, in my opinion, make this case an exception rather
than a rule.
1. The book - like most (or all?) academic books published for
Some responses to PMR:
Nature's Scientific Reports website lists just one fee for APFs, in different
currencies - $1,350 in the Americas. There is no mention of differential
pricing based on CC license choice. From:
http://www.nature.com/srep/authors/index.html#costs
Here is the advice given
Marcin, of course there is room for new services, particularly taking advantage
of the potential of the internet, and at a quick glance, TunedIT looks
promising.
What I am wondering is why new services and companies should not build through
voluntary participation rather than seeking public
Dear Heather.
I believe PMR was referring to these 19ish Nature Publishing Group
journals, which do explicitly charge higher for the CC BY licence
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/
and as I've told you elsewhere, where open access journals use Creative
Commons licences CC BY
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Editor Living Reviews
edito...@aei.mpg.dewrote:
Therefore, our authors would object to Peter
Murray-Rust, who has
never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY.
Now I have (assuming Frank Schulz is a practising scientist) . And I cannot
understand
On 2013-01-29, at 11:01 AM, Ross Mounce wrote:
...and as I've told you elsewhere, where open access journals use Creative
Commons licences CC BY is by far the most common choice (whether you count that
by publisher, journal OR article volume)
Comment
From Peter Suber's SPARC Open Access
My statement and Peter Suber's statement do not conflict.
He said 'of all OA journals'
Whilst I said 'of OA journals using creative commons licences'
Both statements are thus correct
On Jan 29, 2013 10:09 PM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.ca wrote:
On 2013-01-29, at 11:01 AM, Ross Mounce
Thanks, Heather, for this explanation.
Yes, I agree that OA archiving shall be an important part of the system,
no matter what specific OA license is being used, for the preservation
of scholarship independently of the fate or misdoings of a given publisher.
As to the dangers of commercial
hi Marcin,
On 2013-01-28, at 3:43 AM, Marcin Wojnarski wrote:
Thanks, Heather, for this explanation.
Yes, I agree that OA archiving shall be an important part of the system, no
matter what specific OA license is being used, for the preservation of
scholarship independently of the fate or
Anyone who buys Springer (hence BMC) has no obligations at all to
continue to provide the BMC articles on an open access basis.
In legal sense that's true, but in practice this is impossible, because
Springer+BMC would totally destroy their credibility as an OA publisher
which they've built
On 2013-01-28, at 12:29 PM, Marcin Wojnarski wrote:
Commercial use is a broad and vague term. For example, displaying a paper on
a website together with advertisements - is this commercial use or not? I think
most people hope for add-on services to flourish on top of CC-BY literature,
they
Before this goes too far, let's establish that commercial re-use is possible
and is used. Scholars may not be averse to it.
I have in mind monitoring organisations, which for a subscription, will
survey the literature and provide subscribers with relevant data that they
have culled. Think of
Heather and I disagree profoundly on this. I have never met a scientist who
has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. There is a very strong case against CC-NC,
with significant research into the issues (not just opinions) put by
Hagedorn, Mietchen et al.
Arthur below gives this example of a commercial service scholars might
not be averse to - Medifocus.
As an example, I look at the Medifocus guidebook on peripheral
neuropathy costs $32.95 for the print version or $24.95 for the
electronic version.
https://www.medifocus.com/
Comments:
1.
On 28-Jan-13, at 8:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
Heather and I disagree profoundly on this. I have never met a
scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. There is a very strong
case against CC-NC, with significant research into the issues (not
just opinions) put by Hagedorn, Mietchen
Heather,
I'm curious about your final note that CC-BY is not advisable for
humanities. Why is it so? What's so different in HSS publications
compared to, say, biology or mathematics where CC-BY is a gold
standard? What other license is most recommended in humanities? Thanks.
Marcin
On
hi Marcin,
On 26-Jan-13, at 9:09 AM, Marcin Wojnarski wrote:
Heather,
I'm curious about your final note that CC-BY is not advisable for
humanities. Why is it so? What's so different in HSS publications
compared to, say, biology or mathematics where CC-BY is a gold
standard? What other
25 matches
Mail list logo
