[okfn-discuss] [open-science] SPARC author addendum uses CC-NC licence and now all hybrid publishers have followed
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Dec 23 21:54:57 GMT 2011
Thanks you very much, Peter.
Figures are important and these are valuable.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Peter Suber <peter.suber at gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter MR,
> I have some data and links in this article from last summer.
> 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.
> As of the same date, 747 or 11.2% had the SPARC Europe Seal of Approval,
>> which requires CC-BY.
> 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.
> This is one of the largest missed opportunities of the OA movement to
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.
> Peter S.
> Peter Suber
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the okfn-discuss