[okfn-discuss] [open-science] "Open Access" publications under CC-NC licences

Thu Dec 8 09:10:38 UTC 2011

There is momentum building round this issue. We need to decide which list
to use (the issue is wider than science as it affects all scholpub but in
practice I suspect that almost all APC funding is in science). Probably for
a day it's worth crossposting to open-science open-discuss - then converge.
We should have an Etherpad and either wiki or public Googledocs. I would
prefer Wiki I think but only marginally.

Here are the fields that come to mind immediately:

PUBLISHER
Name of publisher
Fields covered (science, A+H, economics, everything, etc.)
URL for publisher
Person/office to contact (this can be hard and may require phone calls)
Licence for APC publication (null = no APC)
charge (range) for APC
URL Information about OA author rights/procedure
URL pointing to licence statement
URL announcing rights for READERS
Branding of APC OA (e.g. "Open Choice")
NIH compatibility?
Wellcome compatibility?

Some publishers will generate complex discussion - Ross Mounce has already
found an example of Open Access behind a paywall. We should probably have a
separate page / doc for each pubklisher.
(As I write this I think that a Wiki looks increasingly the right tool)

FUNDER
Name of funder
Fields covered (science, A+H, economics, everything, etc.)
URL for funder
Person/office to contact (this can be hard and may require phone calls)
Licence for APC publication
URL Rubric about OA
[more - I haven't thought this through]

P.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Egon Willighagen <
> egon.willighagen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>> > PMR suggested generating a resource pack for publishers and funders on
>> the
>> > use of the NC clause. We can couple this with Is It Open Data? requests
>> > which will converge nicely with the need for clarification of publisher
>> > positions with regard to text and data mining in response to the
>> Hargreaves
>> > Report.
>>
>> Open Science is a combination of data and methods. Or, the full ODOSOS
>> standard. NCOA violates basic freedoms outlined in Open Standards and
>> Open Source, and does therefore violate Open Science.
>>
>> If you make a pack like this, I suggest to include references to the
>> Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) which clearly disallow NC
>> clauses. That means that any material with a NC clause cannot be
>> redistributed at all on many platforms, and the DFSG can serve as a
>> best practices people have adopted for many years now. I just wrote
>> this up in my blog too [0].
>>
>
> Many thanks Egon.  We owe a great debt to the Open Source movement.
> Without their clarity of thought we would have little clear guidance.
>
>>
>> Egon
>>
>> 0.
>> http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2011/12/open-science-and-non-commercial.html
>>
>> --
>> Dr E.L. Willighagen
>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>> Institutet för miljömedicin
>> Karolinska Institutet (http://ki.se/imm)
>> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
>> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
>> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20111208/34bc2095/attachment.html>