[Open-access] Criticisms of Finch proposals

Sat Dec 8 13:51:43 UTC 2012

The mixing up of the CC-By debate with the actual infelicities of the Finch report (being here euphemistic) is really unfortunate. The Finch report and the overall publishers' dictated policy is just to be forgotten by those who do not live in the British isles (and we do sympathize with those who do). However, we do need, as scholars, simple attributive licenses such as CC-BY to make the dissemination of scientific results as fluid as possible, and this where the debate should stay.
Cheers,
Laurent

Le 8 déc. 2012 à 12:30, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> a écrit :

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm sure many of you will be aware of the criticisms of the UK government's Finch open access proposals. For example:
> 
> http://thedisorderofthings.com/2012/12/04/open-access-hefce-ref2020-and-the-threat-to-academic-freedom/
> 
> While the inclusion of CC-BY as a standard means it is compliant with the latest Budapest Open Access Initiative recommendations [1], as a humanities researcher I can see why people are complaining about the Article Processing Charges (dubbed ‘pay-to-say’).
> 
> I wonder if anyone who has been following the debate knows of any concrete suggestions for improvements to the Finch model which retain CC-BY as a standard, but which would enable scholars to have more choice as to where and how they publish?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> [1] http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Gray | @jwyg
> The Open Knowledge Foundation | @okfn
> Support our work: okfn.org/support
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20121208/e5fb8ef8/attachment.html>