[Open-access] SSRN Paper from Google Policy Unit

[Mike Taylor]

On 18 July 2012 14:11, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > I think many repositories ritually add CC-NC because they think it's the
>> > right thing to do.
>>
>> This is spot on. I think a lot of us have so fully absorbed the BOAI
>> that we've forgotten what a tremendously seductive idea an NC clause
>> is to people coming to open access for the first time. Sorting that
>> out is going to be one activities of the next five years. (In Britain,
>> UKRC's new policy is going to be a big help.)
>
> There are at least two - and possibly more areas where we should challenge
> NC:
> * publishers who offer "gold" or "full-OA", sometimes through
> incompetence/ignorance (e.g. copying what other  publishers do)
> * repositories who do this because it's the "natural thing" for academics to
> do (and for some of them they haven't any horizons beyond the ivory tower
> * non-profits who traditionally collect or are given info and this is a hold
> on their established powerbase
>
> I think it could be very useful to have a one-page doc to send to these
> people explaing why NC is not appropriate or effective. Otherwise we all
> write something different and look uncoordinated

It's more than one page, but
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001210
is a good place to start. The printed version is three pages.

-- Mike.