[Open-access] Fwd: My Comments on ICAR's Open Access Policy

Fri May 17 09:58:57 UTC 2013

Thank you Mike and Peter for the suggesting CC BY. We have used it for
MAPAI's OAJMAP <http://oajmap.in> which is hosted by ICAR itself on
its e-publication platform.

But as ICAR had just begun to think of formulating a policy and was
slowing in transforming itself into Open Access...

It had made its two journals Open Access but there was no Policy...

So, we thought 'NC' is good to start with and assure that it is
'Safe'. Otherwise, most of its publications are 'All Rights Reserved'.

We would surely suggest for CC -BY.

Thanks
Sridhar

__________________________________________________________
Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP & Biotech. (WIPO)
Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical
Horticulture
Joint Secretary, Agricultural Research Service Scientists' Forum
Convenor, Open Access India
Country Representative, YPARD
Rehmankhera, Kakori Post
Lucknow 226101, Uttar Pradesh, India
Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025
Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136
Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/

On 17 May 2013 15:17, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> Agreed. It is CRUCIAL to get rid of NC, otherwise:
> * the policy does not describe "open access" as originally defined
> * materials released under the NC licence can't be used in Wikipedia
> * neither can they be used in leading OA journals such as BMC, PLOS,
> eLife and PeerJ
>
> Heather Piwowar said it best: "we do research not just to KNOW more
> but to DO more". In general, NC clauses prevent much of the doing even
> when they allow the knowing.
>
> Although in principle I see the value of the SA clause, it too is
> problematic for practical reasons. Most importantly, it's not
> acceptable downstream by pure CC By venues like BMC, PLOS, eLife and
> PeerJ, because the SA bit is viral and infects whatever the material
> is incorporated into.
>
> The correct licence for open access is CC By. This conclusion has been
> reach repeatedly by many excellent organisations that have looked into
> it.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2013 10:33, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Please please get rid of CC-NC. Its bad effects have been widely discussed
>> on this list.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Sridhar Gutam <gutam2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Colleagues and Friends,
>>>
>>> I am attaching herewith this email my comments on the ICAR's Open
>>> Access Policy Draft 2013. Kindly go through them and suggest your
>>> inputs.
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards
>>> Sridhar
>>> __________________________________________________________
>>> Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP & Biotech. (WIPO)
>>> Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical
>>> Horticulture
>>> Joint Secretary, Agricultural Research Service Scientists' Forum
>>> Convenor, Open Access India
>>> Country Representative, YPARD
>>> Rehmankhera, Kakori Post
>>> Lucknow 226101, Uttar Pradesh, India
>>> Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025
>>> Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136
>>> Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>