[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

[Peter Murray-Rust]

No.
See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_Attribution_2.5

This garble makes it unclear which licence is actually used (for example
words may have been omitted). Maybe it can be gleaned from author-facing
rubric. I have copied Puneet from CC to alert him to this gross misuse of
CC licences.




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:

> Thanks Stuart :-D
>
> I wanted to get the WIley-Blackwell ones done, but got annoyed with the
> repeated statement:
>
> 'Copyright © 2013 International Society for Neurochemistry' (this
> obviously varies across journals), 'Re-use of this article is permitted in
> accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not
> permit commercial exploitation.'
>
> Is there something I'm misunderstanding about cc-by version 2.5?
>
>
>
>
> On 21 March 2014 08:51, Stuart Lawson <stuart.a.lawson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm working my way through the PLOS journals on the spreadsheet, to get
>> the straightforward ones done...
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> On 20 March 2014 17:02, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we have to do a crowdsourcing on the Wellcome spreadsheet.
>>> (You'll see from my blog that some Elsevier papers are still behind
>>> paywalls). I'd suggest we extract:
>>>
>>> * number of copies (this is a problem as some copies are OA and some are
>>> not. Generally we need at least (a) Pubmed and (b) the formal journal . A
>>> third option might be Science Direct.
>>> * for each copy analyse (a) HTML(PDF) - they are often different
>>> * for each of those look for:
>>>    "Open Access" or publisher equivalent (e.g. ACS "Author Choice")
>>>    licence (if any)
>>>    all-rights-reserved
>>>    copyright
>>>
>>> I think we can later build crawlers and scrapers for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:33 PM, ANDREW Theo <Theo.Andrew at ed.ac.uk>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  >Yes, and we have to fight this. Noticed that Wiley seems to have
>>>> slipped back. And the problem is that they market CC-NC to academics as
>>>> >being in authors' interests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter is right.  Currently we have no data on what type of licences
>>>> people are choosing. The Wellcome Trust ask for CC BY, but it is starting
>>>> to look like many of the authors they fund are not choosing this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is very worrying.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> 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
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Michelle Brook *
>
> *Science and Open Access *
>
> * | @MLBrook <https://twitter.com/MLBrook> *
>
>
>
> * The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> Empowering through Open
> Knowledge http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/>  |  @okfn
> <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
>  Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter> *
>



-- 
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/open-access/attachments/20140321/38262017/attachment-0002.html>