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

[Daniel Mietchen]

I don't think these hint at the publishers "not understanding" the
Budapest Declaration but at their desire to deviate as little as
possible from their traditional models while disguising as "open".

For BMJ, the main motivation for going NC seems to have been to avoid
big pharma republishing articles (perhaps even slightly edited).

One way to find NC-licensed papers/ publishers is via searches like
http://www.google.de/search?gcx=c&ix=c1&q=site%3Awww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc+%22http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby-nc%22+-%22nc-sa%22+-%22nc-nd%22
or - with a publisher's DOI prefix added -
http://www.google.de/search?gcx=c&ix=c1&q=site%3Awww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc+%22http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby-nc%22+-%22nc-sa%22+-%22nc-nd%22+10.1038
(see also http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/12/06/acceptance-of-cc-nc-has-sold-readers-and-authors-seriously-short/#comment-101279
).

There are a few articles with contradicting licenses:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064401/ states
" freely available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Non-Commercial Licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/) "
on the top and
"This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License"

Daniel

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've made a few more significant discoveries WRT 'fake' / mislabelled
> "open access" publications and policies.
>
> The etherpad is great place to coordinate but I feel a spreadsheet
> might be better for the actual data & evidence compilation thus I'm
> tabulating my finds here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtbO6mZEvieCdDFzdkVNQld6Mnc5NEpGWVlRUVhvM3c
>
> Further to examples I originally found - alarmingly it appears Nature
> (NPG) is publishing "open access" articles under CC-BY-NC-ND or
> CC-BY-NC-SA licenses    e.g.
> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html
>
> also from a medical perspective, it's rather worrying that BMJ is
> using CC-BY-NC 2.0      http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/copyright-open-access-and-permission-reuse
>
> these are far from exceptional examples. The majority of those with
> some form of "open access" I've looked at so far don't seem to have
> quite understood the Budapest Declaration.
>
> The site searching process is slow though, and I won't be able to do
> much more on it this week due to other pressing commitments (sorry!),
> thus we really could do with some help here...
>
> I'll start populating my spreadsheet with publisher names and URL's -
> if others could perhaps crowdsource analyses of these publishers' open
> access policies that'd be a BIG help.
>
> Best,
>
> Ross
>
> --
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
> Ross Mounce
> PhD Student
> Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
> University of Bath
> 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
> http://about.me/rossmounce
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science