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

Sat Dec 10 19:08:28 UTC 2011

Another way to check for NC-licensed journals is
http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=licensedJournals .

Publisher policies can be found via RoMEO, whose entries usually
contain (sometimes outdated) links to the publisher's default
copyright policies and to the OA options. Example for Elsevier:
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=30&format=full .

Daniel

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Daniel Mietchen
<daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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