[open-science] Discussion of Open Access and CC licences in science
heatherm at eln.bc.ca
Mon Dec 12 15:53:14 UTC 2011
Good points, I agree that the different types are distinct.
On 12-Dec-11, at 1:03 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> I am pleased to see strong discussion on OKF lists. Several issues
> have been raised (some by me). It may be useful to draw some
> * The context of the discussion is largely scholarly publication. If
> we step outside this then I think there will be littel consensus
Even within scholarly journal article publishing, there is no
consensus on CC licenses.
> * There is a distinction between monographs and articles in serials.
> Open Access for monographs is much less advanced than for serials.
> * Most scholarly publication occurs in science and most of that is
> funded directly or indirectly from the public purse (including
> charities). We can exclude companies publishing their work.
Humanities and social science researchers do a lot of scholarly
publication, too. I would argue that there should be more humanities
and social sciences scholarship, and publishing, and funding.
> * The public purse expects "Open" publication. It spends (world
> wide) about 100,000,000,000 -> 1,000,000,000,000 USD on the research
> (I have tried to get better figures). The public purse spends about
> 10,000,000,000 USD on publication (author and reader-sides).
> The particular issue is that funders require Open Access and many
> publishers resist this. Large amounts are spent on funded Open
> Access (up to 5000 USD per article). There is no consensus on what
> funders or authors get for this sum (a wide variety of licences are
> used - see Ross' fantastic spreadsheet). My personal view is that
> 5000 USD for a NC licence (as opposed to a free Green copy of the
> author's manuscript) represents almost no added values.
No one should spend $5,000 USD for article processing fees, period. It
is important to consider economic sustainability of scholarly
publishing, not just access. If a publisher asks for $5,000 USD,
libraries and funders should say either NO, or we'll fund you up to a
more reasonable limit e.g. $1,500. If scholars wish to publishers who
behave like this, this is a good illustration of why we need green OA
for the time being.
> If arts and humanities feel that CC-NC meets their needs - where
> there is no implicit or explicitly funder - then I probably shan't
> challenge this. But if CC-NC is used for science we shall have
> monumentally reduced the value of the work that has been funded.
I don't think that I, or any one person or small group of people, can
speak for all of the arts and humanities.
> I suggest that we restrict a major part of our discussion to the
> area I have outlined above - funded research isn scientific serials.
> If others wish to discuss monographs, etc. then let's label them as
> separate discussions.
Most of the large commercial publishers have holdings across the
disciplines. If we tell Springer, for example, that all their OA
journals should be CC-BY, this impacts arts and humanities as well.
There is increasing interdisciplinarity in scholarship. Many journals
publish in areas that encompass sciences and social sciences, for
> The urgent issue for science is to urge that all funded publication
> of scientific articles should be CC-BY. The arguments about creative
> artists protecting their work may be valid elsewhere but should not
> spill over into science.
I am not sure that I agree with this. The green road may be the best
approach. Pushing for CC-BY gives the big commercial publishers clout
to go for the $5,000 license.
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
More information about the open-science