[open-science] [Open-access] Open Science Anthology published

Jan Velterop velterop at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 17:24:40 UTC 2014

We have to understand that putting research results in the public domain is the most effective way of ensuring the free flow of information. CC-BY is a way to secure acknowledgement for researchers, without which the 'system' won't recognise their contributions and they won't be able to make a career out of science. The CC-BY licence does not exist for the sake of the openness of the information it covers, but for the sake of researchers' need for attribution.

Jan Velterop
On 28 Jan 2014, at 17:03, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:

> On 2014-01-28, at 10:46 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>> I calculate that the opportunity cost of closed access publication runs into many billions and that the failure to allow - say - unrestricted text-mining is a considerable part of these costs. I think it's really important that we try to estimate this and we need to be able to counter the argument of "everything is OK now and we don't need to change it". 
>> We do need to change it, and massively.
> Wouldn't open posting of research data with no technical restrictions on re-use be a much more effective way of moving forward in this area? The Human Genome Project happened because of a decision to collaborate and share data - I would argue that this is the best example of what we can accomplish in this area. However, this was substantially complete between the beginning of the Creative Commons project.
> best,
> Heather Morrison
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the open-science mailing list