tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post9008673973825300788..comments2024-03-27T01:50:05.802-07:00Comments on The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics: A simple definition for open access: a proposal to open the discussion Heather Morrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-27999972208809608312013-01-17T21:37:12.660-08:002013-01-17T21:37:12.660-08:00I don't agree that this is an important distin...I don't agree that this is an important distinction. The fact that Elsevier continues to publish a large percentage of the world's scholarly journals is not an endorsement by scholars of Elsevier's approach to copyright.<br /><br />If the editorial board of a small journal considers the options for licensing and decides on CC-BY-NC-ND, this may well represent the opinions of as many, or even more, scholars than were involved in the decision to make PLoS CC-BY.<br /><br />With respect to your question about the percentage of CC-BY articles, I don't have the answer.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-76808604089611110132013-01-17T20:24:20.749-08:002013-01-17T20:24:20.749-08:00Quick question - do you know (or have an educated ...Quick question - do you know (or have an educated guess) how the percentage of CC-BY _articles_ vs. CC-BY _journals_ stacks up? This is probably an important distinction, because many OA journals are _much_ larger than others (PLOS ONE, which is CC-BY, comes to mind as one example). [full disclosure: I am a volunteer academic editor for PLOS ONE and a volunteer blogger at PLOS blogs]Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-47474766968489354702013-01-09T17:34:29.867-08:002013-01-09T17:34:29.867-08:00Thanks to Paul Royster for this article "Up f...Thanks to Paul Royster for this article "Up from under the open access bus" in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication: http://jlsc-pub.org/jlsc/vol1/iss2/3/<br /><br />In brief, Paul expresses his frustration with working hard over a period of years to achieve open access, only to have the results labelled not good enough by some in the open access movement. I share Paul's frustration. This is another reason to develop a more inclusive approach to open access; strong demands for a very narrow definition of open access both exclude and discourage a large portion of the open access community, indeed probably the majority.<br /><br />Citation: Royster, P. (2012). Up from Under the “Open Access” Bus. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1(2):eP1045. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1045 Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-55241183251556843422013-01-09T11:28:18.297-08:002013-01-09T11:28:18.297-08:00Eric,
What I said - copying from your comment ab...Eric, <br /><br />What I said - copying from your comment above - is "A CC-BY copy will always retain the CC-BY license". I am not claiming that a CC license for a work already distributed can be revoked. What I am saying is that the licensor has no obligation to continue to make the work available under this license. In other words, I have not made the error that you have claimed that I made, and so there is no need for correction.<br /><br />It seems that we are in agreement that ongoing OA requires commitment by the community and is not inherent in the CC license. Where we may not see eye to eye is whether one can assume that all open access CC licensed works actually are, and will continue to be, archived and made accessible by the OA community. I think that we need to be very explicit about this need and ensure that open access archives receive the support that they need.<br /><br />Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-54342225423613852942013-01-09T11:12:19.830-08:002013-01-09T11:12:19.830-08:00I think this section is in error and might cause n...I think this section is in error and might cause needless confusion around CC licensing. I suspect the error is unintentional, and I hope you hasten to rephrase it.<br /><br />"CC-BY does not mean that a work will remain open access. A CC-BY copy will always retain the CC-BY license, however the licensor can change their mind and apply a different license anytime. One example of where this could happen is if an open access publisher is sold to another company; the buying company has no obligation to keep the works open access."<br /><br />The error here is the implication that CC enabled Open Access can be revoked if the publisher is sold to another company. It can't.<br /><br />Because CC licenses cannot be revoked, anyone who gets a copy of a CC licensed work can copy and distribute the work. For example, if the work is put into a library's repository, another library can download it and add it to their repository. The journal of poetic economics can include the work in their next issue and continue to publish it. <br /><br />It's certainly true that without community support, a CC license is no guarantee of Open Access. But the way it's framed in this post, a reader might presume that this is a disadvantage. In fact, ALL Open Access fails without community support. Without a CC license or similar, anything published "open access" is in danger of revocation.<br /><br />Unglue.it works with LOCKSS to make sure "unglued" works remain openly accessible into the future, regardless of the rights holder's subsequent licensing decisions. <br /><br />In short, once a work is released with a CC license, its OA status can be secured by the community. Period. <br />Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04483241450401134977noreply@blogger.com