<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Iryna Kuchma <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:iryna.kuchma@eifl.net" target="_blank">iryna.kuchma@eifl.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra">Dear Sridhar, <br><br>I agree with you that CC BY ND license is quite restrictive and that CC BY is an optimal solution. Perhaps in your advice you can refer to: <br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br>There are very few "Gold" open access journals among the major publishers (BMC and PLoS, and presumably eLife being exceptions). Those three - and the small amount of material in nonBMC-Springer - are under CC-BY.<br>
<br>Many publishers offer "hybrid Open Access" where authors pay large amounts for their material to appear as "Open Access". This term is not operationally defined and almost all publishers have declined to offer CC-BY, ranging from CC-NC to homegrown conditions that are more restrictive than normal copyright. Ross Mounce (<a href="http://science.okfn.org/blog/">http://science.okfn.org/blog/</a>) has done a survey of over 100 publishers and their "Open Access" offering and shown that only 5% are CC-BY.<br>
<br>There are several possible explanations<br>* ignorance of the issues<br>* incompetence<br>* copying what others do<br>* an attempt to reduce the value of "Open Access".<br><br>Given that some fees can be 5000 USD or more per paper for a substandard "Open Access" product this does considerable damage.<br>
<br>P.<br><br clear="all"><br></div></div><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>
</div>