<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Heather Morrison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:heatherm@eln.bc.ca" target="_blank">heatherm@eln.bc.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 28-Jan-13, at 8:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Comment: I know how much you appreciate quantitative evidence, PMR, so<br>
here are some quick figures that suggest that scientists do very much<br>
want NC:<br></blockquote><div><br>These are not scientific observations - at best anecdotal. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Nature's Scientific Reports provides an interesting case study. This<br>
journal is similar to PLoS ONE - except that they give authors their<br>
choice of CC licenses. I just checked the 8 journals on the front page<br>
of scientific reports, and here are the CC license choices of the<br>
scientists themselves:<br>
<br>
CC-BY-NC-ND: 6/8 or 75%<br>
CC-BY: 1/8 or 12.5%<br>
CC-BY-SA: 1/8 or 12.5%<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>My understanding is that Nature charges more for CC-BY than CC-NC, in which case I hypothesize that price is the determining factor.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A larger study would be useful - anyone interested? This is one of the<br>
advantages of the leaving the choice in the hands of the author.<br>
<br>
A quick glance at the DOAJ General Science list shows that about 20 of<br>
the 143 journals on this list use the NC element. This compares with<br>
about 19 journals on the same list using CC-BY.<br></blockquote><div><br>There is no evidence that this policy is set by scientists. I strongly suspect this is done at non-academic editorial level. I suspect that it is due to simplistic decision-making in the office. In several cases where I have pubklicly challenged editors on this they have changed their policy from NC to BY<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
This means that scholars on editorial boards who are making decisions<br>
about gold open access publishing in the area of science are looking<br>
at the CC options and deciding that it makes sense to use<br>
noncommercial. Note that the majority in this sub-list still are not<br>
using CC licenses at all.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>The lack of knowledge in journals about licences is almost certainly an important factor.<br><br>>> To summarize: there is evidence that given a choice, scientists tend<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
to prefer CC licenses including the noncommercial element.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>There is no evidence to support this claim. This can only be established by a proper controlled study not assumptions from anecdotes.<br><br>P.<br clear="all"></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