<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Editor Living Reviews <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:editorlr@aei.mpg.de" target="_blank">editorlr@aei.mpg.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><div><br>>Therefore, our authors would object to Peter<br>
Murray-Rust, who has<br>
<br>
>> never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY.<br>
<br>Now I have (assuming Frank Schulz is a practising scientist) . And I cannot understand his/MPG's reasons. In fact I hope this mail may convince him/them to change the strategy.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals<br>
with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Actually the journal is not CC-BY-NC, it's CC-BY-NC-ND (no derivatives as well).<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that<br>
<br>
> anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free?<br>
<br>
Our long review articles would make perfect (text-)books if anyone could<br>
sell them without asking for publisher's or the author's permission.<br>
Example:<br>
<br>
The open access review "The Post-Newtonian Approximation for<br>
Relativistic Compact Binaries" (<a href="http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2" target="_blank">http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2</a>)<br>
was republished by Oxford UP as a major part of "Equations of Motion in<br>
General Relativity"<br>
(<a href="http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001" target="_blank">http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001</a>)<br>
in 2011.<br>
<br>
Original price at <a href="http://amazon.com" target="_blank">amazon.com</a>: $98.50 for 156 pages!<br>
<br></blockquote><div>This figures seems quite good value to me. I assume you get a bound paper book. But many scientific publishers charge 50 USD for a 1-day rental of a single article.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Of course, this example does not completely illustrate the possible<br>
misuse of CC-BY: here, the author agreed to the commercial reprint, and<br>
the original review was extended by other authors' contributions.<br>
However, they could have easily sold only the Futamase part as a book.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>They didn't. They added significant value by (a) format and (b) aggregation.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
With CC-BY, the publisher would not even have to ask the authors or<br>
original OA publisher for reprint permission. Moreover, the authors (who<br>
usually write time-consuming reviews in addition to their publicly<br>
funded research) would not financially benefit from this commercial<br>
reuse in any way.</blockquote><div><br>I'm assuming your authors don't benefit financially at present.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Therefore, our authors would object to Peter<br>
Murray-Rust, who has<br>
<br>
> never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Have you asked them in a controlled survey by an independent agent?<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell<br>
them on amazon, why wouldn't there be a marked for commercial OA reprints?<br>
<br>
(And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least<br>
it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...)<br>
<br></blockquote><div>First the MPG has stated: <a href="http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/mpg-open-access-policy/">http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/mpg-open-access-policy/</a><br><h3 style="margin-left:40px"><span lang="en-uk">The Max Planck Society and Open Access</span></h3>
<div style="margin-left:40px">
</div><p style="margin-left:40px"><span lang="en-uk">Financed by the national government and federal states, the <a href="http://www.mpg.de/english/portal/index.html" target="blank">Max Planck Society</a>
engages in basic research in the public interest. Making its
scientists’ research findings available for the benefit of the whole of
humanity, free of charge whenever possible (Open Access), is a key
aspiration of the Society.</span></p> In contrast you wish to restrict access to the science in your publications. You wish it to be controlled by you, and you don't want anyone else to receive money. I see your position as:<br>
</div><div><br>* we have some form of ownership of the material and wish to control how it is used after we've published it<br>* it is morally/ethically wrong for anyone to resell material which they got for free.<br>
<br>I'll argue that you are actually *preventing* the dissemination of scientific knowledge. A third party P takes your material and resells it. The purchasers choose for whatever reason to buy from P rather than use your website for free. I can make speculations why.<br>
* they add value in the formatting<br>* they add value by aggregation<br>* they add value by enhanced discovery<br>* they add content value<br><br>In the current case I think it's all of these. But even if it wasn't it means:<br>
* more people will read and use the paper.<br>* the paper will be cited more<br>* your impact factor will increase.<br><br>Suppose you write to your authors:<br>"Publisher P is reselling you article for money. As a result our impact factor has doubled and you have twice the number of citations. Do you wish us to take legal action against publisher P?"<br>
I wonder if they would agree with you?<br><br>Note also that publisher P is enhancing *your* market, not diminishing it. They are doing free advertising. They make your role more essential. You are not losing money by their activities - nor are your authors. If you feel so strongly, create a rival product that is better or cheaper. If it isn't worth your while, then they have justifiably created a new market.<br>
<br>Note, by the way that *I* might have been interested in republishing your article (for free, but CC-BY) if you had not forbidden me. I am generally interested in mathematics in the scientific literature. My software can extract the equations from your article (this is not fantasy - I ran the software over your article and the content is highly re-usable unlike most other STM publishers who reset the author's content into lower quality.) I'm interested in Newtonian dynamics (it is a fundamental tool in molecular dynamics) and might wish to compare your approach (eqns 50-60). And I would publish any results formally or informally as CC-BY<br>
<br>But you and your authors wish to restrict my ability to re-use your scholarship so I won't.<br><br>One of the key points is that CC-NC is almost useless at controlling the *type* of downstream use. <br><br>The ND is different. It effectively stops any re-use.<br>
<br>Please think again.<br><br>P.<br></div><br clear="all"></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