This is the OA we like at Wikimedia: CC-BY everywhere!
I wonder why the uptick in CC BY-NC articles since 2016, though. That's a flaw to address more decisively.
Federico
-------- Messaggio inoltrato -------- Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] OASPA members demonstrate another year of steady growth in CC BY articles for fully-OA journals Data: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:02:53 +0100 Mittente: Leyla Williams
Dear all,
We are pleased to report that once again, the recent data OASPA has collected on articles published with the CC BY license in open access-only (fully-OA) journals by members of OASPA shows that, for OASPA members, year-on-year growth remains steady for CC BY articles in fully-OA peer-reviewed journals. A total of 1,128,721 articles were published with the CC BY license in open access-only (fully-OA) journals by members of OASPA during the period 2000-2017, with 219,627 of those being published in 2017 alone.
We are also pleased to report on the growth of the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), which now includes over 10,000 titles.
Our full data and analysis can be found here: https://oaspa.org/oaspa-members-ccby-growth-2017-data/
Best wishes, Leyla ————— Leyla Williams Events and Communications Coordinator Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA oaspa.org | Twitter: @OASPA https://twitter.com/OASPA
A true "flaw to address more decisively" is the unwarranted assumption that a multitude of authors', researchers', funders', and publishers' complex choices of a CC BY-NC license (rather than a supposedly always superior CC-BY license) or any other license is any impediment whatsoever to Wikipedia's simple core content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. Granted, Wikidata unilaterally changed CC-BY to CC-00, but that unauthorized maneuver itself may at least partially explain the perceived shift to more nuanced content licensing. .
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
This is the OA we like at Wikimedia: CC-BY everywhere!
I wonder why the uptick in CC BY-NC articles since 2016, though. That's a flaw to address more decisively.
Federico
-------- Messaggio inoltrato -------- Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] OASPA members demonstrate another year of steady growth in CC BY articles for fully-OA journals Data: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:02:53 +0100 Mittente: Leyla Williams
Dear all,
We are pleased to report that once again, the recent data OASPA has collected on articles published with the CC BY license in open access-only (fully-OA) journals by members of OASPA shows that, for OASPA members, year-on-year growth remains steady for CC BY articles in fully-OA peer-reviewed journals. A total of 1,128,721 articles were published with the CC BY license in open access-only (fully-OA) journals by members of OASPA during the period 2000-2017, with 219,627 of those being published in 2017 alone.
We are also pleased to report on the growth of the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), which now includes over 10,000 titles.
Our full data and analysis can be found here: https://oaspa.org/oaspa-members-ccby-growth-2017-data/
Best wishes, Leyla ————— Leyla Williams Events and Communications Coordinator Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA oaspa.org | Twitter: @OASPA https://twitter.com/OASPA
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
Dear Paul, I'm not talking of impediments to Wikipedia, but of licenses unsuitable to reach the academics' own goals. Are you talking about green open access perhaps? I'm talking about open access journals.
The large majority of CC BY-NC-ND and CC BY-NC "full OA" journals are owned by few big publishers (De Gruyter Open, Elsevier, T&F and SAGE), which makes sense because they want to give people the impression of publishing in OA while actually keeping control of everything. What I can't understand is why for instance a university would spend money on managing a journal which is not even OA, with a license which could make it impossible for the academics themselves to use it.
Federico
Paul S. Wilson, 20/06/2018 03:19:
A true "flaw to address more decisively" is the unwarranted assumption that a multitude of authors', researchers', funders', and publishers' complex choices of a CC BY-NC license (rather than a supposedly always superior CC-BY license) or any other license is any impediment whatsoever to Wikipedia's simple core content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. Granted, Wikidata unilaterally changed CC-BY to CC-00, but that unauthorized maneuver itself may at least partially explain the perceived shift to more nuanced content licensing. .
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
This is the OA we like at Wikimedia: CC-BY everywhere! I wonder why the uptick in CC BY-NC articles since 2016, though. That's a flaw to address more decisively. Federico
Dear all,
I agree with Federico (Nemo) on this. This example : openedition's journal TIC&Societe https://www.openedition.org/5691 ( https://journals.openedition.org/ticetsociete/325) by its focus on 'information and communication technology's and their relations with society' and 'situated' in "openedition" can hardly be considered 'unconscious' of this mater (lots of researchers, for those I've been in contact with, know very little about licenses if anything at all). Yet TIC&Societé chose CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0
To me its related to the way academics relate to their production. Gowers words were light to me on this (while working on my thesis https://framagit.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&snippets=&scope=&search=polished&project_id=27722) : "We’ve gotten used to working away in private and then producing a sort of polished document in the form of a journal article," Gowers *If the article is a shining pearl (of knowledge), stored and 'protected' from dirty materialistic use (-NC) why a pure mind, an academical mind, would want it "derived" (-ND).* Of course, I thicken the traits, but from my experience in university, I may not be that far from it.
You can ask them : ticetsociete@revues.org ; ticetsociete@openedition.org (maybe they'd respond to official wikimedians). I'd be very curious to know if they could be 'flipped' toward more open licenses.
BR Rudy PATARD (RP87)
On 20 June 2018 at 06:32, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Paul, I'm not talking of impediments to Wikipedia, but of licenses unsuitable to reach the academics' own goals. Are you talking about green open access perhaps? I'm talking about open access journals.
The large majority of CC BY-NC-ND and CC BY-NC "full OA" journals are owned by few big publishers (De Gruyter Open, Elsevier, T&F and SAGE), which makes sense because they want to give people the impression of publishing in OA while actually keeping control of everything. What I can't understand is why for instance a university would spend money on managing a journal which is not even OA, with a license which could make it impossible for the academics themselves to use it.
Federico
Paul S. Wilson, 20/06/2018 03:19:
A true "flaw to address more decisively" is the unwarranted assumption that a multitude of authors', researchers', funders', and publishers' complex choices of a CC BY-NC license (rather than a supposedly always superior CC-BY license) or any other license is any impediment whatsoever to Wikipedia's simple core content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. Granted, Wikidata unilaterally changed CC-BY to CC-00, but that unauthorized maneuver itself may at least partially explain the perceived shift to more nuanced content licensing. .
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
This is the OA we like at Wikimedia: CC-BY everywhere! I wonder why the uptick in CC BY-NC articles since 2016, though. That's a flaw to address more decisively. Federico
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
openaccess@lists.wikimedia.org