From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:43:30 -0400

Personally, I prefer CC-by, but if someone chooses CC with a
non-commercial clause, the article does remain freely accessible and
usable, whatever happens to the author, and this is what concerns
researchers most. As for the fuzzy and troubling areas about the NC
(does publishing with advertising count as commercial use, for
example?), they can be a concern, but not for researchers so long as
the same article is in a regular depository run, for example, by a
library. At least, I cannot think of a situation where a researcher
wanting to read, use and cite research results would run afoul of a
CC-NC constraint. If we remember that scientific communication is
there to serve researchers first, and not publishers first (or at
all), such issues are of a second-order nature. In other words, in the
context of a first approximation, they can be neglected.

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 20:07 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :

From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:20:32 -0500

There may be an "orphan" problem with OA articles whose authors retain
commercial rights and who become difficult to locate later on.  (Also,
if they are deceased, their heirs will have inherited such rights and
they may well be unaware that they even own such rights.) Indeed, the
problem will likely be greater than for traditional publishing, where
such rights are typically owned by the publisher, which (unless it
goes out of business) is easy to locate.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:34:53 +0000
>
> Though the nice thing about OA articles is that they can reside in
> many places at once, and so the chances of those articles getting lost
> are much lower than if and when a traditional journal or publisher
> disappears. Some traditional publishers have made 'living wills', but
> not all. And if they haven't, there may be a ©-orphan problem when
> they go under. No such problem with OA articles.
>
> The fear of 'predatory' OA journals is a bit of a red herring. There
> are also 'predatory' traditional journals. The difference is the prey.
> For author-side paid OA journals it's the author; for subscription
> journals it's the library AND the author (who may find that his/her
> paper has a circulation of only a few hundred, or even less).
>
> So for authors it always is 'caveat emptor', whether publishing in an
> OA journal or a subscription journal.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
> Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO
> Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
> Skype: Villavelius
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> aqnowledge.com
>
>
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 08:06, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:41:17 -0500
>
> Yes, at the journal level the poor quality journals will die.  The
> tragedy will be the quality articles that go down with the poor
> journals, and are lost.  But that's been said before.
>
> -Wilhelmina Randtke