PLOS Biology: More Than Just Access: Delivering on a Network-Enabled Literature

Use the link to access the full text article.  An excerpt reads as follows: "By any measure it has been a huge year for the open-access movement. At the beginning of the year, it looked possible that the public access policy of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) might be rolled back by the Research Works Act, a legislative attempt supported by Elsevier and the Association of American Publishers to make such policies illegal [1]. But as we move towards year's end, the momentum behind open access looks unstoppable with the announcement of major policy initiatives in the United States, the European Union, Denmark, and the United Kingdom (see Table 1). Nevertheless, there is still much to be done and the challenges remain large, but the remaining questions are largely ones of implementation, not principle.  Each year, a range of open-access organizations support Open Access Week ... With this year's successes, it is also a good time to reflect on and to consider how we ensure that the promise of open access is delivered. But if we are to exploit the potential that open access provides, we must look beyond just making research findings accessible to ensuring that they are legally and technically available for re-use.  Ten years ago, the authors of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) [8] saw this potential clearly and agreed upon a text that has stood the test of time... This definition, which could be used to describe the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) [9], was written nearly a year before the release of the first Creative Commons licenses [10]. PLOS has used CC-BY as its standard license since the publication of its first paper and has supported the principles of full open access throughout its history...  In September 2011, 10 years after the original BOAI meeting, the BOAI10 group released a new set of recommendations [12], which explicitly describe the use of CC-BY as best practice. The policies of funding agencies are also increasingly raising the issue of licensing [5],[6]. But why focus on an esoteric legal instrument? Why does licensing matter if we are within sight of making sure that the public can access and read research articles?  Mere access is not enough to deliver on the promise of a truly network-enabled research communication system. The Creative Commons license says that: 'You are free: to Share…to Remix…to make commercial use of this work' [9]. This is a 'liberal' or 'permissive' license, meaning that it does not place any restrictions on the forms of re-use that are allowed. This is consistent with the Budapest Declaration ...  People sometimes struggle with this idea of someone else commercially exploiting their research, and many publishers expressly forbid it..."