PLoS ONE is in the lead...but could a well thought out noncommercial approach give a competitor an edge? 2012-03-08


“PLoS ONE [became] in 2010 the world's largest journal then doubling in size in 2011, publishing close to 14,000 articles that year.  No wonder PLoS ONE is leading the new tendency to competition in open access... could  a well thought out noncommercial approach give a publisher an edge over PLoS ONE, with its insistence that all authors accept the CC-BY license? ... My own perspective is that as an open access advocate of course I want to freely share my work - but not for sale! My preference for including the noncommercial element in a CC license is by no means unusual - my understanding is that NC is the most popular of the CC elements. I've even been thinking... I just might go for Nature's Scientific Reports rather than PLoS ONE - much as I like PLoS and PLoS ONE, Nature will let me have my preferred NC license, and PLoS ONE won't. When we scholars come up with our own open access mandates, sharing our work "but not for a profit" is part of the deal... So what would a good noncommercial policy look like?...”



08/16/2012, 06:08

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.business_models oa.publishers oa.licensing oa.comment oa.mandates oa.copyright oa.plos oa.libre oa.policies oa.journals



Date tagged:

03/08/2012, 11:03

Date published:

02/14/2012, 15:09