OpenLettertotheSfN - Google Docs
abernard102@gmail.com 2014-08-18
Summary:
" This is an open letter concerning the recent launch of the new open access journal, eNeuro. In addition to the welcome diversification in journal choices for authors looking for open access venues, there are many positive aspects of eNeuro such as: willingness to accept negative results and study replications; membership in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium; publication of peer review syntheses alongside articles; and the requirement that molecular data be publicly available. While we welcome the commitment of the Society to open access, we are concerned with the specific approach. Herein, we outline a number of suggestions that are in line with the current direction that scholarly publishing is taking and would allow eNeuro to provide the full benefits of open access to the communities the journal aims to serve. Our first concern relates to the copyright policy of eNeuro. The journal's policy states that authors will retain copyright but must grant the Society an exclusive license to publish. An exclusive license is in conflict with the tenets of open access, as defined by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and does not reflect the aims of the Creative Commons licenses to allow reuse. The policy is also vague on the specific rights authors, their institutions and third parties have under the terms of this exclusive license, including whether they are allowed to deposit the publisher version of their article in open repositories or personal websites, or permitted to deposit an HTML version on sites that would allow updating, commenting and translations of the article. These rights must be preserved for articles to be BOAI-compliant open access. Our second concern relates to the fees and licensing terms of journal articles. While we understand there may be a need for Article Processing Charges (APCs), the analysis of evidence to justify the stipulated costs and surcharges are not provided, nor does the policy address eNeuro’s position regarding fee waivers. The default choice of a non-commercial license (CC BY-NC) places unnecessary restrictions on reuse and does not meet the standards set out by the BOAI. The eNeuro fees policy acknowledges CC BY-NC is incompatible with the requirement of funders, such as Research Councils UK and Wellcome Trust, and the solution to upgrade to CC BY carries a $500 surcharge. This penalizes authors funded by such agencies as well others who choose to adhere to BOAI principles. NC restrictions have significant negative impact, limiting the ability to reuse material for educational purposes and advocacy to the detriment of scholarly communication. NC-encumbered materials cannot be used on Wikipedia or easily incorporated into Open Educational Resources, for example. The NC clause also creates ambiguities and uncertainties (see for example, NC Licenses Considered Harmful) and there is little evidence on benefits of the clause to justify its use. The value of the CC BY license is outlined in detail by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association ..."