Hello, fellow open-café-ers,

 

I’m reviewing the cOAlition S “how equitable is it” tool/criteria and have a question about Criterion #4: reuse rights.

 

For context: the framework outlines criteria by which to assess how equitable a business model is: https://www.coalition-s.org/new-tool-to-assess-equity-in-scholarly-communication-models/ I struggle with this kind of framework on several levels but my question to the group is about Criteria #4: re-use rights. The framework explains why this criterion was included as follows:

 

Why is this criterion important in assessing equity?

Authors should be able to use their works, including determining how they are

disseminated and re-used, in any way they see fit (emphasis mine). Readers should be able to build

upon and re-use published research (subject only to the norms of academic

attribution) irrespective of their financial means. Licences such as CC BY (or equivalent)

maximize the opportunity for sharing and reuse for the benefit of science and society,

at the same time as acknowledging and ensuring attribution of author contribution.

 

This question to the group is more generally about the OS/OA push for “CCBY, above all else”: If a researcher wants to share her work but doesn’t want it used for commercial purposes, shouldn’t she reserve the right to publish CC-BY-NC 4.0? Yes, this is more closed than pure CC-BY, but isn’t preserving the author’s prerogative as important as openness (hence my emphasis above)?

 

This is a not a new or novel question, but I’d welcome this group’s thoughts. I personally find licensing confusing so I also might be misunderstanding some aspect of CCBY writ large.

 

Thanks,

Sara

 

Full disclosure: I pitched the initial idea for the “Beyond article-based charges” working group to cOAlition S in 2022 when I was at PLOS. The group kicked off as I was leaving for mat leave and I was not involved when I returned to work. I have provided feedback on the framework PRE-public announcement and am now feeding in again post-announcement.