Policy on Open Access | Cancer Research UK

“We believe that to maximise the impact of the research we fund, published research should be available in an open and unrestricted way. This facilitates rapid sharing of knowledge and promotes innovation, ultimately ensuring that patients can access better treatments sooner.

This policy sets out Cancer Research UK’s position on open access publications and how researchers and Host Institutions that receive CRUK funding are expected to provide open and unrestricted access to published research.

In all cases, CRUK encourages its researchers to select publishing routes that ensure their research is openly available immediately on publication. These publishing routes should be sought wherever such options exist for their journal of choice that are compliant with the requirements set out below….”

News & Views: Breaking Out Open Access License Types – Delta Think

“Overall, the Permissive licenses (CC0, CC BY – the paler colors) are most commonly used, outnumbering more restrictive ones by around 3:2.

Within fully OA journals, the ratio is similar to the overall average, compared with an even split in hybrid publications.
Long-term trends (not shown here) suggest that fully OA output and the use of permissive licenses is slowly gaining share.
The underlying data has changed since last year. This year’s data shows greater numbers of fully OA journals, with a slightly greater prevalence of permissive licenses….

The data support what many of us know from anecdotal discussions. The majority of OA output is published under more permissive licenses. In particular the CC BY license dominates, especially in fully OA journals, and especially by OASPA members. It’s useful to see this confirmed across the market, and also to see how the figures differ for the large publishers.

However, licenses that allow sharing with some restrictions remain significant and show no signs of collapsing. Many publishers continue to make use of them. In fact, restricted licenses cover the majority of output in some disciplines….”

Creative Commons Public Domain Tools in Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums (GLAMs) – A Needs Assessment

“This survey will be used by Creative Commons for the purposes of analysis to inform our stewardship plans with respect to Creative Commons tools (CC0 (1.0 Universal) Public Domain Dedication and the Public Domain Mark) with a focus on their understanding and use in the GLAM sector. All results will be treated in confidentiality and, if communicated publicly, released anonymously….”

ResearchEquals home page

“You produce outputs at every research step. Why let vital parts go unpublished?

Publish your text, data, code, or anything else you struggle to publish in articles….

We love pen access, so we made it free.

CC0 Public Domain Dedication 

CC BY 4.0

Pay to close

Need more restrictive licenses? 

€ 149.99 – CC BY-SA 4.0 

€ 194.99 – CC BY-NC 4.0 

€ 249.99 – CC BY-ND 4.0 

€ 329.99 – CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 

€ 429.99 – CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 

€ 549.99 – All rights reserved ”


Pay to close model

“We’re creating and testing out how viable this new financing model is for Open Access.

The premise is this: If you publish under a strict open access license, you don’t pay anything.

If you want to publish under a more restrictive copyright license, you have to pay. Moreover, you pay exponentially more the more restrictive you want to license the content, despite the content being freely available to everyone.

Under “pay to close” publications with more restrictive licenses will still be free to access. The only difference is the license attached.

You can’t pay to paywall – you can only pay to close the license….”

Analysis shows further growth in OASPA member journals output: CC BY dominates whilst content consolidation grows – OASPA

“OASPA members were invited to share their data to update the previous post on this topic which was published on the OASPA blog at the end of 2020 (we also published OA book data this year). Journal information shared here by OASPA covers the number of open access articles across all journals (including hybrid) and the license under which those articles were published, up to the year 2020. Figures were supplied as number of articles published per year since implementation of the license by that publisher. See the downloadable spreadsheet for full details. …

2 publishers now account for 50% of OASPA members’ output; 5 account for 75% of it. This represents a greater consolidation over last year, where the top 3 together covered over 50% and the top 6 over 75%. While the top publishers are the same, the order has changed slightly from previous years. MDPI, Springer Nature and Frontiers remain the top three (although if we add Hindawi’s output to that of Wiley, then Wiley would come in 3rd). …”

The volume of publications from OASPA members continues to grow. Just under 2.7 million articles were published by members in the period 2000-2020. Over 579,000 of these were published in 2020, representing a growth of around 28% over the previous year.  The number of articles published each year reported by members has grown around 13x from 2011 to 2020. 


CC BY in fully OA journals continues to dominate output. However, beneath the headlines lie some interesting nuances, especially around articles in hybrid journals….”

On informed consent and open licensing | Martin Paul Eve | Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing

“I gave my final talk of the year, today, at the University of Leeds, on open access in the humanities disciplines. Perhaps predictably, all of the Q&A centred on open licensing and the concerns from humanists around the misuse of their work.

My basic line on all this has shifted over time, but I am more cautious now than I used to be and feel better about somewhat more restrictive CC licenses. Specifically, I do not want a situation where a colleague experiments with open access for the first time and ends up on the receiving end of a bad practice that they had not anticipated.

This comes down, to some degree, to “informed consent”. I am quite happy to take risks with my work and open licensing. I think that by being a “pioneer” I might be able to show that the risks are overblown. However, I am in no doubt as to what the risks are and what potential remedies are available. Other people in the humanities who do not know much about copyright law and also do not have the time or inclination to read and understand open licenses, are not in the same position.

I worry, though, that a lot of the advice we give around open licenses might be not providing an optimal level of informed consent. …”

Electronic resource management in a post-Plan S world

Abstract:  cOAlition S and research funding policies mean open access content is no longer a ‘trend’ but rather another consideration of content management for librarians and libraries. In 2018, the authors of this article launched a new version of TERMS (Techniques for Electronic Resources Management). TERMS 2.0 envisages a post-Plan S e-resources life cycle blending e-resources and open access content management. This article outlines how open content management can dovetail into current e-resource management tactics across six TERMS: Investigation of material, procurement and licensing of content, implementation, troubleshooting of problems, evaluation and preservation, and sustainability concerns. Lastly, we reflect on the themes growing in libraries in regard to management of online resources.


E-Videos Are Going Open Access!

Abstract:  2022 will see an important change to Endoscopy’s E-Video section: with the ever-growing demand for this format and the steady rise of open access as an important publication mode, E-Videos will be published open access in the future. Benefits for authors include retaining full copyright of their publication and experiencing faster impact of their research as others can quickly built on their findings.

E-Video papers submitted on or after 1 January 2022 and accepted for publication will be subject to an open access article publication charge (APC) of EUR 375 per E-Video paper. All E-Videos will be published with a Creative Commons CC-BY license.

Endoscopy E-Videos qualify for HINARI discounts and waivers, and eligibility is automatically checked during the submission process. A full list of countries participating in HINARI can be found at https://www.who.int/hinari/eligibility/en/

Assistant Director of Systemwide Licensing and Collection Services

“The Assistant Director of Systemwide Licensing and Collection Services leads and manages systemwide licensing activities, including negotiating business arrangements and license agreements for digital scholarly content worth in excess of $45 million on behalf of the University of California Libraries and UC-affiliated national laboratories, and oversight of all phases of licensing activity from inception through acquisitions and life-cycle management. Responsibilities include developing goals and objectives for CDL licensing services and managing a distributed professional staff, including a licensing unit based out of CDL’s Oakland headquarters responsible for business negotiation and ongoing management of shared digital resources, and oversight of collections services units located at UC San Diego that provide acquisitions and shared cataloging services on behalf of CDL and the UC Libraries.

The Assistant Director manages the negotiation of licensing terms and conditions for scholarly content with over 100 vendors of digital resources comprising the collaborative investments of the ten University of California campuses and two national laboratories, and facilitates collaborative decision-making among UC Libraries collection managers and librarians responsible for shared content licensing, including through the development of cost-sharing models; provides strategic and operational direction to CDL’s licensing unit and advances the interests of CDL and the UC Libraries through collaborative leadership and professional engagement at the regional and national level; advises the Director of Shared Collections regarding all aspects of collections licensing, electronic resource management, budget allocation and expenditures, and contract administration; and consult with and receives guidance from Office of General Counsel as needed.  …”

Lawrence Lessig: Internet Architecture, Remix Culture, Creative Commons, NFTs, Aaron Swartz and the Internet Archive

“Professor Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School and notably a founding board member of Creative Commons. The New Yorker has called him the most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era. In this podcast episode, he shares his reflections on the interplay between copyright and Internet’s architecture, remix culture, the Creative Commons movement, the rise and benefits of NFTs, the work of Aaron Swartz and the attack on the Internet Archive.”

Licence to publish – the boot is on the wrong foot | Plan S

“It is precisely because the author is the copyright holder that they have the right to assign a licence to publish. The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) states this clearly:

“You can license the use of your work if you own the copyright. You can also decide how your work is used.“

In some cases, permission to publish is at the submission stage. Note that in all cases, the author is the one granting the LTP. However, you would never think that this is the case when you see what actually happens in practice. It appears I am not the only one – see, for example, the excellent NC State University ReproducibiliTea discussion.

But…who is actually in control?

In practice, the LTP is written by and presented to the author by the publisher. Note the direction of travel here – the publisher asks the author to sign a LTP that the publisher has written. An example of a publishers’ LTP is Wiley’s sample Exclusive Licence Agreement. I find it interesting that in this LTP example, the author is referred to not as the legally titled ‘Licensor‘, but merely the submissive ‘Contributor,’ whilst Wiley/Journal are referred to not as the ‘Licensee,’ but as the more dominant ‘Owner.’ Is this a subtle power assertion tactic by the publisher?

With an exclusive agreement, the right to publish is granted to that publisher alone for the term of the licence (which may be perpetual). An exclusive licence means that the author is granting permission for that specific publisher to not only publish, but reproduce, distribute, make available, copy, communicate, display publicly, sell, or rent – and probably more uses that publishers include in their LTPs. The exclusivity assigned to this particular publisher means that the author – the copyright holder – cannot do any of these things without seeking the publisher’s permission once the licence has been granted.

Nevertheless, even publishers realise that completely barricading articles is not beneficial, so they commonly licence back some rights to the author. Authors may be granted rights of use for purposes of teaching or presentation at conferences. However, such licenced rights are often restrictive and can include terms such as when, where and how an AAM, i.e. the author’s content, can be made available, and with whom, i.e. limited sharing and dissemination. …”

Can I use this publicly available dataset to build commercial AI software? Most likely not

Abstract:  Publicly available datasets are one of the key drivers for commercial AI software. The use of publicly available datasets (particularly for commercial purposes) is governed by dataset licenses. These dataset licenses outline the rights one is entitled to on a given dataset and the obligations that one must fulfil to enjoy such rights without any license compliance violations. However, unlike standardized Open Source Software (OSS) licenses, existing dataset licenses are defined in an ad-hoc manner and do not clearly outline the rights and obligations associated with their usage. This makes checking for potential license compliance violations difficult. Further, a public dataset may be hosted in multiple locations and created from multiple data sources each of which may have different licenses. Hence, existing approaches on checking OSS license compliance cannot be used. In this paper, we propose a new approach to assess the potential license compliance violations if a given publicly available dataset were to be used for building commercial AI software. We conduct trials of our approach on two product groups within Huawei on 6 commonly used publicly available datasets. Our results show that there are risks of license violations on 5 of these 6 studied datasets if they were used for commercial purposes. Consequently, we provide recommendations for AI engineers on how to better assess publicly available datasets for license compliance violations.