[Duraspace] Fwd: [open-science] Open Access at the Wellcome Trust, Article Processing Charges

[Hilton Gibson]

FYI.

*Hilton Gibson*
Ubuntu Linux Systems Administrator
JS Gericke Library
Room 1025D
Stellenbosch University
Private Bag X5036
Stellenbosch
7599
South Africa

Tel: +27 21 808 4100 | Cell: +27 84 646 4758
http://scholar.sun.ac.za
http://bit.ly/goodir
http://library.sun.ac.za
http://za.linkedin.com/in/hiltongibson


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>
Date: 24 March 2014 16:44
Subject: [open-science] Open Access at the Wellcome Trust, Article
Processing Charges
To: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>


Hey all,

There has been a really interesting discussion and series of actions taking
place on the Open Access mailing
list<https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access> around
some data released by the Wellcome Trust regarding Article Processing
Charges they've paid over in the last financial year to have articles
published in a 'free to view' manner. (Their rules now mandate free to use,
or CC-BY licensing - but this came in after the start of the financial
period for which we have data.)

With an awesome crowd-sourced effort started by Theo Andrew at Edinburgh,
including Cameron Neylon, people from Cottage Labs, Stuart Lawson (and many
others - I'm pulling together a list now), we've tided up much of the data
and started analysing it.

I've done a quick summary
here<http://access.okfn.org/2014/03/24/scale-hybrid-journals-publishing/>of
some of the data regarding hybrid and pure open access (summary - over
£3 million paid to hybrid journals, and £700k to pure open access journals.
£1.5 million in total to Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell). I also raised some
questions about oddities in Wiley-Blackwell CC-BY licensing
here<http://quantumplations.org/2014/03/21/wiley-blackwell-licenses-clarity-needed/>
(summary
- the articles I've so far seen have all said '*Re-use of this article is
permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5,
which does not permit commercial exploitation'*

I thought it may be of interest to many people on this list.

Continued work is taking place on the data set (found
here<https://docs.google.com/a/okfn.org/spreadsheets/d/1RXMhqzOZDqygWzyE4HXi9DnJnxjdp0NOhlHcB5SrSZo/edit#gid=0>)
- with a number of ideas currently bouncing around. Do get in touch either
with me, or the open access mailing list if you have any bright ideas :-)

Best,
Michelle

-- 

*Michelle Brook *

*Science and Open Access *

* | @MLBrook <https://twitter.com/MLBrook> *



* The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> Empowering through Open
Knowledge http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/>  |  @okfn
<http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
 Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter> *

_______________________________________________
open-science mailing list
open-science at lists.okfn.org
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lib.sun.ac.za/pipermail/duraspace/attachments/20140324/531c01df/attachment-0001.html>