The last big push to open access in the UK was in the government of "innovation and research strategy for growth" (pdf), which reads as follows:

The Government, in line with our overall commitment to transparency and open data, is committed to ensuring that public research should be freely available. Free access to taxpayer-funded research provides important social and economic benefits for the dissemination of knowledge, raise the prestige of the United Kingdom, research and promotion of technology transfer. For now, this type of research is often difficult to find and expensive to access. This may defeat the purpose of initial research funded by taxpayers and academic understanding of the limits and innovation. We made our response to Ian Hargreaves review of intellectual property in order to facilitate the extraction of data from published research. This could have significant benefits, for example, in disease control. But we must go much further if, as a nation, we need all the potential benefits of public research.

It sounds like great news. But one of the leading proponents of open science, Peter Murray-Rust, think that the open access movement is always changed little with the current open access publications. His concern grew when he attended the Annual General Meeting of the British version of PubMed Central, which is "a complete archive of free text biomedical and life sciences literature magazines in the Institutes US National Library of Medicine National Health (NIH / NLM). "



This is what happened:

I was at the general meeting of the UK PubMedCentral Monday and interrogated about the subset of PMC open access - the newspapers in which the authors / sponsors have paid large sums of money to ensure their jobs are "Open Access". I asked about the license, hoping they are all CC-BY and was horrified to learn that most of them were only available in CC-NC. This seems to be almost universal - the largest publishers do not allow "open access" to the CC-NC.

very simple, it's a disaster.

Because CC-NC offers the reader or user to return almost no additional rights. The author is paying anything up to 3000 units of money for something that is little more than permission to put the item on its website.

issues related to the use of non-commercial licenses were discussed at Techdirt before. Some people feel that the content in an open and non-commercial CC-NC is not really free, because they are very limited in terms of what you can do with it. The definition of open source, for example, do not allow limitations of this type. Others, however, think that something is better than nothing, and non-commercial uses are large enough to cc-nc materials remain valuable.



Murray-Rust says the problems of the CC-NC in the field of science: Text

Find best price for : --Access----Techdirt----PubMedCentral----open--