Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

OSFair2017 training | Open Science check list for repositories and publishers

209 views

Published on

Thomas Margoni presents Open Science check list for repositories and publishers

Training title:TDM unlocking a goldmine of information

Training overview:
Text and Data Mining (TDM) is a natural ‘next step’ in open science. It can lead to new and unexpected discoveries and increase the impact of publications and repositories. This workshop showcases examples of successful TDM and infrastructural solutions for researchers. We will also discuss what is needed to make most of infrastructures and how publishers and repositories can open up their content.

DAY 2 - PARALLEL SESSION 4 & 5

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

OSFair2017 training | Open Science check list for repositories and publishers

  1. 1. RCUK Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy Open Science check list for repositories and publishers Open Science Fair National Library of Greece, Athens Dr. Thomas Margoni Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property and Internet Law Director of the LLM in Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy School of Law – CREATe Centre – University of Glasgow Legal Coordinator OpenMinTeD Faculty Associate – Berkman Klein Center – Harvard University thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  2. 2. “… free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself” (Budapest Open Access Initiative) Open Access Definition thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  3. 3. Need for a licence Given the applicability of copyright (or related rights) in most cases where articles, publications, datasets, etc are created, and the limited and fragmented presence of ELCs, these works have to be licensed under an OA compliant licence (e.g. CC BY 4.0) in order to qualify for OA/OS thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  4. 4. What can be done by platforms? What can be done by institutional repositories and publishers interested in becoming enablers of Open Science best practices? thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  5. 5. Open Science check list for repositories thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk 1) Apply the right licence to your repository 2) Don’t forget the metadata 3) Apply the right licence also to the content of your repository (not the same thing as point 1)! 4) In particular, CC BY 4.0 for works such as papers, articles, monographs, creative images, etc) 5) Data and dataset should be under a CC0 (or a Public Domain Dedication) 6) Require that uploaders choose a licence when they upload their content 7) Suggest which licence should be chosen in order to meet OS requirements (see above) 8) Explain why what you recommend is the best choice and why other choices are not good but let uploaders choose
  6. 6. 1) Apply the right licence to your repository Creative Commons Attribution (BY) 4.0 Suggested form is “Unless otherwise noted this repository and its content is under a CC BY 4.0” in case you have material you cannot/don’t want to licence under CC BY Why CC BY 4.0? 1) Internationally recognised standard 2) Well written 3) Expressed in legal, human and machine readable code (metadata) 4) Constantly updated by international experts 5) Includes SGDR and similar rights related to copyright 6) OA compliant thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  7. 7. RCUK Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy 1) Apply the right licence to your repository thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  8. 8. RCUK Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy 1) Apply the right licence to your repository thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  9. 9. 2) Don’t forget the metadata Creative Commons Attribution (BY) 4.0 <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons Licence" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</a>. Where do I find this code? creativecommons.org! Chose “share your work” and follow the wizard. Apply metadata to your repository to show that people can search, index, remix, TDM etc and allow use with cc meta search engines e.g. https://search.creativecommons.org thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  10. 10. 3) Content should also be licensed Remember the “unless otherwise noted”? Problem: often repositories do not own the rights on the content and thus cannot license it. Are there technical OS best practices for repositories? thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  11. 11. 4) Papers, articles, songs, photographs, films, etc These should be licensed under a CC BY 4.0. This is fully OA compliant and only requires that reuses of the work acknowledge authorship, so authors will be credited for any future reuse. thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  12. 12. 4) Papers, articles, songs, photographs, films, etc Why always CC BY? Because licence proliferation causes licence incompatibility and this is bad. And we have to invest time in money to solve a problem that could be largely avoided! Legal research should be part of the experiment design!!! thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  13. 13. 4) Papers, articles, songs, photographs, films, etc thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk https://openminted.github.io/releases/license-matrix/
  14. 14. 5) Data, dataset, databases, etc These should be under a CC0, which does not require any attribution (it is in fact a waiver more than a licence) and allows the widest reuse without imposing any restriction. (in certain cases you could use a Public Domain Mark to simply state that something is in the public domain worldwide, but if you don’t know what it is, just disregard this!) thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  15. 15. 6) Require that uploaders choose a licence It is fundamental that the uploader choose a licence No licence means “ALL RIGHTS RESERVED” and people commonly cannot use, reuse, TDM, etc (if users chose this option, a specific statement “all rights reserved” and connected metadata should be reported). Statements such as “Open Access” are not licences and introduce legal uncertainty. Please don’t do this. thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  16. 16. 7) Indicate preferred OS licence Repositories and publishers must play an OS educative role towards researchers and explain them why a certain licence should be chosen over another See OS fact sheet and OA FAQs attached for some useful tools and examples: ● https://zenodo.org/record/841086#.WYwTWYpLdE4 ● https://zenodo.org/record/840652#.WYwTcopLdE6 thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  17. 17. thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  18. 18. thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  19. 19. 8) Explain why a certain licence should be chosen But let uploader choose which licence During the uploading procedure offer a number of licence options and recommend which one should be used to meet OS goals (CC BY 4.0 for works and CC0 for data, see above why). In summary: 1) require that a licence be chosen; 2) recommend which one should be chosen; 3) but leave the choice to the uploader thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  20. 20. 8) Explain why a certain licence should be chosen Practical problem: What if authors cannot choose a CC BY because they transferred their copyright to a publisher? Or the publisher only “allows” NC or ND republications? This is a real problem and there is not much that can be done at the licence level. But there are other approaches that can help: thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  21. 21. 8) Explain why a certain licence should be chosen Refuse to publish with publishers that require a copyright transfer. Only publish in OA (CC-BY, avoid hybrid models). This may be difficult however especially for junior researchers because career incentives are strongly based on impact factor and similar metrics. These has to change. There is a moral and ethical obligation on senior academics to lead this change, refusing to publish, review and edit non OA and pushing to modify rules on tenures, hiring, grants, etc thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk
  22. 22. Open Science Thanks! thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk @openminted_eu thomas.margoni@glasgow.ac.uk

×