Author: Christian HeiseResearch Associate at the Hybrid Publishing Lab and Member of Board of the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany, currently working on his Ph.D thesis about Open Science. More about me...
Bjoern Brembs from the University of Regensburg did a short analysis of the german library statistics regarding the money they spend on publications like journals. In the statistics (freely available here) you can check every one of the 250 university libraries and how much they spent on what in which year. Here is what he found:
German libraries spent in 2011
- 170 million € on books
- 130 million € on subscriptions
This amounts to an average of about 660k € in subscription costs for each library (I did not check the distribution to see if I should have calculated the median instead). Given a conservative estimate of publisher profits of around 30%, this suggests that each German library paid about 220k € to publishers’ shareholders in 2011. Obviously, this will vary from library to library. For instance, our library here in Regensburg paid about 700k € in 2011 towards publishers’ profits.
What one could also see was that an average German library in 2011 subscribed to 2k print journals and 15k e-Journals, at an average cost of 34€ per title.
Ross Mounce, PhD Student at the University of Bath, is building a list of Gold OA journals with all licence details. He already scored 531 out of 985 journals he found here, so there’s 454 left still to score. He has started the task on a collaborative, editable Google Spreadsheet here.
If you have some spare time please help him to fill-in the data on his spreadsheet (sheet called ‘Data’). All data filled-in on the datasheet will be public data for anyone to use/copy/remix CC0.
As often discussed, the Creative Commons NC-license can not be considered a true open license. This is because “Non-Commercial” content cannot be distributed widely and easily. In 2012, a group of German copyright experts (irights.info) released the German document “Folgen, Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Bedingung Nicht-Kommerziell – NC” (Consequences, Risks, And Side-Effects of the license module Non-Commercial – NC) which now has been translated to English.
Overall it becomes more and more obvious, that CC-NC licenses do not comply with the requirements of the Budapest Open Access Initiative and the Berliner Erklärung because among other things both include the entitlement to produce and distribute derivative works. Therefore the NC licenses can also be seen as not compatible to the common understanding of open access or open science.
Here you find a Short summary of the most important Q&A in the document showing why the Creative Commons NC-licenses are not suitable for spreading knowledge. Continue Reading…