Welche Creative-Commons-Lizenz ist die richtige für meine wissenschaftliche Open-Access-Publikation? Eine neue Empfehlung der Max Planck Digital Library Services votiert eindeutig für CC BY – und rät vom NC-Modul ab. Entstanden ist die Empfehlung unter Mitarbeit von Till Kreutzer.
I said last time that Jisc’s feeble transition-to-open-access report was the first of two disapointing scholarly-communication announcements that week. The second was of course the announcement that PeerJ has been acquired by Taylor and Francis. Matt and I have both been big fans of PeerJ since before it launched, and we were delighted to have our 2013 neck-anatomy paper in the first batch of articles published there.
My talk (Taylor et al. 2023) from this year’s SVPCA is up! The talks were not recorded live. But while it was fresh in my mind, I did a screencast of my own, and posted it on YouTube (CC By). For the conference, I spoke very quickly and omitted some details to squeeze it into a 15-minute slot. In this version, I go a bit slower and make some effort to ensure it’s intelligible to an intelligent layman. That’s why it runs 21 minutes.
Creative Commons-Lizenzen zu verwenden und die eigenen Werke zur Nachnutzung freizugeben, das ist kein Zauberwerk, wenn man einige Grundregeln beachtet. Dieser Text erläutert, welche Module bei CC zur Auswahl stehen (und empfehlenswert für OER sind) und wie man die Lizenzhinweise akkurat angibt. Hilfestellung rund um das Thema Creative Commons bieten auch die rund 130 CC-FAQs in deutscher Sprache.
Creative-Commons-Lizenzen sind modular aufgebaut. Über die Module lassen sich einzelne Nutzungsformen von CC-lizenzierten Inhalten gezielt erlauben oder einschränken. Wie die Module allgemein funktionieren und was es besonders beim BY-Modul zu beachten gilt, das erläutert dieser Text. iRights.info berichtet und informiert seit Jahren über Creative Commons.
We’ve noted many times over the years how inconsistent pneumatic features are in sauropod vertebra. Fossae and formamina vary between individuals of the same species, and along the spinal column, and even between the sides of individual vertebrae.
No, not his new Brachiosaurus humerus — his photograph of the Chicago Brachiosaurus mount, which he cut out and cleaned up seven years ago: {.alignnone .size-full .wp-image-8757 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“8757” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2013/08/30/heres-that-brachiosaurus-altithorax-skeleton-you-ordered/fmnh-brachiosaurus-mount-lateral/”
Matt and I are about to submit a paper. One of the journals we considered — and would have really liked in many respects — turned out to use the CC By-NC-SA license. This is a a very well-intentioned licence that allows free use except for commercial purposes, and which imposes the same licence on all derivative works. While that sounds good, there are solid reasons to prefer the simpler CC By licence.
My talk (Taylor and Wedel 2019) from this year’s SVPCA is up! The talks were not recorded live (at least, if they were, it’s a closely guarded secret). But while it was fresh in my mind, I did a screencast of my own, and posted it on YouTube (CC By). I had to learn how to do this for my 1PVC presentation on vertebral orientation, and it’s surprisingly straightforward on a Mac, so I’ve struck while the iron is hot.
Open-access journalist Richard Poynder posted a really good interview today with the Gates Foundation’s Associate Officer of Knowledge & Research Services, Ashley Farley.