Misplaced Pages

#760239

86-402: Submissions are subject to an article processing charge and, according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. In January 2010, the journal was included in

172-428: A publication fee , is a fee which is sometimes charged to authors. Most commonly, it is involved in making an academic work available as open access (OA), in either a full OA journal or in a hybrid journal . This fee may be paid by the author, the author's institution, or their research funder. Sometimes, publication fees are also involved in traditional journals or for paywalled content. Some publishers waive

258-446: A rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS One . The number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat. M By 2010, it was estimated to have become the largest journal in the world, and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published by PLOS One . By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles. By November 2017,

344-686: A " Freeware " license model; examples are The White Chamber , Mari0 or Assault Cube . Despite the status of CC0 as the most free copyright license, the Free Software Foundation does not recommend releasing software into the public domain using the CC0 due to patent concerns. However, application of a Creative Commons license may not modify the rights allowed by fair use or fair dealing or exert restrictions which violate copyright exceptions. Furthermore, Creative Commons licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable. Any work or copies of

430-494: A Guardian article informed that in 2010, Elsevier's scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year. Unless discounts are available to authors from countries with low incomes, or external funding is provided to cover the cost, article processing charges can exclude authors from developing countries or less-funded research fields from publishing. Some publishers justify part of

516-631: A URL leading to the photographer's Flickr page on each of their ads. However, one picture, depicting 15-year-old Alison Chang at a fund-raising carwash for her church, caused some controversy when she sued Virgin Mobile. The photo was taken by Alison's church youth counselor, Justin Ho-Wee Wong, who uploaded the image to Flickr under the Creative Commons license. In 2008, the case (concerning personality rights rather than copyright as such)

602-479: A certain number of pages or publication units is exceeded; additional color fees might apply for figures, primarily for print journals that are not online-only. While publication charges occur upon article acceptance, article submission fees are charged prior to the start of peer review ; they are common among journals in some fields, e.g., finance and economics. Page charge may refer to either publication or submission fees. Article processing charges shift

688-477: A compatible license, and making reference and attribution to the original license (e.g. by referring to the URL of the original license). The license is non-exclusive, royalty-free, and unrestricted in terms of territory and duration, so it is irrevocable, unless a new license is granted by the author after the work has been significantly modified. Any use of the work that is not covered by other copyright rules triggers

774-531: A journal they did not wish to name. The rejection letter concerned Ingleby and Head's paper about differences in PhD-to-postdoc transition between male and female scientists. The reviewer argued that the authors should "find one or two male biologists to work with" to ensure the manuscript does not drift into "ideologically biased assumptions", comments which the authors found to be "unprofessional and inappropriate" and veering into sexism . Shortly afterward,

860-596: A member of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating. According to Nature ,

946-441: A scholarly article should be in the region of €200–€1000. High fees are sometimes charged by traditional publishers in order to publish in a hybrid open access journal , which make an individual article in a subscription journal open access. The average APC for hybrid journals has been calculated to be almost twice as high as APCs from full open access publishers. Journals with high impact factors from major publishers tend to have

SECTION 10

#1732766079761

1032-428: A separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the issues with the article, PLOS One Editor-in-chief Joerg Heber said, "we have reached the conclusion that the study and resultant data reported in the article represent a valid contribution to the scientific literature. However, we have also determined that the study, including its goals, methodology, and conclusions, were not adequately framed in

1118-446: A social media outrage storm does expedite a retraction. On August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article they published two weeks earlier submitted by Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman. The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" in gender dysphoria among young people, which Littman called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria". Data

1204-554: Is also governed by copyright law and CC licenses are applicable, the CC recommends against using it in software specifically due to backward-compatibility limitations with existing commonly used software licenses. Instead, developers may resort to use more software-friendly free and open-source software (FOSS) software licenses . Outside the FOSS licensing use case for software there are several usage examples to utilize CC licenses to specify

1290-480: Is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS One only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. Each submission will be assessed by

1376-524: Is convinced that the defendant prevents communication of works whose management is entrusted to the plaintiff [SGAE], using a repertoire of authors who have not assigned the exploitation of their rights to the SGAE, having at its disposal a database for that purpose and so it is manifested both by the legal representative of the Association and by Manuela Villa Acosta, in charge of the cultural programming of

1462-500: Is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time. This report did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs) or clinicians and therefore does not validate the phenomenon. Additional research that includes AYAs, along with consensus among experts in the field, will be needed to determine if what is described here as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will become a formal diagnosis." Article processing charge An article processing charge ( APC ), also known as

1548-504: Is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work". A CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that the author has created. CC provides an author flexibility (for example, they might choose to allow only non-commercial uses of a given work) and protects the people who use or redistribute an author's work from concerns of copyright infringement as long as they abide by

1634-430: Is part of the wider and increasingly global Open Access OA's ethics debate. Most journals do not charge APCs. The global average per-journal APC is US$ 1,626, its recent increase indicating "that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals". A 2019 analysis has shown 75% of European spending on scientific journals goes to "big five" publishers ( Elsevier , Springer Nature , Wiley , Taylor & Francis and

1720-545: Is speculation that media creators often lack insight to be able to choose the license which best meets their intent in applying it. Some works licensed using Creative Commons licenses have been involved in several court cases. Creative Commons itself was not a party to any of these cases; they only involved licensors or licensees of Creative Commons licenses. When the cases went as far as decisions by judges (that is, they were not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or were not settled privately out of court), they have all validated

1806-410: Is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License . In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers. The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 50 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.9 experts. Registered readers can leave comments on articles on

SECTION 20

#1732766079761

1892-582: The Journal Citation Reports and received its first impact factor of 4.4. Its 2023 impact factor is 2.9. PLOS One papers are published under Creative Commons licenses . The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $ 9 million grant in December 2002 and $ 1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals. Later, PLOS One

1978-507: The American Chemical Society (ACS) ). Together they accounted for 56% of articles published. Author fees or page charges have existed since at least the 1930s. Different academic publishers have widely varying levels of fees, from under $ 100 to over $ 5000, and even sometimes as high as €9500 ($ 10851) for the journal Nature . Meanwhile, an independent study indicated that the actual costs of efficiently publishing

2064-573: The BSD License , the GNU LGPL , and the GNU GPL . Mixing and matching these conditions produces sixteen possible combinations, of which eleven are valid Creative Commons licenses and five are not. Of the five invalid combinations, four include both the "ND" and "SA" clauses, which are mutually exclusive; and one includes none of the clauses. Of the eleven valid combinations, the five that lack

2150-641: The Directory of Open Access Journals , but published only 35% of the articles. In 2021, it was estimated that 17,000 to 29,000 diamond OA journals published 8–9% of all scholarly journal articles and 45% of open access articles. Nearly all Latin American OA journals use the diamond model, whereas a little over half of African and Western European OA journals are diamond OA. However, the percentage of diamond OA articles covered in Scopus and Web of Science for

2236-548: The Wellcome Trust from the direct support of research to the support of open access publication. Robert Terry, Senior Policy Advisor at the Wellcome Trust, has said that he feels that 1–2% of their research budget will change from the creation of knowledge to the dissemination of knowledge. Research institutions could cover the cost of open access by converting to an open access journal cost-recovery model, with

2322-507: The " Open Definition " for content and data. Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred designed the Creative Commons License (CCL) in 2001 because they saw a need for a license between the existing modes of copyright and public domain status. Version 1.0 of the licenses was officially released on 16 December 2002. The CCL allows inventors to keep the rights to their innovations while also allowing for some external use of

2408-513: The "BY" clause have been retired because 98% of licensors requested attribution, though they do remain available for reference on the website. This leaves six regularly used licenses plus the CC0 public domain declaration. The six licenses in most frequent use are shown in the following table. Among them, those accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation – the public domain dedication and two attribution (BY and BY-SA) licenses – allow

2494-566: The Chinese government adapted the Creative Commons License to the Chinese context, replacing the individual monetary compensation of U.S. copyright law with incentives to Chinese innovators to innovate as a social contribution. Work licensed under a Creative Commons license is governed by applicable copyright law. This allows Creative Commons licenses to be applied to all work falling under copyright, including: books, plays, movies, music, articles, photographs, blogs, and websites. While software

2580-572: The Dutch CC license and director of the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam, commented, "The Dutch Court's decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and binds users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of

2666-489: The Free Software Foundation currently does not recommend using CC0 to release software into the public domain because it explicitly does not grant a patent license. In February 2012, CC0 was submitted to Open Source Initiative (OSI) for their approval. However, controversy arose over its clause which excluded from the scope of the license any relevant patents held by the copyright holder. This clause

PLOS One - Misplaced Pages Continue

2752-575: The Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers . The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects". In January 2010, it was announced that the journal would be included in the Journal Citation Reports , and

2838-489: The adolescents themselves. On March 19, 2019, PLOS One completed its review. PLOS One psychology academic editor Angelo Brandelli Costa acted as a reviewer criticizing the methods and conclusion of the study in a formal comment, saying, "The level of evidence produced by the Dr. Littman's study cannot generate a new diagnostic criterion relative to the time of presentation of the demands of medical and social gender affirmation." In

2924-503: The article processing charge by attributing it to the cost of producing print material when in reality they publish digital-only issues. Under the traditional model, the prohibitive costs of some non-open access journal subscriptions already place a heavy burden on the research community. Many open access publishers do offer discounts or publishing fee waivers to authors from developing countries or those suffering financial hardship. For these reasons, some funding bodies simply will not pay

3010-494: The article processing charges required to publish in many open access journals (e.g. those published by BioMed Central ). It has been argued that this may reduce the ability to publish research results due to lack of sufficient funds, leading to some research not becoming a part of the public record. Another concern is the redirection of money by major funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and

3096-486: The association, which is compatible with the alternative character of the Association and its integration in the movement called ' copy left '. On June 30, 2010, GateHouse Media filed a lawsuit against That is Great News. GateHouse Media owns a number of local newspapers, including Rockford Register Star , which is based in Rockford, Illinois. That is Great News makes plaques out of newspaper articles and sells them to

3182-576: The author and the license and added a link to the original. Langner was later contacted by the Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE) (Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet) with a demand for €2300 for failing to provide the full name of the work, the full name of the author, the license text, and a source link, as is required by the fine print in

3268-537: The authors' protests, the article was retracted . A less sympathetic explanation for the use of "Creator" was suggested to The Chronicle of Higher Education by Chinese-language experts who noted that the academic editor listed on the paper, Renzhi Han, previously worked at the Chinese Evangelical Church in Iowa City. Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post presented a detailed analysis of

3354-481: The burden of payment from readers to authors (or their funders), which creates a new set of concerns. One concern is that if a publisher makes a profit from accepting papers, it has an incentive to accept anything submitted, rather than selecting and rejecting articles based on quality. This could be remedied, however, by charging for the peer-review rather than acceptance. Another concern is that institutional budgets may need to be adjusted in order to provide funding for

3440-475: The case on that count, ruling that the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph in the sense of the license, but rather a collective work . Since the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph, Kappa Map Group did not need to license the entire atlas under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license. The judge also determined that the work had been properly attributed. In particular, the judge determined that it

3526-566: The collecting society's claims because the owner of the bar proved that the music he was using was not managed by the society. In February 2006, the Cultural Association Ladinamo (based in Madrid, and represented by Javier de la Cueva ) was granted the use of copyleft music in their public activities. The sentence said: Admitting the existence of music equipment, a joint evaluation of the evidence practiced, this court

PLOS One - Misplaced Pages Continue

3612-399: The conditions that are specified in the license by which the author distributes the work. There are several types of Creative Commons licenses. Each license differs by several combinations that condition the terms of distribution. They were initially released on December 16, 2002, by Creative Commons , a U.S. non-profit corporation founded in 2001. There have also been five versions of

3698-661: The entire atlas. Drauglis sued the defendants in June 2014 for copyright infringement and license breach, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, fees, and costs. Drauglis asserted, among other things, that Kappa Map Group "exceeded the scope of the License because defendant did not publish the Atlas under a license with the same or similar terms as those under which the Photograph was originally licensed." The judge dismissed

3784-517: The extra fees for open access publishing: the European Union scientific research initiative Horizon Europe does not cover the APCs for articles in hybrid open-access journals . Diamond open access is a term used to describe journals that have no article processing charges, and make articles available to read without restrictions. In 2020, diamond OA journals comprised 69% of the journals in

3870-459: The fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds. PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010, largely due to the growth of PLOS One . The success of PLOS One has inspired a series of other open access journals, including some other mega journals having broad scope, low selectivity, and a pay-to-publish model using Creative Commons licenses . In September 2009, PLOS One received

3956-403: The fee in cases of hardship or geographic location, but this is not a widespread practice. An article processing charge does not guarantee that the author retains copyright to the work, or that it will be made available under a Creative Commons license . Journals use a variety of ways to generate the income required to cover publishing costs (including editorial costs, any costs of administering

4042-420: The following: The NonCommercial license allows image creators to restrict selling and profiting from their works by other parties and thus maintaining free of charge access to images. The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition, as it is sometimes unclear what can be considered a non-commercial setting, and application, since its restrictions differ from

4128-783: The founder of Creative Commons, has contributed to the site. Unsplash moved from using the CC0 license to a custom license in June 2017 and to an explicitly nonfree license in January 2018. In October 2014, the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC0 as conformant with the Open Definition and recommend the license to dedicate content to the public domain. In July 2022 Fedora Linux disallowed software licensed under CC0 due to patent rights explicitly not being waived under

4214-671: The highest APCs. Open access articles often have a surcharge compared to closed-access or paywalled content; for example, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences charges $ 1590–$ 4215 per article (depending on length) for closed-access, with a surcharge of $ 1700–$ 2200 for open-access (depending on licence). Similarly, AGU 's Journal of Geophysical Research charges $ 1000 for closed-access and $ 3500 for open-access. Even when publishers do not charge standard fees, excess or overlength fees might still apply after

4300-480: The history of the article in Nature on " water memory " that was not retracted either. Jonathan Eisen , chair of the advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biology and an advocate for open-access , commended PLOS One for their prompt response on social media , which in his words "most journals pretend doesn't even exist". David Knutson issued a statement about the paper processing at PLOS One , which praised

4386-412: The importance of post-publication peer review and described their intention to offer open signed reviews in order to ensure accountability of the process. From March 2 to 9, the research article received a total of 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS One site. Signe Dean of SBS put #CreatorGate in perspective: it is not the most scandalous retraction in science, yet it shows how

SECTION 50

#1732766079761

4472-556: The industry-wide averages for biology-related journals. The average acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted in 2020 and 2021 ranges from 47.9 to 49.9%. [1] The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge. He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012. Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015. Joerg Heber was as editor-in-chief from November 2016 before Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021. PLOS One

4558-535: The institutions' annual tool access subscription savings being available to cover annual open access publication costs. A 2017 study by the Max Planck Society estimates the annual turnovers of academic publishers amount to approximately €7.6 billion. It is argued that this money comes predominantly from publicly funded scientific libraries as they purchase subscriptions or licenses in order to provide access to scientific journals for their members. The study

4644-641: The invention. The CCL emerged as a reaction to the decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft , in which the United States Supreme Court ruled constitutional provisions of the Copyright Term Extension Act that extended the copyright term of works to be the last living author's lifespan plus an additional 70 years. The original non-localized Creative Commons licenses were written with the U.S. legal system in mind; therefore,

4730-407: The journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS One in terms of output. At PLOS One , the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125 days over the first ten years of operation, according to Himmelstein's analysis, done for Nature . The median between acceptance and posting a paper on the site has decreased from 35 to 15 days over the same period. Both numbers for 2016 roughly correspond to

4816-549: The journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. According to the Journal Citation Reports , the journal has a 2023 impact factor of 2.9.. The articles are indexed in: On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for

4902-413: The journal was reported to be PLOS One . By May 1, PLOS had announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to step down. PLOS One also issued an apology statement following the incident. On March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand due to outrage among

4988-590: The journal's aim is to "challenge academia 's obsession with journal status and impact factors ". Being an online-only publication allows PLOS One to publish more papers than a print journal. In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics outside, or between, traditional science categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area. Papers published in PLOS One can be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles

5074-503: The journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper. The authors, who received grants from the Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom ( 造化 ( 者 ); lit.   ' that which creates or transforms ' ) which means "nature" in the Chinese language. Despite

5160-537: The legal robustness of Creative Commons public licenses. In early 2006, podcaster Adam Curry sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos from Curry's Flickr page without Curry's permission. The photos were licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. While the verdict was in favor of Curry, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him as long as they did not repeat the offense. Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, main creator of

5246-613: The license. Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of previously offered Creative Commons licenses have since been retired, and are no longer recommended for new works. The retired licenses include all licenses lacking the Attribution element other than CC0, as well as the following four licenses: The latest version 4.0 of the Creative Commons licenses, released on November 25, 2013, are generic licenses that are applicable to most jurisdictions and do not usually require ports. No new ports have been implemented in version 4.0 of

SECTION 60

#1732766079761

5332-549: The license. Version 4.0 discourages using ported versions and instead acts as a single global license. Since 2004, all current licenses other than the CC0 variant require attribution of the original author, as signified by the BY component (as in the preposition "by"). The attribution must be given to "the best of [one's] ability using the information available". Creative Commons suggests the mnemonic "TASL": title – author – source [web link] – [CC] licence . Generally this implies

5418-430: The license. Of this sum, €40 goes to the photographer, and the remainder is retained by VGSE. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne dismissed the claim in May 2019. Creative Commons maintains a content directory wiki of organizations and projects using Creative Commons licenses. On its website CC also provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the world. CC licensed content can also be accessed through

5504-560: The license." In 2007, Virgin Mobile Australia launched an advertising campaign promoting their cellphone text messaging service using the work of amateur photographers who uploaded their work to Flickr using a Creative Commons-BY (Attribution) license. Users licensing their images this way freed their work for use by any other entity, as long as the original creator was attributed credit, without any other compensation required. Virgin upheld this single restriction by printing

5590-519: The peer review system), such as subsidies from institutions and subscriptions . A majority of open access journals do not charge article processing charges, but a significant and growing number of them do. They are the most common funding method for professionally published open access articles. APC fees applied to academic research are usually expensive, effectively limiting open access publishing to wealthier institutions, scholars, and students. The APC model of open access, among other controversies,

5676-458: The people featured in the articles. GateHouse sued That is Great News for copyright infringement and breach of contract. GateHouse claimed that TGN violated the non-commercial and no-derivative works restrictions on GateHouse Creative Commons licensed work when TGN published the material on its website. The case was settled on August 17, 2010, though the settlement was not made public. In 2007, photographer Art Drauglis uploaded several pictures to

5762-571: The photo-sharing website Flickr, giving them the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License (CC BY-SA). One photo, titled "Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.", was downloaded by Kappa Map Group, a map-making company, and published in 2012 on the front cover of Montgomery Co. Maryland Street Atlas . The text "Photo: Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD Photographer: Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis, Creative Commoms [ sic ], CC-BY-SA-2.0"

5848-498: The principles of open content promoted by other permissive licenses . In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as wiki pages for translations and as PDF. Rights in an adaptation can be expressed by a CC license that is compatible with the status or licensing of the original work or works on which the adaptation is based. The legal implications of large numbers of works having Creative Commons licensing are difficult to predict, and there

5934-446: The problem, which she named #CreatorGate , and concluded that the journal's hasty retraction may have been an even bigger offense than the publication of the paper in the first place. To contrast PLOS One ' s handling of the problem, she used a 12-year history of retraction of the fraudulent paper on vaccine and autism by The Lancet and the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on " arsenic life " by Science . Others added

6020-437: The public license. Upon activation of the license, the licensee must adhere to all conditions of the license, otherwise the license agreement is illegitimate, and the licensee would commit a copyright infringement. The author, or the licensor as a proxy, has the legal rights to act upon any copyright infringement. The licensee has a limited period to correct any non-compliance. The CC licenses all grant "baseline rights", such as

6106-459: The published version, and that these needed to be corrected." The paper was republished with updated Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, but the Results section was mostly unchanged. In her correction, Littman emphasized that the article was "a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses", saying "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)

6192-522: The right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes and without modification. In addition, different versions of license prescribe different rights, as shown in this table: The last two clauses are not free content licenses, according to definitions such as DFSG or the Free Software Foundation 's standards, and cannot be used in contexts that require these freedoms, such as Misplaced Pages . For software , Creative Commons includes three free licenses created by other institutions:

6278-559: The same year was below 1%, suggesting that "Scopus- or Web of Science-based (data) are skewed towards toll access and article processing charges-based publishing, as Diamond journals are underrepresented in (these databases)". The same study also found that diamond OA articles comprised 81% of all OA articles in Humanities, but only 30% in Medicine and Sciences. Creative Commons licenses A Creative Commons ( CC ) license

6364-476: The sharing and remixing (creating derivative works ), including for commercial use, so long as attribution is given. Besides copyright licenses, Creative Commons also offers CC0 , a tool for relinquishing copyright and releasing material into the public domain . CC0 is a legal tool for waiving as many rights as legally possible. Or, when not legally possible, CC0 acts as fallback as public domain equivalent license . Development of CC0 began in 2007 and it

6450-640: The suite of licenses, numbered 1.0 through 4.0. Released in November 2013, the 4.0 license suite is the most current. While the Creative Commons license was originally grounded in the American legal system, there are now several Creative Commons jurisdiction ports which accommodate international laws. In October 2014, the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC ;BY, CC BY-SA and CC0 licenses as conformant with

6536-524: The website. As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open access to PLOS One is financed by an article processing charge , typically paid by the author's institution or by the author. This model allows PLOS journals to make all articles available to the public for free immediately upon publication. As of April 2021, PLOS One charges a publication fee of $ 1,745 to publish an article. Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce

6622-405: The wording may be incompatible with local legislation in other jurisdictions , rendering the licenses unenforceable there. To address this issue, Creative Commons asked its affiliates to translate the various licenses to reflect local laws in a process called " porting ". As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been ported to over 50 jurisdictions worldwide. Working with Creative Commons,

6708-476: The work obtained under a Creative Commons license may continue to be used under that license. When works are protected by more than one Creative Commons license, the user may choose any of them. The author, or the licensor in case the author did a contractual transfer of rights, needs to have the exclusive rights on the work. If the work has already been published under a public license, it can be uploaded by any third party, once more on another platform, by using

6794-468: Was added for scientific data rather than software, but some members of the OSI believed it could weaken users' defenses against software patents . As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI. From 2013 to 2017, the stock photography website Unsplash used the CC0 license, distributing several million free photos a month. Lawrence Lessig ,

6880-796: Was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLOS One . It launched with commenting and note-making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007. In September 2007, the ability to leave " trackbacks " on articles was added. In August 2008, the journal moved from a weekly to a daily publication schedule, publishing articles as soon as they became ready. PLOS One came out of "beta" in October 2008. In September 2009, as part of its article-level metrics program, PLOS One made its full online usage data, including HTML page views and PDF or XML download statistics, publicly available for every published article. In mid-2012, as part of

6966-528: Was obtained from a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking for responses from parents whose children had experienced "sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21". The study was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano and medical professionals like developmental and clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, as being politicized and having self-selected samples, as well as lacking clinical data or responses from

7052-423: Was placed on the back cover, but nothing on the front indicated authorship. The validity of the CC BY-SA 2.0 as a license was not in dispute. The CC BY-SA 2.0 requires that the licensee to use nothing less restrictive than the CC BY-SA 2.0 terms. The atlas was sold commercially and not for free reuse by others. The dispute was whether Drauglis' license terms that would apply to "derivative works" applied to

7138-539: Was presented by the Max Planck Digital Library and found that subscription budgets would be sufficient to fund the open access publication charges, but does not address how unaffiliated authors or authors from institutions without funds will contribute to the scholarly record. Publishers' high operating profit margins, often on publicly funded research works, and their copyright practices have subjected them to criticism by researchers. For example,

7224-670: Was released in 2009. A major target of the license was the scientific data community. In 2010, Creative Commons announced its Public Domain Mark , a tool for labeling works already in the public domain. Together, CC0 and the Public Domain Mark replace the Public Domain Dedication and Certification, which took a U.S.-centric approach and co-mingled distinct operations. In 2011, the Free Software Foundation added CC0 to its free software licenses . However,

7310-558: Was sufficient to credit the author of the photo as prominently as authors of similar authorship (such as the authors of individual maps contained in the book) and that the name "CC-BY-SA-2.0" is sufficiently precise to locate the correct license on the internet and can be considered a valid identifier for the license. In July 2016, German computer magazine LinuxUser reported that a German blogger Christoph Langner used two CC BY -licensed photographs from Berlin photographer Dennis Skley on his private blog Linuxundich. Langner duly mentioned

7396-531: Was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction. In the fall of 2006, the collecting society Sociedad General de Autores y Editores ( SGAE ) in Spain sued Ricardo Andrés Utrera Fernández, owner of a disco bar located in Badajoz who played CC-licensed music. SGAE argued that Fernández should pay royalties for public performance of the music between November 2002 and August 2005. The Lower Court rejected

#760239