105 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2021
    1. In a recent study, based on a correlated valence bondapproach,8Shaiket al.proposed that a fourth bond is necessaryto explain the C2spectrum at low energy. Within a correlated res-onating valence bond approach, they have found that the 2σand 3σmolecular orbitals, afters–phybridization, change their nature ascompared to standard molecular orbital theory and show a corre-sponding bonding character. By taking into account the remainingtwoπorbitals, obviously bonding, they argued that an unexpectedquadruple bond should be a more appropriate description of theC2molecule. This result was rather surprising, especially consideringthat quadruple bonds should very rarely occur.

      CC quadruple bond

    1. In main group elements, however, the maximum number ofbonds between two atoms has remained at three,6–8although amaximum bond order of four in C2and the isoelectronicspecies CN+, BN and CBhas been proposed.9,10However, thisproposal has been largely debated and has stimulated heateddiscussion.11–13Shaiket al.9reported that the fourth bondin C2has a non-negligible bond dissociation energy ofB12–17 kcal mol1based on high level valence bond calculations.However, the experimental bond dissociation energy of C2wasfound to be lower than that of HCRCH.14This has igniteddoubt in assigning true quadruple bonding in C2.11–13Theexperimental14C–C distance in C2(1.255 Å) is longer than thatin HCRCH (1.203 Å). The calculated force constant values arealso smaller for C2than HCRCH.9,15The effective bond order(EBO) introduced by Rooset al.16based on the complete-active-space-self-consistent-field (CASSCF) theory provided a value of2.16 for C2and 2.86 for HCRCH.12All these have created adilemma in ascertaining a true quadruple bond in C2, one of the

      carbon-carbon quadruple bond

  2. Feb 2021
    1. Emerald

      https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/open-research-emerald/our-open-research-policies

      Emerald already has progressive green open access / self archiving policies which allow immediate open access for the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) under a creative commons attribution non-commercial license (CC BY-NC). This demonstrates that Emerald cannot agree with much of the statement they are signing. Note, Plan S ask for CC BY or CC BY-ND is permissible under Plan S by exception. The funders' request for a more permissive CC BY license is all I can identify as a potential problem, but there are no specific concerns raised in the statement.

    2. work against the shared objective of a more open and equitable scholarly ecosystem

      Again, it is not at all clear what is meant by this statement. Equity in academia is an incredibly important goal. This statement currently reads like unsubstantiated rhetoric. Libraries, Institutions and funders have found that the unintended consequences of deficient deals with publishers supported by their funds can include inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing. However, the intention of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) is to arm all authors with detailed knowledge of their rights to ensure they have the same minimum opportunity to widely disseminate their work. Furthermore, by providing a version of an output with a CC BY license there is greater equity around accessing the research and therefore greater opportunity to build on it for public benefit, making a more equitable environment for all. The version of record (VoR) remains important in this scenario, so more equitable access should not undermine the sustainability of journals and platforms which are valued.

    3. However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S,

      The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.

      Academy of Dental Materials

      Acoustical Society of America

      AIP Publishing

      American Academy of Ophthalmology

      American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

      American Chemical Society

      American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

      American Medical Association

      American Physical Society

      American Society for Investigative Pathology

      American Society for Radiation Oncology

      American Society of Civil Engineers

      American Society of Hematology

      American Society of Clinical Oncology

      American Association of Physicists in Medicine

      American Association of Physics Teachers

      AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

      Brill

      British Journal of Anaesthesia

      Budrich Academic Press

      Cambridge Media

      Cambridge University Press

      Canadian Cardiovascular Society

      De Gruyter

      Duncker & Humblot

      Elsevier

      Emerald

      Erich Schmidt Verlag

      French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

      Frommann-Holzboog Verlag

      Future Science Group 

      Hogrefe

      International Association for Gondwana Research

      IOP Publishing

      Journal of Nursing Regulation

      Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).

      Julius Klinkhardt KG

      La Découverte

      Laser Institute America

      Materials Research Forum LLC

      The Optical Society (OSA)

      Pearson Benelux

      SAGE Publishing

      Society of Rheology

      Springer Nature

      Taylor & Francis Group

      The Geological Society of America

      Thieme Group

      Uitgeverij Verloren

      Verlag Barbara Budrich

      Vittorio Klostermann

      wbv Media

      Wiley

      Wolters Kluwer

  3. Jan 2021
  4. Nov 2020
  5. Oct 2020
  6. Sep 2020
    1. Lawrence Lessig, Hal Abelson, and Eric Eldred received funding to establish a new non-profit called Creative Commons

      CC Creative Commons

  7. Aug 2020
    1. Additional Resources

      I suggest an additional section titled tools. These tools really helped me in gaining a better understanding of structuring attributions etc.

      The Attribution Builder is really helpful when there is uncertainty as to how to proceed with citing sources, especially as citing CC Licenses seems different from scholarly practices.

      1. Open Attribution Builder, by WA SBCTC, [n.d.]. The Open Attribution Builder is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
      2. CC “Select your License” tool logic - Beta version, by Wyblib40, 2020. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. (Please note that this workflow logic diagram I created myself in order to get a feel for the new License Chooser tool (2020)

      CC “Select your License” tool logic - Beta version

    1. OER Policy Development Tool by Amanda Coolidge and Daniel DeMarte, Institute for Open Leadership Fellows. Licensed CC-BY 4.0 An interactive tool for institutional policy development. http://policy.lumenlearning.com/

      I thought this an absolutely great tool. It is helping me shape the policy for our university, and covers areas of OER development that I have not even considered yet. I believe this resource should really get a lot more prominence as a tool.

  8. Apr 2020
    1. To read all of the license deeds, or legal codes, visit this site and explore the different licenses. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

      An excellent resource directly from the Creative Commons site describing the rationale of use, "three-layer" design, license types, and their specific permissions/restrictions. This is a go-to resource before and after completing this course. There is no better documentation for this topic on the internet.

  9. Aug 2019
    1. Open Access and the Humanities) by Dr Martin Eve provides a really useful general introduction to open access, but then does a really good job of explaining the specific complexities for Humanities and Social Science scholars.

    1. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Wiki/cc_license_compatibility

      This is still the most helpful visual I have seen thus far to help explain and clarify compatibility of CC licenses.

  10. Jul 2019
    1. e-purpose.

      Creative Commons covers 4 areas of practice: -re-use: right to verbatim reuse content

      • revise: right to change/ modify the content -remix: right to combine original or revised with new content -redistribute: right to make and share copies of content

      great for expanding, exploring, sharing and remixing content in the educational world.

  11. Mar 2019
    1. When we burn these fossil fuels, the carbon combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide. This extra carbon dioxide (and other GHGs like methane) traps more and more heat in our atmosphere.

      How we end up making carbon dioxide

    1. whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work.

      I can't tell why he says this based on the previous definition of work.

  12. Feb 2019
    1. Initiatives such as Domain of One’s Own[22]

      I wish there were more examples here that one could readily adopt. This example is specific to one institution.

  13. Jan 2019
    1. Encourage students to apply their expertise to serve their community. Partner with nonprofit organizations to create opportunities for students to apply their research or marketing skills.

      Service-learning approaches - real-life application of skills gained in class to make society better.

    2. human connections facilitated by technologies can help learners engage more fully with the knowledge and ideas that shape our world.
    3. the open license would allow students (and teaching faculty) to contribute to the knowledge commons, not just consume from it, in meaningful and lasting ways.
  14. Dec 2018
    1. “In sum, the unambiguous terms of License permit FedEx to copy the Materials on behalf of a school district exercising rights under the License and charge that district for that copying at a rate more than FedEx’s cost, in the absence of any claim that the school district is using the Materials for other than a ‘non-Commercial purpose.’ The motion to dismiss is granted.”

      The FedEx Office case offers a clear example to use when talking about the parameters of publishing/printing out BY-NC-SA licensed work. Our school bookstore approached the OER group about providing low cost “books” of CC licensed work. He made it clear he would make no profit off the copies. If they didn’t sell, that was fine. The bookstores are under threat from open licensed materials. What I thought was a lovely ploy to bring students into the bookstore to buy sundries, actually reflects his reality. Printing out CC licensed OER is best done at price that only can cover the price of the book and a small charge for their overhead.

    1. brief history

      I enjoyed learning about open licensing history, the OPL and the OCL, precursors to Creative Commons. I have read other writings of Dr. Wiley and his knew of his involvement with Lumen Learning and CC. I was not surprised to know that he connected the ideals open software and open publishing. I took for granted that a lot of software was open source, I didn’t question the duality between commercial software and the free stuff. Such thinking may mark a turning point for Open, reflecting how the concept of open can co-exists our heads. Things in the Open world seem to be gaining momentum. An example is the price of textbooks has plateaued and even fallen in the US. (bls.gov and fred.stlouisfed.org).

    1. Article providing information on some of the important details of of public domain, it’s legal backing, and the public interest.

      The article addresses how public domain objects returns to copyright when cultural institutions create photographic reproductions. This has the effect of limiting public access to culture. I’m curious if this may be related to local copyright law without Freedom of Panorama (FOP). Freedom of Panorama allows photographs and video of buildings, public art and other public work to be used for commercial purposes. Without it, any image/video of art, architecture and public are may be protected by copyright for a period of time. This map found on Wikipedia’s Freedom of Panorama entry, illustrates that many countries in the EU lack freedom of panorama such as France, Italy and Greece. If the freedom of panorama is given in local copyright, creating an image becomes a derivative work, without it, using it commercially violates copyright. Is a museum considered a public space and subject to FOP restrictions? Tricky. Further research found that this was being addressed by the EU in 2017 with limited success.

    1. We’ve failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach by Toby Green

      The author argues that the model of green and gold have not worked to further open scholarship and suggests solutions meant to increase revenue in scholarly publishing that supports Open Access. He claims piracy, such as Sci-Hub, and the lack of academic institution blocking access constitutes complicity. It is clear the scholarly model is broken. Access to journals and research is de facto open thus the industry needs to shift its business model.

      There is an additional resource I suggest be added, Paywall the Business of Scholarship documentary. It works as both an introduction to the topic, but also provides resources geared towards advocacy. It directly addresses issues with piracy and equity.

      The inclusion of multiple modes of content delivery is a great way to take advantage of online learning. Students expect to have text and visuals, such as the Open Access Explained video.

    1. Managing a Commons

      Nobel laureate in Economics, Elinor Ostrom’s work concerns the concept of the commons, how successful management is critical and why important to include all stakeholders. Her work addresses how communities manage and govern their commons. Her 8 Principles for Managing a Commons most likely was considered during the creation of Creative Commons. Comparing her principles, you can see how each one translates into CC’s work. The licenses define clear boundaries with the four elements BY, SA, NC and ND. CC has developed a system of monitoring and management carried out by community members. Following these principles, as CC does, keeps the organization responsive to change and working with communities worldwide. I found myself reflecting on how a successful use of the commons can translate to success, but also disappointed to realize bringing people together isn’t easy. This makes the CC an impressive expression of the 8 Concepts working in a real world situation.

  15. Oct 2018
    1. Consequently, the SA condition does not apply to your contributions to modified works including these kinds of changes.

      Examples would really help. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would care about this. As was pointed out in the comments, making minor corrections to a CC BY-SA work would not enable anyone to reshare that entire work with corrections under a new license. So the case here is if someone wanted to share minor corrections to a work independently of the work itself and license those minor corrections differently? For example: Here are my typo corrections to a published work, outside of the context of that published work? Example please...

    2. In other words, the CC licenses (all of which include the BY condition) enable the creator of a work to prohibit you from attributing them. However, except in the extremely rare cases where the creator explicitly prohibits you from attributing them, you are always required to attribute the creator of a work shared under a CC BY license.

      Except for the semi-famous case of the open resources collected in lardbucket, how often does this example appear in the wild?

  16. Sep 2018
    1. Additional Resources

      "How to Attribute a Creative Commons licensed work" This is the best one yet on how to form 'the best' attributions.

    2. To add to "More scholarship about CC licenses" and to support unit 4.1: Bishop, Carrie. “Creative Commons and Open Access Initiatives: How to Stay Sane and Influence People.” Art Libraries Journal 40.4 (2015): 8–12. Web.

      Bishop presents a cheerful exploration of the Tate’s mammoth enterprise to digitize and release into the public Web 52,000 works of art, many of which are still under copyright. Commonly, galleries and museums would like to broaden exposure to the artwork in their collections, but when artists or their descendants are still actively monitoring use and income, there can be a barrier between connecting the public with the art work and the needs of the artistic community. Bishop describes the Tate’s desire to license the newly digitized images under a Creative Commons license to provide clear guidelines to the public, but at the same time to respond to the fears, hopes, and wishes of their artists. The Tate decided that it could best realize its goal to "democratize access" and to connect the public with British artists through applying the CC-BY-NC-ND license—both making the images available and quelling the concerns of the artists or their estate managing family members. The article provides an interesting perspective to the discussion of “open culture” or “free culture.” Some of this freedom may come about in incremental doses. The CC license might make it possible to allow an artist to connect their work with a larger public, at the same time that it makes them confident that their work won’t be misused or appropriated in an undesired manner. Aart museums seem to have a difficult relationship with open access and Creative Commons licensing. The Getty, for instance, has a fairly complicated statement of terms that make murky all that CC transparency, so there is viewing the material and then there is repurposing the material. The result is that a slow, measured pace, while nurturing the artist along, may be the way to ultimately make CC and Open Access a norm rather than an exception.

    1. More information about other open movements

      OER Africa is an OER organization that promotes resources and professional development and is a solid example of OER in the global south.

    2. Free Culture Game by Molle Industria. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 A game to help understand the concept of free culture http://www.molleindustria.org/en/freeculturegame/

      This should probably not be 3 different bullet points as it is all one resource. Also, quick question, how does this illustrate 'other' open movements as it seems to be about what free culture is.

    3. The Tragedy of the Commons by Boundless & Lumen Learning

      The link to this text is broken. Boundless has gone out of business. I would suggest as a replacement the Wikipedia article on this topic. It is a B-class article and is organized in a logical fashion.

    1. More information about limitations and exceptions to copyright

      The Fair Use Index. This resource tracks judicial decisions to help better understand the types of uses courts have previously determined to be fair—or not fair. Includes a variety of courts. Fair Use is determined by the judicial branch.

    1. Additional Resources

      How are Creative Commons Licenses Designed?. From OER Africa. Great explanation from the global south. Provides basic clear understanding of the design of a license.

    2. Additional Resources

      Licensing or Copyright guidance FAQ from Open Oregon. Great DYI resource that provides practical answers to a lot of questions.

    3. A brief history outlining open content licensing and why the licenses were eventually replaced by the more robust Creative Commons licenses

      Formating, only one bullet needed.

    1. More information about license compatibility

      Fair use and mixing "all rights reserved" with open content. Something that many content creators struggle with. Includes an example statement. http://support.skillscommons.org/faqs/q-if-proprietary-licensed-material-is-being-mixed-with-new-oer-materials-what-licenses-should-be-used/ . Also indirectly helps with understanding traditional versus creative commons (know the license of the works you are planning to remix).

    2. More information about license compatibility

      A tool to help mix licenses: http://www.web2rights.com/creativecommons/ . Helps to automate compatibility questions.

    3. "Are Creative Commons Licenses Overly Permissive? The Case of a Predatory Publisher". This article is a bit alarmist about predatory publishers republishing (incorrectly) cc material. Important to understand real world use cases of cc and how this affects perception of the license by academics.

    1. The Redalyc project. From the global south, this project is a digital library of OA journals. Creative Commons 2.5.

    2. Joseph Esposity "Libraries Face a Future of Open Access" published by [The Scholarly Kitchen](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/) on May 23, 2018. Pull quote: "What appears to get lost in discussions of the march of cancelled contracts in Europe is that it is not just publishers that are being disrupted. This is a disruption to the entire ecosystem. When the favor comes due, we may not like the terms, but pay we will."

    1. Gulley, Nicola. “Creative Commons: Challenges and Solutions for Researchers; a Publisher’s Perspective of Copyright in an Open Access Environment.” Insights: the UKSG journal 26.2 (2013): 168–173. Web. Unit 3.2 (New Article)

      Gulley, Nicola. “Creative Commons: Challenges and Solutions for Researchers; a Publisher’s Perspective of Copyright in an Open Access Environment.” Insights: the UKSG journal 26.2 (2013): 168–173. Web. Gulley, a publisher with Institute of Physics (IOP) sets out to describe and clarify the CC BY license for researchers who may be wary of making use of it for their own work. The Research Councils UK currently require APC funded OA articles to be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license . This license is also favored by the UK’s Wellcome Trust).

      Although this is a 2013 article, Gulley’s overview of the six licenses is still largely valid. The benefits she sites include clarity for the user, the ability to build on past research—the primary need for scientists and providing a nearly internationally applicable standard (something that has only improved since she wrote her article). Gulley cites that authors have expressed concern over maintaining control of their work over time and against derivative uses, maintaining the integrity and context of their work, and the compatibility as CC licenses are combined into a single work.

      Gulley explains in detail the more weedy aspects of CC-BY licensing, and how to address some of the concerns she mentioned in line with established Creative Commons policy. In fact, IOP has adopted CC BY licensing for its publications (presumably for their openly accessible content) because the opportunities for sharing outweigh any negative effects.

  17. Aug 2018
    1. Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship (community standards, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

      How would this paragraph correspond to creative commons licenses? My interpretation is that a cc-by sa nc is possible but not a cc-by nd?

    1. most of all, re-establishes education as a force for equity and social mobility — and I think open licensing is a crucial piece of that equation.I’m not content, though, with open licensing being the extent of our vision, and I hope many others feel the same way.

      Amen: open licensing as key infrastructure in improving public education rather than an end in itself!

  18. Jul 2018
  19. Mar 2018
    1. The vibrant colors can show very significant and important messages for political messages and religion. Red represents death, green represents fertility, white represents purity, blue represents love, gold represents wealth and white represents purity. These colors are not seen “connected as one” on other parts of the quilt only exclusively the musical notes and hearts located under his name. I feel t

      This work is not "objective description" right?

  20. Dec 2017
  21. Nov 2017
    1. Accordingly, the correct instrumental definition of technology still does not show us technology’s essence.

      Technology's essence is more than the ability of humans to control it, as thought with most previous technologies. While establishing definitions in the introduction, Heidegger finds it important to establish a distinction between what was instrumental to technology in the past and what we will find technology can become without definitions that limit technology to something outside of the basic, instrumental necessities.

  22. Sep 2017
  23. Aug 2017
    1. Submission Form for Student Work

      waiver form allowing uni to use students' work

      Why not just use CC license?

    1. This is a tool to help you build attributions. Click the About box to learn more. As you fill out the form, the app automatically generates the attribution for you.
  24. Jul 2017
    1. That’s really what licensing is all about. Creativity.

      Creativity. That's really what "open" is all about too! Love!

  25. Apr 2017
    1. I think the locking down of open is dangerous. I think it draws lines where they need not be, and it reconsolidates power for those who define it. More than that, the power around open has been pretty focused on a few people for too long, and I count myself amongst them.

      amen.

  26. Mar 2017
  27. Jan 2017
  28. Nov 2016
  29. Sep 2016
  30. Jun 2016
  31. May 2016
  32. Apr 2016
  33. Mar 2016
    1. unclear licensing information making it difficult to distinguish OER from other digital content

      The standard OER license (Creative Commons) is pretty clear.

  34. Feb 2016
  35. Jan 2016