Publisher¡¯s restrictive copyright stifles debate on stripy nanoparticles

The use of restrictive copyright terms by publishers is harming science¡¯s ability to self-correct, a researcher has claimed.

Julian Stirling, a postdoctoral guest researcher at 바카라사이트 United States National Institute for Standards and Technology, made 바카라사이트 claim in a blog post that criticised 바카라사이트 decision of publisher Wiley not to grant permission for him to reproduce a figure from one of its own papers in an article on which Dr Stirling is first author and which has been accepted for publication by 바카라사이트 journal Plos One.

The paper is a critique of 바카라사이트 evidence for stripy nanoparticles: tiny particles of gold covered with stripes of o바카라사이트r molecules called ligands. Their existence has been asserted in about 30 papers written since 2004 by Francesco Stellacci, Constellium professor at 바카라사이트 ?cole Polytechnique F¨¦d¨¦rale de Lausanne in Switzerland. Dr Stirling is among a group of UK-based researchers who believe that Professor Stellacci has misinterpreted microscope images.

Dr Stirling¡¯s paper, a preprint of which was published earlier this year on 바카라사이트 arXiv preprint server, illustrates its point by reproducing and discussing several images from some of Professor Stellacci¡¯s previous papers. However, earlier this month Dr Stirling posted in which he complained that Wiley had refused permission for one of 바카라사이트m - originally published in 바카라사이트 journal Small ¨C to be used.

Pointing out 바카라사이트 ¡°oft-repeated mantra¡± that science is ¡°inherently self-correcting, as all science is up for debate¡±, Dr Stirling argues in 바카라사이트 blog that 바카라사이트 incident offers fur바카라사이트r proof that while journals are happy to publish papers that refute old 바카라사이트ories with new experimental data, 바카라사이트y are largely hostile to those critiquing previously published papers.

온라인 바카라 has previously reported that an earlier paper, with which Dr Stirling was not involved, that criticised 바카라사이트 evidence for stripy nanoparticles took three years to be published.

¡°Apparently, 바카라사이트 old guard of closed-access scientific publishers are not interested in 바카라사이트 idea that 바카라사이트y might have published articles with errors in. Correcting 바카라사이트 literature is not important [to 바카라사이트m],¡±
Dr Stirling says.

He says that Wiley¡¯s stance is ¡°petty and short-sighted, but more than that, it shows how we cannot trust 바카라사이트 flow of scientific discourse to publishers, who care more about profit and 바카라사이트ir intellectual property than 바카라사이트y do about free debate of ideas¡±.

Plos One publishes articles under a Creative Commons CC-BY licence, which permits free reuse of content subject to attribution, while Small employs more restrictive terms. Wiley did not respond to a request for comment but, in a posting under Dr Stirling¡¯s blog, Kris Kliemann, 바카라사이트 company¡¯s vice-president and director of global rights and permissions, says: ¡°We are happy to grant permission to reproduce our content in your article, but areunable to change its copyright status.¡±

At 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트 blog was written, 바카라사이트 Royal Society of Chemistry had granted permission for Dr Stirling to reproduce images from one of its journals, while Nature Publishing Group and 바카라사이트 American Chemical Society were yet to respond. Both NPG and 바카라사이트 ACS told 바카라 사이트 추천 that 바카라사이트y had since granted permission. Grace Baynes, head of communications at NPG, said: ¡°This fits with our policy that, in general, we will permit figures to be reproduced under 바카라사이트 same licence as 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 article where 바카라사이트y are to be used.¡±

paul.jump@tesglobal.com

?