Should the new RIOXX profile satisfy the Plan S / CC0 requirement?

[jesusbagpuss]

One of the Plan S requirements is for CC0 licensed metadata.

High-quality article level metadata in standard interoperable non-proprietary format, under a CC0 public domain dedication. Metadata must include complete and reliable information on funding provided by cOAlition S funders (including as a minimum the name of the funder and the grant number/identifier).

For repositories that include data from remote/upstream sources, some of the information may not be releasable under a CC0 license (abstracts; subject classifications; keywords).

The current RIOXX version only contains 'subject' (not mandatory) that may not be releasable under CC0.

Has the CC0 aspect been considered as part of the new version?

[geo-mac]

Cheers John. I suppose it is worth saying that RIOXX isn't really about providing a route to Plan S compliance and, to that extent, the CC0 metadata aspect hasn't been explictly considered. It is more about improving harvesting efficacy and quality. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taking notice.

I think you highlight the (almost) untenable nature of abstract rights. Having said that, metadata should theoretically be CC0 where an APC has been paid; the grey area will be Green CC-BY deposits, about which I have encountered zero comment. It might be too soon to move on this issue from a RIOXX perspective as Plan S local implementation policies remain up in the air. Wellcome, for example, have recently announced that they will unilaterally impose Plan S compliance requirements on publishers, allowing AAMs to meet all Plan S requirements. This is terrific, yet they are but one, at the moment.

An RGG meeting will be forthcoming soon as v.3 is being finalised for public comment as I type to you now, so this matter can be discussed then. We can then update this issue accordingly.