HOAD Data on Licence Types - BMJ

[pandeyseema737]

The license type on the following chart is not looking quite right.
Having checked this data against Crossref, I believe that Hoad data isn't using up-to-date or accurate. Just wanted to flag this up.

[njahn82]

Hi @pandeyseema737 Thanks for raising this issue. I wonder if you could be a little more specific about the data issues? Would you be willing to share your data?

I am attaching a list of the Crossref records used to compile the BMJ statistics (April 2023).

bmj_hoad.csv

In reviewing the data, it appears that the transfer of the journals Vet Record and Vet Record Case Reports to Wiley in 2020 resulted in the licence type CC BY NC ND being displayed, a type, which is not supported by BMJ. These two journals were included in the following transformation agreement:

https://www.openaccess.nl/sites/www.openaccess.nl/files/documenten/bmj20192021_geredigeerd.pdf

Unfortunately, I cannot automatically track the transfer of journals and keep the link to all publishers. But I would remove the link between BMJ and Vet Record and Vet Record Case Reports in the June version. Then, CC BY NC ND would not show up in the BMJ analysis.

Are there any other specific data issues?

[pandeyseema737]

Hi Najko, @njahn82, thanks for your reply. Yes, I meant to highlight the NC-ND license types.
I appreciate that tracking transfers of journals can be tricky, so thought it might be helpful to flag this. Thanks for looking into this.

[njahn82]

Hi @pandeyseema737 , the dashboard has been updated and the NC-ND license types no longer appear in the BMJ license breakdown: https://subugoe.github.io/hoaddash/jct/bmjpublishing/#creative-commons-licenses-over-time

Thanks again for alerting me about this.