As an aside: journals do a lot more than just send manuscripts for review. A good editor will spend far more time on quality control and contextualisation, than on inviting a few peer reviewers. It's one of those overlooked and underappreciated parts of the job that keep the slop at bay.

But for an LLM for example, that ingests a CC BY paper and has it influence whatever answer it gives someone, unless it is quoting the paper at length or presenting an image from it, that's not republication of the original.

But that citation is not legally required. The "BY" part of CC BY only comes into play if I re-use, or republish your exact words or images. Then I have to attribute.

Probably the most common confusion I see is the difference between "use" of an article and "re-use". I can read your article, incorporate it into my thinking and have it impact my future work/writing. This is "use" and requires no attribution from a CC BY license (though a citation would be nice).

And more NC confusions here in 2015 scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/03/13/m...

Then I wrote about a different set of CC BY confusions in 2014 scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/12/10/c...

I wrote about this way back in 2012. Copyright can be a difficult concept to grasp, as can the difference between “use” of an article and “re-use” (or republication) of an article. scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/10/30/c...

I can only hope to live up to the high bar that @johninglis.bsky.social has set for the position as a thought leader and groundbreaker, but the challenge is welcome.

This is coming full circle for me, returning to the place where I got my start in scholarly publishing, getting to apply the knowledge I’ve gained over the last 25 years.