Generate DOI for URL

Why it is suitable: It is the most widely used license in open-access scientific publications. It allows sharing, copying, distributing, and adapting the content (including for commercial purposes), as long as credit is given to the author. It facilitates citation in articles, as researchers can include excerpts, figures, or data in their work, provided they properly cite the source. It is widely accepted by academic institutions and meets the requirements of funders mandating open access.
Advantage for citations:The flexibility of use (including adaptations) ensures that the content can be integrated into reviews, meta-analyses, or derivative works, with clear attribution.

Select this option to use the license specified in the provided URL (e.g., the license indicated in the original repository or website). Ensure the license is valid and compatible with open access for scientific citations. Otherwise we will leave: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) : Why it is suitable: It is the most widely used license in open-access scientific publications. It allows sharing, copying, distributing, and adapting the content (including for commercial purposes), as long as credit is given to the author. It facilitates citation in articles, as researchers can include excerpts, figures, or data in their work, provided they properly cite the source. It is widely accepted by academic institutions and meets the requirements of funders mandating open access.
Advantage for citations:The flexibility of use (including adaptations) ensures that the content can be integrated into reviews, meta-analyses, or derivative works, with clear attribution.

Why it is suitable: Similar to CC BY, it allows sharing and adapting the content, but requires that derivative works be distributed under the same license. It is common in collaborative projects (such as Wikipedia) and in some scientific journals that promote open access. It ensures that content cited or adapted in articles remains open, fostering the dissemination of knowledge. Advantage for citations: Researchers can use and modify the content (e.g., translate or include in a new context), provided they attribute and maintain the open license. Consideration: The ShareAlike clause may limit its use in publications that are not open access, although this is rare in modern scientific journals.

Why it is suitable: By waiving all copyright, it allows free use of the content without restrictions, including citations, adaptations, or reproduction in scientific articles. It is ideal for data, databases, or supplementary materials that authors want to maximize in dissemination. Some institutions (such as Europe PMC) recommend CC0 for scientific data to facilitate its reuse. Advantage for citations: Researchers can use the content without worrying about legal requirements, which is useful for extensive citations or use in repositories. Consideration: Since attribution is not required, the author may not receive explicit credit, which could be a disadvantage if seeking academic recognition.

Why we don’t recommend it: This license prohibits commercial use of your content, which can cause issues for scientific articles. Some journals charge publication fees or distribute content under commercial models, which might conflict with this restriction. Plus, some researchers or editors might hesitate to cite your work to avoid legal trouble. When it might work: If your content will only be used in non-commercial settings, like theses or unpublished academic reports, this license could be okay. But for maximizing citations, it’s better to choose something more open.

Why we don’t recommend it: This license combines two restrictions: it bans commercial use and requires that any derivative work (like an article using your content) be published under the same license. This makes things complicated, as many scientific journals don’t accept the “ShareAlike” clause or might find it incompatible with their policies. That could discourage researchers from citing your work. When it might work: Only if you’re sure your content will be used in non-commercial, open contexts, but even then, it’s not ideal for scientific citations.

Why we don’t recommend it: This license doesn’t allow modifications to your content, which is a big drawback for researchers. In scientific articles, people often adapt content—like translating it, summarizing it, or including it in new graphs. If they can’t do that, they’re less likely to cite your work. When it might work: If you want your content shared exactly as is, but keep in mind this limits its usefulness in research.

Why we don’t recommend it: This is the most restrictive Creative Commons license. It bans both commercial use and modifications, making it very hard for researchers to use or cite your content. In science, people need flexibility to adapt and share, and this license prevents that. When it might work: Only if you want total control and don’t mind if your content is rarely cited in scientific articles.

Why we don’t recommend it: With this option, you keep all rights to your content, meaning anyone who wants to cite or use your work needs your explicit permission. This goes against the open-access spirit that scientific journals value, and it can deter researchers because it complicates things and could lead to legal issues. When it might work: If your goal is to fully protect your content, but don’t expect many citations in scientific articles with this license.

Why we don’t recommend it: Creating a custom license might sound appealing, but it’s often confusing for researchers. If the terms aren’t clear or don’t meet the open-access standards required by many scientific journals, people are likely to avoid citing your content. When it might work: If you define a clear license that’s compatible with open access (e.g., something similar to CC BY), it could work. But we suggest reviewing it carefully, ideally with a legal expert, to avoid issues.