What form of criticisms are possible with BY-SA that aren't with BY-CC? Criticism would usually come in the form of new papers which merely reference the previous one.
Use of the CC BY ND license is meant to reflect the common practice of sharing academic papers, which was often done informally, as opposed to a paywall. I can send you a copy of my paper; you can pass on copies to colleagues. But in doing so, you wouldn't edit it. That's not a freedom which is necessary for sharing a paper. The paper is a complete product. Moreover it would be a breech of the integrity of the work to edit it. If a correction is required, there is a proper route for that: erratum or corrigendum, published in the original venue.
The first catch of "ND" is that this excludes translation, but that really is not considered to be an issue for two reasons: (1) Scientists are generally expected to be proficient in English and able to read a paper in English - as once was the case for chemists being proficient in German. (2) For popularization and dissemination, media outlets are able to write summaries in other languages.
The second catch is that we really should have some kind of formal secondary license for images and figures within a paper (ideally CC-BY), to allow them to be used separately, since reuse of these should be as frictionless as possible. As a former grad student, it was a pain when writing the review section in a thesis! Though many journals & academic publishers achieve this through having blanket forms that an academic can download for permission to re-use images; for others one needs to consult with the authors of a paper which can be tricky.
And to counter your other comment:
> Ancillary and auxiliary sources are key to scientific criticism.
The licensing does nothing whatsoever to prevent scientific criticism. The Berne Convention [1] explicitly allows for quoting from other works, even if not licensed whatsoever:
> 10.1 It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.
Criticism is never a matter of editing someone else's work; it's commenting about the work. You don't need a license to do that. If one has free access to the full text, which CC BY ND provides, then one has everything necessary to understand the criticism.
I thought fair use was automatically disclaimed when you receive an explicit licence, reducing the baseline to taint=derivation (which is the main reason open source developers avoid looking at closed source software that performs similar function), unless your licence specifies otherwise.
And some countries are not signatory to Berne convention, instead to Buenos Aires convention, which is much stricter and does not have a common fair use stipulation.
> Criticism is never a matter of editing someone else's work; it's commenting about the work.
It is. Every consumption is an edit. You edit to remove everything not related to your criticism and add your opinion.
Here's what the organization behind the CC licenses explains:
> By design, CC licenses do not reduce, limit, or restrict any rights under exceptions and limitations to copyright, such as fair use or fair dealing. If your use of CC-licensed material would otherwise be allowed because of an applicable exception or limitation, you do not need to rely on the CC license or comply with its terms and conditions. This is a fundamental principle of CC licensing. [1]
Regarding this ridiculous assertion:
> And some countries are not signatory to Berne convention, instead to Buenos Aires convention, which is much stricter and does not have a common fair use stipulation.
Every country that is a signatory of the Buenos Aires Convention [2] is ALSO a signatory to the Berne Convention. [3]
> ... made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
I'm quite pleased to see more and more academic and scientific papers being licensed as such in recent times!