(As indicated in places below, I've later added points to this post as a result of ongoing Twitter discussions.)My first posts on this new problem reported that a for-profit publisher is editing and republishing open access articles as if they were new contributions to special-topic books (here), and described concerns raised by authors I had spoken with (here). These concerns were largely dismissed by some advocates of open access, who commented that (i) authors should have realized that this is permitted by the obligatory CC-BY license, and (ii) authors should not complain since this is additional exposure for their work and ideas.
I felt that it's unreasonable to expect authors to have anticipated this particular form of reuse, especially since there's no evidence that open access advocates anticipated it. And I thought most of the concerns authors raised in discussion with me were very reasonable (here). So I circulated a short survey to get solid data on how authors feel about this new practice.
The survey responses (here) make it clear that authors are seriously concerned about the ways this reuse could harm their reputations. This is to be expected - I think most scientists see their scientific reputation as even more important than their funding. The many comments also make it clear that most authors had no idea this republication was happening, even though most of them had published open access articles.
More than 40% of authors in the survey said that they would not have accepted the CC-BY license if they had known this republication could happen. If nothing is done, these concerns will seriously hinder the spread of open access publishing.
What should be done? Open access advocates and publishers (the honourable ones, not the predatory ones) could just keep quiet and hope that the problem doesn't become generally known. That probably won't work out well. The present problem may be limited to one publisher (Apple Academic Press) but the explosive increase in predatory publishers of open-access journals suggests that it will grow; see the more than 300 publishers (not just journals) on Jeffrey Beall's list. And awareness of the problem will spread each time authors discuss where to send their next paper.
Open access publishers could also work behind the scenes to ensure that CC-BY articles republished under the authors names are conspicuously labeled as having been previously published and, if appropriate, as having been edited without the authors' participation. If this effort was successful I think it would eliminate most of the authors' concerns about their reputations. Enforcing it would probably require expensive and ongoing legal actions, but (added later) I think any journal that requires CC-BY should accept the responsibility of legally protecting their authors' interests in this license.
(Added later) Although CC-BY doesn't explicitly specify that the journal citation must be included along with the authors' names (not being designed for journal articles), K. Fortino (@kennypeanuts) pointed me to PLOS's very clear statement that full citation of the article is the required form of attribution. All CC licenses prohibit 'implied endorsement'; that is, the reuse must not imply that the original source approves the reuse. The offending books I've looked at typically describe all of the article authors as 'contributors' in a list at the beginning of the book; this is clearly a form of implied endorsement.
Because open access articles are a major user of CC licenses, OA advocates and publishers could also work together to develop a specific CC license that better meets the needs of authors and publishers. It might allow everything that CC-BY does, but also require (i) prominent listing of the journal citation with the authors' names and (i) if the article had been edited from the original publication, whether the authors have approved this editing. Maybe call it 'CC-OA'.
Finally, open access publishers could actively inform authors about these issues and their efforts to control them. There are many ways to do this, but the strongest point of contact is when the author agrees to the CC-BY license. Open access publishers already use this access point to provide authors with information about the benefits of this license. Now that this problem and the reasonable author concerns have been identified, I think it would be disingenuous of publishers to not also give authors this information.
a previous post I drew an analogy with informed consent in clinical trials, suggesting that OA publishers would be negligent if, in promoting the common good of CC-BY licensing, they did not inform authors of the personal risks as well as the personal benefits.
Remember, I'm an advocate of open access, not an enemy. In the short term, increasing awareness of this problem may scare off authors who might otherwise remain ignorant of it. But if we do nothing about it, in the long term we risk losing many authors who would otherwise invest their limited grant funds to make their articles open.