“The goals of taking FOI regulatory action….Regulatory action can facilitate the objects of the Act by: …influencing Australian Government open access culture.”
Abstract: The academic libraries of higher education institutions (HEIs) pay significant amounts of money each year for access to academic journals. The amounts paid are often not transparent especially when it comes to knowing how much is paid to specific publishers. Therefore data on journal subscription expenditure were obtained for UK HEIs using a series of Freedom of Information requests. Data were obtained for 153 HEIs’ expenditure with ten publishers over a five-year period. The majority of institutions have provided figures but some are still outstanding. The data will be of interest to those who wish to understand the economics of scholarly communication and see the scale of payments flowing within the system. Further research could replicate the data collection in other jurisdictions.
“In 2014 Timothy Gowers and others used Freedom of Information laws to extract the relevant price information from UK universities. See here for more detailed information. Earlier (2009), less extensive, work in the USA had also been done by Ted Bergstrom and others. Inspired by this, I tried the same thing in New Zealand (for 7 of the 8 universities – representing around 8400 academic/research staff and 130000 students, so far (Lincoln University, very much smaller than the others, was omitted owing to an oversight). Whereas Gowers was able to obtain the requested information within a few weeks, it has taken me 3.5 years. In both countries universities originally refused to release the information. However, in the UK there is an automatic right of review of such decisions, undertaken by an academic. In NZ, no such right exists….”
Abstract: Research in Open Access (OA) to Scholarly Publications has flourished in recent years, however studies published to date tend to be quantitative, statistical analyses over undifferentiated corpuses, that monitor the overall uptake (Bjo?rk et al. 2010; Laakso et al. 2011). This doctoral thesis explores a different path of inquiry: it examines the effectiveness of OA policies in relation to the perspective of a ‘knowledge seeker’ and considers them in the context of the wider regulatory landscape that motivates their existence, specifically monitoring the availability of shared resources – journal publications, as well as other knowledge sharing artefacts adopted in technical domains – in relation to systems engineering research in the UK. Research Funding Councils adopt Open Access policies and display them prominently on their website, yet not all funded research projects seem to share knowledge by publishing Open Access resources. The main hypothesis driving this thesis is that a gap exists between Open Access in theory and Open Access in practice. A unique research methodology is devised that combines evidence based research (EBR) with a wide range of mixed method techniques, including FOI (freedom of information) requests. A novel collection instrument, a set of heuristic indicators, are developed to support the empirical observation of the gap between ‘Open Access policies in theory’, corresponding approximately to what the funding body state on their website, and ‘Open Access policies in practice’, corresponding to the level of adoption of these policies by grant holders. A systematic review and a meta-analysis of a 100 publicly-funded projects are carried out. The research demonstrates empirically that in the majority of the audited publicly-funded projects, no Open Access resources can be located.
From Google’s English: “Publisher Elsevier shall abide by the decision of the Appeals Committee to publish the open access contracts with Dutch universities. This means that the international negotiations now take place in more openness.
Recently did the appeals board decision in the case between publishers Elsevier and Springer against the Dutch universities. The subscription contracts, including the open access point should be made public . The publishers had six weeks to go against this appeal, but for now Elsevier chooses to leave it at that….”
“The chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services sent a letter last month to the head of the Treasury Department instructing him to decline Freedom of Information requests relating to communications between the two offices, a letter that open records advocates called “deeply troubling.” …”