Originally published on eve.gd on 26 November 2013.
Read this post on the web (with images, PDF and citation details)
Today marked the publication of the Government and RCUK responses to the UK's BIS Committee Inquiry into Open Access. I haven't had time to digest the full document, but the overall points, made by the chair of the committee are summarised thus:
You may read it more cynically than that (and I might also do so once I've read it), but I'm personally pleased to see that the government
[...] agrees that HEIs should not be required by publishers to accept non-disclosure clauses in publishing contracts which involve public funds. The Government will discuss this issue with publishers and representative bodies. If what is considered to be inappropriate use of non-disclosure agreements is evident discussions will be held with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to seek their advice and whose responsibility it would be to make any referral to the Competition Commission (currently transiting to become the Competition and Markets Authority which will bring together the Competition Commission and much of the OFT).
If you see the original evidence that I gave, ‘Evidence to House of Commons Select Committee Inquiry’, in Inquiry into Open Access. Fifth report of session 2013-2014., by House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (London: House of Commons, 2013), pp. Ev20–Ev27, Ev68–Ev69 (especially p Ev22), you will note that this was my point, so I'm definitely taking some credit for this:
"Dr Eve: Can I put a counter-argument that I have encountered in speaking with librarians? Non-disclosure clauses on big deal bundling of journals make it very difficult for libraries to consult with one another about the prices that they are being charged. [and more]", p. Ev22
As I say, I do need to read the rest of the document to digest the responses, and have to go teach now, but I think that aspect is certainly the start of a better pricing mechanism for libraries.
Martin Paul Eve
Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing
Short thoughts /thoughts
Today I learned /til
What I’m up to /now
CV /cv (PDF)
Accounts /accounts
https://bsky.app/intent/compose?text=Gov+and+RCUK+responses+to+Open+Access+Inquiry:+eradicating+non-disclosure+clauses+https://eve.gd/2013/11/26/gov-and-rcuk-responses-to-open-access-inquiry-eradicating-non-disclosure-clauses/
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://eve.gd/2013/11/26/gov-and-rcuk-responses-to-open-access-inquiry-eradicating-non-disclosure-clauses/
Vaults and locks that fence them from the public eye and use
More on dual-licensing of digital OA books
What is actually licensed in print/digital dual-licensed books?
/thoughts
Janeway is pleased to announce a new collaboration with PLOS to develop and extend the Janeway codebase for use in parts of PLOS’s article submission process https://www.openlibhums.org/news/1025/
We've gone from Andy and me coding Janeway by hand, in those pre-AI days, over a weekend or so, to Janeway, a solid structure for OA journal publication workflows. Now being used and developed by a major scientific publisher.
I never had aspirations for it like this. I just wanted it to do what we needed it to do. If there is a cool way for other organisations to make it do what they need, too, so long as it does not violate our ethical principles, then that is fantastic.
https://www.openlibhums.org/news/1025/
14 October 2026, 11:27
Fluke
Future Bones
Tina Turner
Rich Lane
Faff
Scrobbled on Last.fm