I have have sent out ca 10 FOI requests to UK Russell Group Universities (see this blog). IMO these are reasonable requests, given the imminent change in statutory instrument on Copyright. [My questions are appended at the bottom – I hope you agree they are polite and clear and deserving of answers. Basically I have asked them what their practice and policy is about restrictive licences which they sign with publishers about Text and Data Mining.
The University of Glasgow is the first to respond (other than acknowledgments). Their response is
“we don’t hold the information you have requested”.
I am speechless. I expected a variety of responses but not this.
Very, very, simply. The University of Glasgow has legally signed contracts with publishers. They tell me that they do not have the contracts they have signed.
If you sign a contract you should keep it. I’d assume they have to keep copies of contracts for seven years. But apparently Glasgow throw them away after signing.
That’s most charitable explanation I can put on this.
To summarize , their response taken at face value says:
- we don’t have a clue what goes on in our university and we don’t care
- we don’t keep records of what the library does
- we don’t care when the library runs foul of publishers
Yes – I was expecting “it’s too much work” – “it’s secret because the publisher won’t let us” – “we can’t issue personal data about employees or users” .
- We don’t take your request seriously
I’d like confirmation from readers that I’m not overreacting. And if so, what should I do? Write to the University Rector? Or the local MP?
Because we live in a democracy where part of the process is to treat people courteously even if they ask uncomfortable questions. Because uncomfortable questions often lead to better ways of doing things. I’ll sleep on it and read your responses.
But if this is common over UK Universities – that they don’t care about new legislations and don’t care about answering questions – we start to have problems with Universities.
Peter Murray-Rust firstname.lastname@example.org
4 March 2014
Our Ref: FOI 2014/51 – F0360445
Dear Mr Murray-Rust,
Re: Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – Request for Information
Thank you for your email which was received by the University on 19 February 2014 timed 05:23 hours, requesting the following information:
The University of Glasgow does not hold the information that you have requested and is not aware of any other public authority that could respond to your request. Section 17 of FOISA states that where public authorities receive requests for information that they do not hold, they must issue a notice advising that they do not hold the requested information.
The supply of documents under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 does not give the applicant or whoever receives the information any right to re-use it in such a way that might infringe the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (for example, by making multiple copies, publishing or otherwise distributing the information to other individuals and the public). The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2004 ensured that Section 50 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”) applies to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“FOISA”).
Breach of copyright law is an actionable offence and the University expressly reserves its rights and remedies available to it pursuant to the CDPA and common law. Further information on copyright is available at the following website:
See attached extracted request
DATA PROTECTION AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICE
Main Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ
Data Protection: Telephone: 0141-330-3111 E-Mail: email@example.com Freedom of Information: Telephone: 0141-330-2523 E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
Your right to seek a review
Should you be dissatisfied with the way in which the University has dealt with your request, you have the right to require us to review our actions and decisions. If you wish to request a review, please contact the University Secretary, University Court Office, Gilbert Scott Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QQ or e-mail: email@example.com within 40 working days. Your request must be in a recordable format (letter, email, audio tape, etc). You will receive a full response to your request for review within 20 working days of its receipt.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which we have handled your request for review you may ask the Scottish Information Commissioner to review our decision. You must submit your complaint in writing to the Commissioner within 6 months of receiving the response to review letter. The Commissioner may be contacted as follows:
The Scottish Information Commissioner Kinburn Castle
Telephone: 01334 464610
Fax: 01334 464611
Website www.itspublicknowledge.info E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
An appeal, on a point of law, to the Court of Session may be made against a decision by the Commissioner.
For further information on the review procedure please refer to (http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/dpfoioffice/policiesandprocedures/foisa-complaintsandreview/ ) All complaints regarding requests for information will be handled in accordance with this procedure.
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Office
======== PMR’s questions =========
Extracted request for call F0360445
Dear University of Glasgow,
Background and terminology:
This request relates to content mining (aka Text And Data Mining (TDM), or data analytics) of scholarly articles provided by publishers under a subscription model. Mining is the use of machines (software) to systematically traverse(crawl, spider) subscribed content, index it and extract parts of the content, especially facts. This process (abstracting) has been carried out by scholars (“researchers”) for many decades without controversy; what is new is the use of machines to add speed and quality.
Most subscribers (universties, libraries) sign contracts provided by the publishers. Many of these contain clauses specifically restricting or forbidding mining (“restrictive contracts”). Recently the UK government (through the Intellectual Property Office and Professor Hargreaves) recommended reform of Copyright to allow mining; a statutory instrument is expected in 2014-04. Many subscription publishers (e.g. Elsevier) have challenged this (e.g. in Licences 4 Europe discussions) and intend to offer bespoke licences to individual researchers (“click-through licences”).
In many universties contracts are negotiated by the University Library (“library”) who agree the terms and conditions (T&C) of the contract. At the request of the publishers some or all of the contract is kept secret.
Oversight of library activities in universities usually involves “library committee” with a significant number of academics or other non-library members.
Questions (please give documentary evidence such as library committee minutes or correspondence with publishers):
* How many subscription publishers have requested the university to sign a restrictive contract (if over 20 write “> 20′′)?
* When was the first year that the University signed such a contract?
* How often has the university challenged a restrictive contract?
* How many challenges have resulted in removal of ALL restrictions on mining?
* Has the university ever raised restrictions on mining with a library committee or other committee?
* How many researchers have approached the university to request mining? How many were rejected?
* How often has the university negotiated with a publisher for a specific research project requiring mining? Has the publisher imposed any conditions on the type or extent of the research? Has the publisher imposed conditions on how the research can be published?
* How often has an researcher carried out mining and caused an unfavourable response from a publisher (such as removal of service or a legal letter)?
* How often has the university advised a researcher that they should desist from mining? Have any researchers been disciplined for mining or had subscription access removed?
* Does the university have a policy on researchers signing “click through licences”?
* Does the university have a policy for facilitating researchers to carry out mining after the UK statutory instrument is confirmed?
* Does the university intend to refuse to sign restrictive contracts after the statutory instrument comes into force?