I intend to submit the following Freedom Of Information request to the 26 leading UK universities (“Russell Group”). The excellent http://whatdotheyknow.com makes this very easy as it gives the addresses and actually sends the request. The Universities have to answer within 20 working days (most manage it in 19.9 days so don’t hold your breath).
I ask whether any University has any policy on supporting researchers to carry out content-mining (Text and data Mining, TDM). Most universities seem to accede to any conditions laid down by publishers. This is strengthened by the total lack of any reaction to Elsevier’s recent “click through” licence. It’s easy to get the impression that universities don’t care. Maybe this request will show they have been secretly fighting for us – who knows?
I’d be very grateful for comments ASAP. I will try to summarise answers and would certainly appreciate help here.
========================= Dear University ====================
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? 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?
Your immediate comments will be very valuable asa I shall start sending these out very soon.
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- pm286 on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Hiperterminal on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Next steps for Text & Data Mining | Unlocking Research on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Publishers prioritize “self-plagiarism” detection over allowing new discoveries | Alex Holcombe's blog on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Kytriya on Let’s get rid of CC-NC and CC-ND NOW! It really matters
-
Archives
- June 2018
- April 2018
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- November 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
-
Categories
- "virtual communities"
- ahm2007
- berlin5
- blueobelisk
- chemistry
- crystaleye
- cyberscience
- data
- etd2007
- fun
- general
- idcc3
- jisc-theorem
- mkm2007
- nmr
- open issues
- open notebook science
- oscar
- programming for scientists
- publishing
- puzzles
- repositories
- scifoo
- semanticWeb
- theses
- Uncategorized
- www2007
- XML
- xtech2007
-
Meta
Good stuff, as ever. My only concern is that there are so many questions they might claim it would cost too much to answer them all – and use that as an excuse not to answer at all. Any way to slim down the list?
I’m close to the subscription process in our library (non-russell but still ‘research-intensive’), but not directly involved, all comments are personal.
To play devils advocate to start with, with limited staff time and energy, we negotiate on licence areas based on our perceived University/researcher priorities. There are: cost (university wants vfm), and access to read as many journals as possible (researchers). On the rare times we’ve (potentially) lost access due to use negotiating over a sticking point, the message from the Schools is: we want our access back, full stop.
When we sign a licence we pull out (and store in a db) various common allowances: does it allow visitor access, post cancelation access, able to upload to VLE, and so on, data mining is not currently one (it is arguable it should be, i agree). So answering the first would be tricky. though knowledgebase+ and elcat may help with this.
When did we first sign one. Difficult, would mean someone going through a filling cabinet and looking through every e-resource and working back through every licence signed.
I’m not aware of us challenging based on data mining, nor am i aware of any researcher asking for it (the latter leads to the former), we challenge on a lot of things, we succeed on a number. Especially with smaller publishers you can find wording that stops things we take for granted: that everyone on campus should have access, that authorised students/staff should have access off campus as well, etc.
I’m aware of the statutory instrument, it’s a good question you raise, this (checking and querying licences) will be something we should consider.
Of course, to some extent our hands are tied, our only weapon is to not subscribe, and publishers know (and can help stir up) outrage in researchers should we not renew a subscription.
Chris
many thanks for this useful and honest answer