Richard I linked to the text of the FOI question, but repeat it here:
I would like information regarding any/all meetings between BIS officials and/or the Minister for Universities and Science (Jo Johnson, MP) with representatives from Elsevier (part of RELX Group, formerly Reed Elsevier) and/or Thomson Reuters, from 5 June 2015 to date, to include: - dates of meetings - agendas / topics for discussion - names of ministers/senior officials present (as per 40(2)(a)(iii) and section 40(3)(a)(i) of FOI act) - minutes / notes / records of the meetings All that we know is in a two week period the UK Minister for Universities and senior Departmental staff met with Elsevier three times. We do not know what was discussed - on two occasions no notes were taken (and so, conveniently, the topics of discussion need not be reported) and on the other the UK Government is refusing to say what was discussed. But let’s assume for a moment that the main topic was not open access. I think that few of us (especially those who have watched Yes Minister) are naive enough to believe that if you have senior Departmental staff and a Minister on hand professionals such at Elsevier wouldn’t slip in a ‘by the way, Minister’ and lobby for their position on open access . But we will never know. Compare with Berlin12 for which there is a public agenda (with list of speakers), a public link to the white paper which formed the starting point for discussions, public tweets (although not many) from the event, and a public write-up about the event. Which of these is more secretive? But even if it were true that Berlin12 was organised by the illuminati with all participants taking a vow of omertà, how can we possible extrapolate from that to the whole of the open access movement? It really is a step too far. But I do agree with you on one issue. There will be continued pressure from some publishers to ensure that details of flipped deals and big deals remain confidential. We need to resist that pressure (as we have in the UK for most big deals). David On 30 Dec 2015, at 12:25, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com<mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com>> wrote: I am not sure that this FOI request was about open access was it David? http://bit.ly/1midAyu. However, the way I see it is that as research funders (like Max Planck and RCUK), governments and publishers increasingly come to accept the inevitability of open access so the way in which it is achieved, and the way in which the details (and costs) are negotiated, are likely to become increasingly non-transparent (much as Big Deals have always been). And to me the invite-only nature of Berlin 12 foreshadows this development. I also anticipate that the OA big deals being put in place, and the various journal “flipping” arrangements being proposed, will be more to the benefit of publishers than to the research community. As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was greater than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW. The question is: how could the open access have avoided this? What can it do right now to mitigate the effects of these developments? Richard Poynder From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 30 December 2015 10:24 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State. Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning. David On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net<mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net>> wrote: The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital Library”. In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models. Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open access a reality, as well as of research outputs? Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means of achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and secret processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the transition taking place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it matter? Some thoughts here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html Richard Poynder _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
