This article by Jules Winterton, CEO of BAILII, is an expanded version of the presentation he delivered as the Willi Steiner Memorial Lecture 2022. The article briefly recounts the history of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) and its achievements, the features of the service and the challenges of publishing judgments. It sets BAILII in the context of recent government initiatives and outlines plans for the future of BAILII.

This paper investigates how poverty reduction and natural resource preservation can be simultaneously achieved in a small open dual economy with urban wage rigidity, open access rural resources, and rural-urban migration. An increase in the export tax rate on the rural resource good increases urban unemployment in both the short run and the long run with resource dynamics. Given the institutional failures, the first-best policy is an urban wage subsidy combined with either a rural wage subsidy at a lower rate or, if the urban output price is sufficiently high, a rural tax. When the institutional failures can be resolved endogenously, an increase in the export tax on the resource good can induce rural institutional change away from open access. However, tariff protection of urban manufacturing hinders such a rural institutional change.

Success in academic archaeology is strongly influenced by the publication of peer-reviewed articles. Despite the importance of such articles, minimal research has explicitly examined the factors influencing publishing decisions in archaeology. In order to better understand the landscape of archaeological publishing, we distributed a short survey that solicited basic professional and demographic information before asking respondents to (1) identify journals that publish important archaeological research, (2) identify journals that people who read archaeological academic CVs value most highly, and (3) rank the factors that affected their decisions about where to submit an article for publication. Our results from 274 respondents generated a list of 167 individual journal titles. Prestige was viewed as the most important factor that affected publishing decisions, followed by audience and open access considerations. There was no relationship between respondent-generated journal rankings and SCImago Journal Ranks (SJR), but there were significant differences in average SJR by gender and career stage. Responses showed consensus on only a small number of highly ranked archaeology and science-subject journals, with little agreement on the importance of most other journals. We conclude by highlighting the areas of disciplinary consensus and divergence revealed by the survey and by discussing how implicit prestige hierarchies permeate academic archaeology.

This article describes and critically examines the challenging task of compiling The London–Lund Corpus 2 (LLC–2) from start to end, accounting for the methodological decisions made in each stage and highlighting the innovations. LLC–2 is a half-a-million-word corpus of contemporary spoken British English with recordings from 2014 to 2019. Its size and design are the same as those of the world's first machine-readable spoken corpus, The London–Lund Corpus of Spoken English with data from the 1950s to 1980s. In this way, LLC–2 allows not only for synchronic investigations of contemporary speech but also for principled diachronic research of spoken language across time. Each stage of the compilation of LLC–2 posed its own challenges, ranging from the design of the corpus, the recruitment of the speakers, transcription, markup and annotation procedures, to the release of the corpus to the international research community. The decisions and solutions represent state-of-the-art practices of spoken corpus compilation with important innovations that enhance the value of LLC–2 for spoken corpus research, such as the availability of both the transcriptions and the corresponding time-aligned audio files in a standard compliant format.

The idea of assessing the costs and benefits of public and private projects is not new to Europe, dating back to studies at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees (Paris) in the XIX century. Later on, in the last century, Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) in its current form has been more extensively used in the United States than in Europe. In the last two decades, however, there has been a rapid increase in its use in a number of European countries and at the European Union (EU) level. European governments often undertake tasks that would be done by private companies in the United States, such as the provision of transport, energy, water and waste management, health services, etc. In the United States the focus of BCA has often been regulatory impact analysis, rather than public project evaluation. One might, therefore, expect that Europeans might approach some things differently from their American counterparts and that new insights might result from these efforts. The articles in this symposium, taken from the recent European Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis (SBCA) conference in Toulouse, illustrate some of these differences and some converging themes.

In 2008 European Commission launches the open access infrastructure for research in Europe project (OpenAIRE), supporting open access (OA) in scientific information and research output. In this paper, we assess the economic sustainability of the OpenAIRE project. The empirical strategy is developed through a Cost–Benefit Analysis framework to evaluate and compare the costs and benefits of OpenAIRE services to provide recommendations on the project’s economic efficiency and sustainability, a non-market valuation method based on the results of a “Choice Experiment” to calculate the Total Economic Value generated by OpenAIRE and a full preference ranking approach. Findings indicate that stakeholders prefer interoperability between research platforms and output, better access to scientific results and compliance to OA mandates. Furthermore, net social benefits for the basic services for 15 years are at least five times higher than costs’ present value while the potential R&D effect from research suggests even larger benefits in the long run. Subscriptions based on the estimated willingness to pay and cost, institutional subsidies and public awareness are the main recommendations for the sustainable operation of OpenAIRE. This study contributes to the literature on monetary valuation of the benefits and costs of OA to scientific knowledge.

The Editors-in-Chief have decided that we will provide our much-cherished readers with an editorial every so often as a way of sharing insights from the “machine room” where so much of the thinking and work is done to publish the German Law Journal. We want to let you in on the ideas that are on our minds, share with you our observations, and include you in the conversations we are having that might be of interest to you. We begin this tradition with this issue, Volume 21 – Number 6. Andrew Hyde, a member of the editorial team with which the Journal has partnered at Cambridge University Press, as well as Russell A. Miller and Emanuel V. Towfigh, two of the Journal’s co-Editors-in-Chief, open our From the Headquarters Essay with a piece on the Journal’s experiences with and its further plans for making open-access (OA) publishing economically viable. Related to that theme, we also want to share news with you about the introduction of a voluntary article processing charge this fall. Finally, we want to draw your attention to a videos and podcasts service we will start to produce to accompany the scholarship published in the Journal as a way of promoting our authors’ work and expanding access to their ideas. If you are interested only in these latter initiatives, you can also read the short section in the GLJ Instructions for Authors.

Subtropical dry forests are among the largest and most threatened terrestrial biomes worldwide. In Argentina, the Native Forest Law (NFL) was passed in 2007 to regulate deforestation by mandating the provincial zonation of forested areas, while the erection of fences has been an increasingly common mechanism of private-land control reinforcement in the region; this is mainly fuelled by imminent land-use changes, recent land transactions or subsidies from the NFL. We explored the dynamics between the erection of fences and deforestation in the Northern Argentinian Dry Chaco (NADC) during the implementation of the NFL. We found that a third of land deforested during 2000–2017 had been previously fenced, with the highest percentage (44%) occurring during the sanction of the NFL (2007) and the completion of the forest-zonation maps (2011). Only 34% of deforestation within fenced areas occurred in zones where deforestation was legally permitted. In total, 327 386 ha of forests had been fenced within NADC by 2017, representing areas of potential access restriction for local people, who historically used forest resources for survival. Additionally, 57% of the fenced area occurred in zones where deforestation was restricted. A novel remote-sensing application can serve as an early-warning tool for deforestation.

The Open Access movement has gathered significant momentum over the last couple of years. This has been instigated largely by cOAlition S and those funders which support its aims. Is ‘Read and Publish’ the way forward? Will it work for all publishers? All authors? All subscribers? All readers? This article looks at the history of OA and updates a similar piece from 2013. A detailed glossary of terms is given at the end of the article.

Since 2013, federal research-funding agencies have been required to develop and implement broad data sharing policies. Yet agencies today continue to grapple with the mechanisms necessary to enable the sharing of a wide range of data types, from genomic and other -omics data to clinical and pharmacological data to survey and qualitative data. In 2016, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the ambitious $1.8 billion Cancer Moonshot Program, which included a new Public Access and Data Sharing (PADS) Policy applicable to funding applications submitted on or after October 1, 2017. The PADS Policy encourages the immediate public release of published research results and data and requires all Cancer Moonshot grant applicants to submit a PADS plan describing how they will meet these goals. We reviewed the PADS plans submitted with approximately half of all funded Cancer Moonshot grant applications in fiscal year 2018, and found that a majority did not address one or more elements required by the PADS Policy. Many such plans made no reference to the PADS Policy at all, and several referenced obsolete or outdated National Institutes of Health (NIH) policies instead. We believe that these omissions arose from a combination of insufficient education and outreach by NCI concerning its PADS Policy, both to potential grant applicants and among NCI’s program staff and external grant reviewers. We recommend that other research funding agencies heed these findings as they develop and roll out new data sharing policies.

Archaeologists have long acknowledged the significance of mountains in siting Greek cult. Mountains were where the gods preferred to make contact and there people constructed sanctuaries to inspire intervention. Greece is a land full of mountains, but we lack insight on the ancient Greeks’ view—what visible and topographic characteristics made particular mountains ideal places for worship over others, and whether worshiper preferences ever changed. This article describes a data collection and analysis methodology for landscapes where visualscape was a significant factor in situating culturally significant activities. Using a big-data approach, four geospatial analyses are applied to every cultic place in the Peloponnesian regions of the Argolid and Messenia, spanning 2800–146 BC. The fully described methodology combines a number of experiences—looking out, looking toward, and climbing up—and measures how these change through time. The result is an active historic model of Greek religious landscape, describing how individuals moved, saw, and integrated the built and natural world in different ways. Applied elsewhere, and even on nonreligious locales, this is a replicable mode for treating the natural landscape as an artifact of human decision: as a space impacting the siting of meaningful locales through history.

The push to implement Open Access (OA) as the new standard for academic research dissemination is creating very real pressures on academic journals. In Canada, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) recently adopted a policy requiring that journals applying for its Aid to Scholarly Journals (ASJ) grant make their scholarly content freely accessible after no more than a 12-month delay. For journals such as the Canadian Journal of Political Science (CJPS) that not only publish high-quality, peer-reviewed articles to a specialized audience but also support the work of scholarly associations through the revenues they generate, the push to move to OA comes with a number of challenges. The Canadian Political Science Association (CPSA) and the Société québécoise de science politique (SQSP) established a committee to chart the best course of action for the CJPS in light of this changing landscape. This article summarizes the key findings of the committee and underscores some of the challenges of OA for journals with a profile similar to the CJPS, as well as for the broader research ecosystem that they support.