I have a new article out in _Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction_ on [how to read redaction in contemporary fiction](https://doi.org/10.1080/00111619.2019.1568960). In this work, I produce an initial taxonomy of redactive functions and the contextual restrictions that are placed on the withheld content, following the work of Lisa Gitelman and others: as limited linguistic structures;
Today, Research England released its final guidance for REF2021 submissions in the UK. One of the worst parts of this was that they have changed the guidance so that universities can submit staff who have been made compulsorily redundant. That is, universities can make their staff compulsorily redundant and then submit their work to the REF. Why would Research England do this? That previous guidance sounded good.
The problem with non-lawyers, like me, speculating on legal matters is that there's a risk of scaremongering or just plain inaccuracy. Not that this really ever stops the practice -- and it won't here. In any case, I wanted to re-state [the question that I raised yesterday](/2019/01/23/additional-points-in-my-plan-s-response/) and that I'd like addressed about CC BY and defamatory attribution.
Further to my [other post earlier this week](https://eve.gd/2019/01/21/my-draft-plan-s-implementation-guidance-feedback/), I have added the additional points to my response letter to the Plan S implementation guidelines.
I write to provide feedback in an individual capacity on the Plan S implementation guidelines. I am extremely supportive of the cOAlition’s goals and Plan S in general. I disagree with those who say that the timeline is too short; many of these actors have not taken the opportunities over the last decade to experiment with open access or new business models and have only begun dialogue under the threat of immediate action.
The Royal Historical Society has published [an interim/draft report feeding back on Plan S](https://5hm1h4aktue2uejbs1hsqt31-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RHSPlanSInterimJan19.pdf). Although not a historian but as someone with a keen interest in open access in the humanities disciplines -- and in the spirit of open exchange, since this document has understandably caused some alarm among humanities scholars -- I wanted to
2018 was, in general, a pretty good year for me. Certainly, parts of it were marred by handling my new hearing loss, but an assistive device (a speech-filtering microphone system) has greatly helped with this, although I am still functionally deaf in many environments. On the plus side, though, I moved house to the Kent coast and it has been one of the best things we've done in years.
The announcement of Plan S -- an ambitious undertaking to mandate open access in Europe by 2020 on most funded research, but also now expanding overseas, potentially to the States and beyond -- has prompted debates about the place of academic freedom in the selection of publication venue and whether OA mandates might infringe on such rights.
If you read any review of the M-Audio Trigger Finger Pro, it sounds like a steal. A sequencer, drum machine, and more, all packed into a hardware unit that is available for about £100 on Ebay. Steal. The problem is, it seems that these reviewers have never actually tried to record midi output from the device.
A coalition of funders from across Europe has proposed a bold initiative, called [Plan S](http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/23819/), to [push towards OA for 2020](https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/). It includes the following 10 points: * Authors retain copyright of their publication with no restrictions.
As you may know, the Centre for Technology and Publishing at Birkbeck publishes and maintains a piece of open-source software for journal publishing called [Janeway](https://github.com/BirkbeckCTP/janeway/). This software is licensed under the AGPLv3. We chose this license for several reasons, but the most important was that we wanted strong CopyLeft protection, including for server-side usage, on this software.