The saga continues from [where I left off](https://www.martineve.com/2017/01/16/thinking-more-about-eu-law-and-uk-copyright-exemptions/). Since then, I emailed a publisher to request a corpus of a specific author's work in a format that would allow computational techniques (i.e. not Amazon Kindle, which has DRM protection that it is illegal to break). Sadly, the publisher refused on the grounds of complexity, so I am no closer to being able to

It is a common step in the ongoing reform of research practices to criticize the set of proxy measures that we use to evaluate research.

I run a small academic publisher, the [Open Library of Humanities](https://www.openlibhums.org). Well, I say small but, at 18 journals, we are bigger than quite a few small university presses. But, by most accounts, we are small. I want to write here about how much this costs, so that those starting new presses can think about it. The figures here are ballpark, not precise.

One of the things that we have to do in [meTypeset](https://github.com/MartinPaulEve/meTypeset) is to capture parenthetical citations. These range in styles, but the following are good examples: * Some text (Martin Eve, p. 45) * Eve notes (345). * Eve notes (p. 345) * A great thing (Alex, P. 45) * Here is one of them: (Silva, Rodrigues, Oliveira, &

There is an article, published in a "top" journal in my field, that makes a series of claims with which I substantially disagree. In fact, I think the piece, which will probably go on to be widely cited and used, is flawed.

[I have previously written](https://www.martineve.com/2016/01/07/the-uk-copyright-exemption-for-text-and-data-mining-vs-the-dmca/), having had conversations with Erik Ketzan (although any misunderstandings in the final things I'm writing here are mine, not his), about a problem with the synthesis between the UK copyright exemption for research and EU Directive 2001/29/EC. The problem is that while UK law allows for exemptions on the grounds of

Here are my draft responses to the parts of the [Consultation on the Second Research Excellence Framework](http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2016/201636/) that attracted my interested. These are my individual thoughts, not those of any institution that I represent. They are also not my final submission. __1.

From January this year, I am a member of the Universities UK Open Access Monographs Working Group. The aims of the group, in preparation for the mandate for the anticipated Third Research Excellence Framework in the mid-2020s, are to monitor progress towards the practical implementation of open access monographs; to promote and accelerate cultural change towards OA publishing within academia and among traditional publishers;

[As I've written before](https://www.martineve.com/2014/10/04/pondering-a-solution-to-the-problem-of-learned-societies-and-the-transition-to-open-access/), Learned Societies are one of the biggest barriers to open access.

[Peter Suber has asked](http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-09.htm), following a long chain of thinking about knowledge as a non-rivalrous form that is inscribed, historically, within rivalrous forms: >What is a public good? In the technical sense used by economists, a public good is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. A good is non-rivalrous when it's undiminished by consumption.

2016 was a year of mixed fortune for me. On the positive side, OLH continues to grow, I was made a (full) Professor, and I published two books. On the downside, I was seriously ill, suffering a stroke linked to vasculitis in March, from which I have made a near-full recovery. I've enjoyed working with my PhD students, though, and am looking forward to a less eventful 2017!