Subscribe to Open is a model pioneered by Annual Reviews that basically says that if libraries continue to subscribe, the title will become OA. If libraries drop out, it goes back to being subscription. A good point that Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe brought to my attention is that this poses problems for the status of the title under Plan S provisions. Is this a type of hybrid publication?
Subscribe to Open is a model pioneered by Annual Reviews that basically says that [if libraries continue to subscribe, the title will become OA](https://eve.gd/2018/01/21/how-learned-societies-could-flip-to-oa-using-a-consortial-model/). If libraries drop out, it goes back to being subscription. A good point that Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe brought to my attention is that this poses problems for the status of the title under Plan S provisions.
Springer-Nature has a new [report out on tracking APCs](https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/apcs-in-the-wild-white-paper/17855784). Research Fortnight asked me to comment but didn't use the full quote, so here are my thoughts on it: I think that the term 'in the wild' is slightly misleading/pointed for meaning that publishers were less easily able to track such payments.
In ultra-exciting news – thanks to my Leverhulme Prize – I am very pleased to be able to be able to say that my book, Close Reading with Computers: Textual Scholarship, Computational Formalism, and David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas , is now openly accessible (gold OA under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license) at Stanford University Press! It will soon be in the OAPEN Library and on the Stanford site, but for now it’s freely available in BIROn.
In ultra-exciting news -- thanks to my Leverhulme Prize -- I am very pleased to be able to be able to say that my book, Close Reading with Computers: Textual Scholarship, Computational Formalism, and David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas , is now openly accessible (gold OA under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license) at Stanford University Press!
I have a series of book projects in train at the moment and wanted to write a little bit of this down so that I have a record of where I was in the projects at this stage: 1. Eve, Martin Paul, and Jonathan Gray, eds., _Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access_ (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020) is currently in the final stages of production.
An interesting conceptual dilemma arose today. At [OLH](https://www.openlibhums.org) we don't believe that print is incompatible with OA/the digital. (This is usually the part of the Skype call where I hold up my print copy of [Literature Against Criticism](https://books.eve.gd/litagainstcrit) from Open Book Publishers.) Some of our titles sell print copies at, say, the $40 mark for an issue.
One of the strongly recommended criteria under Plan S is that journals provide "Openly accessible data on citations according to the standards by the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC)". This means, essentially, depositing citation data with Crossref and then marking it as open. This is a tricky task that will be outside of the ability of many smaller publishers.
Some of my draft responses to the [UKRI OA consultation](https://www.ukri.org/files/funding/oa/open-access-review-consultation/). **Q1. To what extent do you agree or disagree that it is clear what research articles are in-scope of UKRI’s proposed OA policy (see paragraph 46)?** Agree **If anything is unclear, please explain why (1,350 characters maximum, approximately 200 words).** This could be made clearer by specifying that the technical
Since yesterday's post on [The UKRI Open Access Review Consultation Document](/2020/02/13/key-points-from-the-ukri-open-access-review-consultation-document/) my inbox has been swamped by journalists, librarians, and publishers asking what the policy means for REF. The short answer is that, at the moment, it means nothing.
These are my notes on [The UKRI Open Access Review Consultation Document](https://www.ukri.org/files/funding/oa/open-access-review-consultation/). 1. The document informs but is not a policy for the REF-after-REF 2021. 2. This document does not change the REF 2021 policy. 3. For peer-reviewed research articles and conference proceedings with an ISSN the new policy proposed here would apply on and after 1 January 2022.