Today, my peer-reviewed journal article on the publishing history of the two substantially different versions of David Mitchell's _Cloud Atlas_ was published. You can read the full article in all its open access glory at the Open Library of Humanities . There's also [a press release about the work](http://www.bbk.ac.uk/news/birkbeck-research-uncovers-publishing-problems-in-popular-contemporary-fiction) on Birkbeck's main site.

Something that occurred to me about the Stern review of REF and the proposed non-portability of research outputs is how this changes the relationship of funding to researchers vs. funding an environment.

My short book in the Object Lessons series, Password , is released today, published by Bloomsbury. It's available to buy in all the usual places. All author royalties will be donated to Arthritis Research UK. [](http://amzn.to/2abBhmD) When I first saw the Object Lessons series, I felt I wanted to write something for it. It wasn't, originally, going to be _Password_, though.

Lord Stern's review of the Research Excellence Framework is out today in the UK. Not as exciting as the fact that my book is also out today, I know, but still a marginally important publication, I suppose. The biggest recommended change in the report is that institutional submissions be decoupled from researchers. In other words, institutions must submit _all_ research-active staff BUT not every researcher has to submit four outputs.

One of the aspects of the Stern review that has attracted the most attention from my Twitter stream is the non-portability of research outputs. What this means is that institutions cannot poach staff from elsewhere and use their outputs to return to REF. Now, there's a problem with Stern at the moment in that he doesn't say what will happen with ECR/Ph.D. student outputs when they move to their first post with a research element.

We have a third-party Angular app and want to override the isolate scopes that are provided by its directives. We don't want to modify the original app. How can we do this? We use a decorator in our app controller to specify that only the code in the local app should be run.

As part of the translation platform we're building, I needed to implement the following workflow: * If the DOM has been modified previously, then restore the DOM and run the substitution function. * If the DOM hasn't been modified, then just run the substitution function. The problem was that whenever I ran $("body").html(this.original_document); in the first of these cases, the javascript would stop executing.

Continuing [my post from yesterday](https://www.martineve.com/2016/06/25/creating-a-generic-loader-for-annotatorjs-plugins-inside-a-hypothesis-extension-project/), one of the interface components that we want to work is that, when a user clicks a paragraph, the first sentence is selected so that they can immediately begin translating, seamlessly hitting enter to move to the next sentence etc.

Part of the work for our grant to Birkbeck from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is to create a software project that uses the annotation backend of hypothes.is to allow others to translate scholarly works (and for a user base to then be able to view those translations). Essentially, we want the sentence keying tech. to key to foreign languages.

[CaSSius is the PDF typesetter](https://github.com/MartinPaulEve/CaSSius) that I am building as part of my work for the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant to Birkbeck for the Open Library of Humanities.

Different groups of open-access advocates want different things to be achieved by OA. The "OA movement" is not a homogenous group. Some members of the group believe that all publishing labour is unncessary or could/should be volunteerist. Others want to allow people to read green open access accepted versions, but are happy to leave it at that. Some want a wholesale flip to gold open access and accept that it might cost more.