At a session at OpenCon last weekend we discussed how to replace the impact factor. While the actual title of the session was "Taking on the Impact Factor", the subtitle was "how do we reform research assessment?" This gets to the heart of the matter and I wanted to jot a few notes.
Thinking more about how book processing charges concentrate costs. The largest four monograph publishers in the UK (CUP, OUP, T&F, Palgrave) published 5,023 monographs in 2013 (source: Crossick report). At a £6,500 BPC (CUP price) this would cost £32,649,500. At an £11,000 BPC (Palgrave price) this would cost £55,253,000. At Ubiquity Press's BPC of £5,050 (including copyediting) this would cost £25,366,150.
This post is part of an [ongoing series](https://martineve.com/GreenPaper/) where I intend to develop my full _personal_ (_not_ institutional) response to the HE Green Paper. Comments are welcome to refine this. The Green Paper states: > There are a number of requirements placed on HEFCE-funded providers which do not apply to alternative providers.
In today's [_Research Professional_](https://www.researchprofessional.com/services/mailing.html?uuid=1ecd16f5-8164-4d45-81fe-464cff593150) (paywalled) Martin McQuillan asks: >What exactly is the problem that the green paper is determined to fix? Is it really poor teaching in universities? It provides no evidence of lamentable teaching beyond anecdote and impression. Is it the skills shortage?
In [my recent book](http://meve.io/oahums) I set out some of the benefits but also the challenges of transitioning to a world of open-access monographs.
Elsevier has just published [a response](https://www.elsevier.com/connect/addressing-the-resignation-of-the-lingua-editorial-board) of sorts to the [resignation of the _Lingua_ editors and editorial board](https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/11/03/land-grant-backing-protest-elsevier-pricing). The company there claims that: >The editor-in-chief of _Lingua_ wanted to take ownership of the journal.
#About This is an author's accepted manuscript for a review published in [_Journal of American Studies_](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021875815001607). It will appear in a revised form, subsequent to editorial input by Cambridge University Press. This article is copyright 2015 Cambridge University Press.
Dear Mr. Johnson, I read this morning [the report on the Conservative Home](http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/10/the-accountability-and-transparency-revolution-coming-soon-to-a-university-near-you-courtesy-of-jo-johnson.html) website about future plans for British higher education.
I've been sitting on the below piece for a while, but have [written about academia.edu before](https://www.martineve.com/2014/09/05/things-academia-edu-academia-should-do-hint-work-with-green-oa/). In recent days, though, [Gary Hall](http://www.garyhall.info/journal/2015/10/18/does-academiaedu-mean-open-access-is-becoming-irrelevant.html) and [Kathleen Fitzpatrick](http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/academia-not-edu/) have both written critiques
It has been drawn to my attention that the 2014 report from the British Academy seems to have disappeared from their site. I hereby re-host it: Darley, Rebecca, Daniel Reynolds, and Chris Wickham. Open access journals in humanities and social science. London: British Academy, 2014. The report is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 provision.
An off-cut from writing. In his seminal work, _We Have Never Been Modern_, Bruno Latour highlights (and criticises) two opposed strains of social-scientific thought. The first school to come under fire from Latour is the social constructivists. This mode of thought is one wherein most aspects of objective reality can be shown as determined by social convention. The classic example of this is gender.
