A map, as of the 1st March 2015, of Chapter Four of [the book I am slowly working on](/2015/02/15/the-anxiety-of-academia-academics-legitimation-and-discipline-in-contemporary-metafiction/). This chapter primarily focuses on Percival Everett's Erasure . Chapter Four: Academic Fiction First chapter on legitimation Everett's insider status Summary of Erasure Erasure as metafiction Subject position of

A map, as of the 28th February 2015, of Chapter Three of [the book I am slowly working on](/2015/02/15/the-anxiety-of-academia-academics-legitimation-and-discipline-in-contemporary-metafiction/). # Chapter Three: Political Critique and the University in Roberto Bolaño's 2666 In Chapter 2, C was presented as aesthetic critique This chapter is on political critique Form/content dichotomy is false but there are still strengths of focus

I wrote the following letter in [this week's Times Higher Education](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/letters/ethics-of-journals-surplus/2018757.article). I post it here for those who can't get past the paywall.

A map, as of the 22nd February 2015, of Chapter Two of the book I am slowly working on. Mimetic representation academy not only possible interaction Intertextuality can be seen as academy-like function of (self-)canonisation Tom McCarthy's C University English haunts text Public persona of author as popular literary critic Synopsis of C Inter-textuality key to novel and its marketing Thomas Pynchon

Since 2012, I have been slowly working on a book about contemporary metafiction. A lot of this work was done over weekends in the last year, as a break from the more practical undertakings that I do full-time in the week. The book was originally called "Metafiction After the Millennium" and was supposed to chart a type of post-postmodern (urgh) shift.

For an open-access advocate, it's easy to pick on Elsevier. An enormous and immensely profitable publisher, it has been, in my personal view, obstructive towards the implementation of open access. Again, in my opinion, this seems to be because it fears for its revenue stream, rather than because it cares about science. The ElsevierValentines hashtag was puerile, but fun, and demonstrated this sentiment. But these are just my opinions.

The most well-known, although neither the most common nor the only, way of providing gold open access to research material is through article or book processing charges (APCs/BPCs). These are problematic in some disciplines where most research work is unfunded (hint: the social sciences and the humanities). It also tends to concentrate costs/risk. To clarify: it is not, in these instances, about paying to bypass quality control.

In a hybrid open-access environment, “double dipping” refers to cases where a publisher sells their services to an author (author-pays open access) while simultaneously selling the end product to libraries (a subscription). Typically, in the journal world, this happens when an open-access article appears in a subscription journal (for which the author pays) but the publisher does not lower the cost of subscriptions to the journal.

The environment surrounding open access to monographs was significantly advanced today by the release of a report commissioned by the UK's Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), a quango (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation) that translates the government's higher education budget allocation into usable funds.

This event will debate how and in what ways the web has complicated, enhanced, and changed the rights of citizens for better or for worse. The ongoing fallout from the Snowden revelations has both sharpened awareness of how our rights are changing and highlighted a culture of indifference towards once cherished rights and freedoms.

That's a pretty specific title, I suspect, but as I am learning with the Open Library of Humanities, we're in uncharted territory, a place where the specifics matter.