I've been gearing up for quite some time to write about the false labour dichotomies in the academy that seem to be emerging that put "academic labour" as some privileged space of difference from other types. This isn't that post, which I haven't had time to work on yet, but it is related. I don't usually agree with everything that Daniel Allington writes. And that's fine. Spice of life etc.

In [_Open Access and the Humanities_](http://meve.io/oahums), I wrote: >the case study I have opted to focus upon for this model is Open Book Publishers (OBP), a new small press based in Cambridge, UK and headed by Alessandra Tosi, a fellow of Clare Hall, and run by Rupert Gatti, a fellow of Trinity College.

A [post today at the Scholarly Kitchen](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/08/24/the-costs-of-flipping-our-dollars-to-gold/) has spurred me to write something that I've been pondering for a while. Namely: how helpful is this idea of "[paying it forward](http://icis.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/UC-Pay-It-Forward-Final-Report.rev_.7.18.16.pdf)" as a way of funding scholarly communications?

Somebody, and I can't remember who (so treat this as a straw argument if you want), argued with me a while back that there was a problem with open access because it was driven by technological possibility. That I wanted people to be able to read things without paying because technology made it possible was apparently a bad thing because, ya know, technology. Now, I'm not actually averse to thinking critically about technology.

I'm probably not the first to think these thoughts, but I thought I would write them anyway as they are fresh in my mind. When dealing with computational reading methods, it is easy to encounter an aesthetic/teleological opposition to stylometry from some quarters.

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.

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.

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.

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.