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!

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.

I am often asked for advice on writing data management plans in the humanities, so thought I would share my advice on this more generally. The first thing you need to do is to work out what "data" you are likely to collect or generate. Note that any manuscript you are writing should be considered as a digital data object. 1. Sensitivity. How sensitive are the data? Do they identify living or dead people?

This is really speculative, but today I returned to David McClure's [excellent and fun TextPlot tool](https://github.com/davidmcclure/textplot). A type of topic modelling (but not LDA), McClure explains his [Bray-Curtis dissimilarity mapping in a separate post](http://dclure.org/essays/mental-maps-of-texts/) but essentially what is being measured here is the interconnectedness and proximity of various terms within a network graph.

I am tempted to think that Taylor & Francis's acquisition of F1000 should be critiqued on grounds of yet more gross for-profit consolidation in the scholarly publishing ecosystem. I believe this is true. But funders won't care. The EU wants to maintain its stance of market non-interference and I do not believe that the for-profit status of such entities bothers others like Wellcome or Gates.