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.

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 asks (as question 2): > "How can information from the TEF be used to better inform student and employer decision making?

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 asks in Question 1: > a) What are your views on the potential equality impacts of the proposals and other plans in this consultation? > b) Are there any equality impacts that we have not considered?

This post originally appeared in an [edited form on Wonkhe](http://wonkhe.com/blogs/bis-metrics-and-non-selective-qr-allocation/). [The Green Paper for Higher Education](https://bisgovuk.citizenspace.com/he/fulfilling-our-potential) made no bones about the fact that it thinks that REF is too expensive.

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.