News of the Bodleian's plans to digitise the First Folio are to be welcomed, but several passages in this article made me question the purpose of indefinite preservation of this object... especially once that digitisation is complete. First off, there's the resources question. Consider a parallel to the outspoken view of Chris Packham on the conservation of pandas: In this case, we place a very high social value on the item in question.

Walking down my usual route to the British Library today, I encountered one of the most flagrant attempts to normalize the commodification of Higher Education that I have yet seen. In a poster for The British Institute of Technology &

Kent Anderson recently wrote a post over at Scholarly Kitchen entitled "A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do". I think this list needs a little mythbusting: I agree with some of the points, think others need qualifying and that others are just hands-down false. So here's my rundown: I also want to add a qualifier: "things publishers do" isn't really good enough.

This is just a quick post about my experience of submitting a Ph.D. having worked full-time on it previously since October 2009. It's odd. During the Ph.D. I wrote several articles for journals and book chapters concurrently (ie. that were nothing to do with my Ph.D. work). Now I'm awaiting a viva it suddenly feels a great deal harder to undertake exactly the same exercise, even though I have a great deal more time.

I've had several conversations in the past few weeks on the different modes of dissemination and the REF's undervaluation of the book collection. The argument goes that essays in a book collection are less valued because they're not peer reviewed. Except... they are. They're just not shipped out by an editor of a journal to multiple experts to formulate consensus. In some ways, the edited collection is reviewed to a greater extent.

After the excellent, "What Happens Now" 21st-century fiction conference, I thought it would be worthwhile sharing the Prezi that I created, in case it's of any interest: .prezi-player { width: 750px; } .prezi-player-links { text-align: center;

I've had two people now come back to me on Twitter saying that Gold Open Access, "by definition", means that the author pays. It does not. Much of the terminology around Open Access was proposed by Peter Suber and here's what he has to say about it (I've bolded the relevant portions): OA journals ("gold OA"): OA journals conduct peer review. OA journals find it easier than non-OA journals to let authors retain copyright.

Over the past week, I've put together a series of posts on starting an Open Access journal. This is a post to tie them all together, to provide a table of contents and allow people to jump about. Please note that I receive several email requests per week from individuals asking for help or detailed guidance in how to setup an OA journal.

Following on from part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4, this is the third in a series of posts designed to get a new journal off the ground. So, you've got your issue together. It's all typeset, final galleys are uploaded and you're ready to launch.Pressing the final button is scary and is a cause for celebration, but it's by no means the end of this issue, nor of the immense (but now manageable) task of continued editing.

Following on from part 1, part 2 and part 3, this is the third in a series of posts designed to get a new journal off the ground. Copyediting and Proofreading When I started out work on Excursions journal almost three years ago, I didn't know the difference between copyediting and proofreading. In short: copy editing is the process of bringing a piece in line with house style.

A quick post to state that Orbit is now preserved by the CLOCKSS archive. For more on this, see the press release, which even features a quotation from me! Orbit: Writing Around Pynchon is now digitally preserved by CLOCKSS was originally published by Martin Paul Eve at Martin Paul Eve on July 13, 2012.