This post is part of an ongoing series 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 6): Provisional response: I have several concerns about the proposed approach, timings, panels and processes.

This post is part of an ongoing series 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 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 4): Yes. Access agreements should be a pre-requisite for any TEF award, if the TEF goes ahead. However, there is a further aspect to consider.

This post is part of an ongoing series where I intend to develop my full personal ( not institutional) response to the HE Green Paper. Comments are welcome to refine this.

The mandate contains a number of omissions that should be rectified in the final document: The mandate should specifically contain a commitment to ensuring that co-payment prices do not rise above inflation. This mandate has been produced before the comprehensive spending review.

This post is part of an ongoing series 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): The challenge in answering this question is twofold, pertaining to information currently available and also to consumer paradigms of HE. Firstly, the Green Paper does not specify what TEF will measure.

This post is part of an ongoing series 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: Provisional response to part a: It is admirable that so much attention has been given in the Green Paper to equality and diversity. It is one of the better parts of the document.

This post originally appeared in an edited form on Wonkhe. The Green Paper for Higher Education made no bones about the fact that it thinks that REF is too expensive. Fuelled by academic discontent with REF, the paper clearly seeks to co-opt academic protest in order to shape future exercises towards metrics-based approaches. However, there’s a snag for the government.

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.

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.