Museums continue to make life miserable for academic scholars who wish to re-use their images in third-party publications. I am not against paying museums license fees for images they have digitized, although I believe that Simon Tanner has shown that the overheads of running a licensing department can outweight the actual revenue, against footfall/exposure etc.
I have just finished editing a book collection in which Robin de Mourat, Donato Ricci, and Bruno Latour ask: how does a format make a public?
This week for our [COPIM project](https://www.copim.ac.uk/) reading group we are turning to the forthcoming Stuart Lawson, ‘The Political Histories of UK Public Libraries and Access to Knowledge’, in _Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access_, ed. by Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2020), pp. 161–72. This work is not yet published but will be openly
As part of the [COPIM project](https://www.copim.ac.uk/), my work packages are conducting some background reading groups.
This bank holiday, I wanted to spend some time playing around with Zotero's automatic ingest of open access books. There are some problems with this. For recap, Zotero offers users a way easily to ingest items using built-in metadata on a page. It supports Dublin Core, various RDF implementations, and COinS. Here's the problem, though: if you want automatic lookup by ISBN, you have to use the COinS translator/provide COinS metadata.
Subscribe to Open is a model pioneered by Annual Reviews that basically says that [if libraries continue to subscribe, the title will become OA](https://eve.gd/2018/01/21/how-learned-societies-could-flip-to-oa-using-a-consortial-model/). If libraries drop out, it goes back to being subscription. A good point that Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe brought to my attention is that this poses problems for the status of the title under Plan S provisions.
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.
