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.

Urgh. I had a RAID 6 reshape on my NAS that was projected to take 28 days to complete, I kid you not. It was stuck at an abysmal 4MB/s transfer rate. Here's how to unblock it. First, follow [all the advice on general raid speedups](https://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-raid-increase-resync-rebuild-speed.html) -- assuming md2 is your RAID device and you need to replace sd[DEVICE] below with the correct block devices that constitute the array: >

This was, in many ways, a pretty bad year for me. My health has, to be frank, been appalling once more. It has necessitated treatment with cyclophosphamide in hospital, a chemotherapy agent that makes you feel very unwell and leaves your immune system vulnerable to every vulturous bug under the sun.

I am quoted in [today's Research Fortnight](https://www.researchprofessional.com/0/rr/news/uk/ref-2014/2019/12/REF-staff-circumstances-rules-criticised.html) on the new REF staff/individual circumstances under the heading 'REF staff circumstances rules criticised'. The quote used only gives a selection of the views that I supplied and omits the bits where I say why the new situation might be better (that's fine -- it's journalism and I was not

It is often assumed that researchers submit their work to the highest prestige titles and, when rejected, move down the 'hierarchy' to titles with less stringent review criteria (see, for instance, Poynder, Richard, ‘PLoS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing’, 2011, [https://richardpoynder.co.uk/PLoS_ONE.pdf](https://richardpoynder.co.uk/PLoS_ONE.pdf), p. 29). The irony is that at each stage of this process the paper may be