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

Some time around 2016 I was invited by Kasia Boddy and David Winters to contribute to a special issue of Critical Quarterly that they were putting together. The issue was centred on notions of authorship in the digital age. This came at an opportune time as I had been playing with training a recurrent neural network on the back corpus of the literary studies journal, Textual Practice , and had some promising results.

One of the earliest articles that I wrote during the final year of my Ph.D. was for the journal _C21_, published by Gylphi. The article is quite hard to track down now as the online presence is being reworked and the front-list has moved to the Open Library of Humanities. I had no funding for gold open access at that time, nor did the publisher have a green arrangement in place.

The most recent [Royal Historical Society document on Plan S](https://royalhistsoc.org/policy/publication-open-access/plan-s-and-history-journals/) says the following about the Open Library of Humanities (OLH): "It fails, however, to reference or explore the funding base that has made these important initiatives both possible and (to date) sustainable.

Last week, while [I was having blood products transfused at the Royal Free Hospital](https://eve.gd/2019/10/04/immunity-problems/), I received an email from the Leverhulme Trust stating that I had been awarded the [2019 Philip Leverhulme Trust Prize in Literary Studies](https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/philip-leverhulme-prizes-2019). The works that were submitted for close scrutiny for this were four of my books Close Reading with Computers ,

From around 2010 to 2013 I was on a drug called Rituximab to control my autoimmune conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis). This highly effective medication targets b-cells and destroys autoimmune responses by disabling parts of the immune system. After a few years of treatment, though, my immunoglobulin levels were extremely low and it was decided that Rituximab was no longer safe for me. I was moved to tocilizumab.

A Learned Society spoke to me last week about what they could do to move to an open-access model. They currently receive about 100,000 EUR per year from their subscription/hybrid-OA publisher but were willing to jettison this (!) if they could go OA with no author fees. The problem was that implementing a new business model was a total pain.

After last week's post on APCs, some further musings. Following Kathleen Fitzpatrick's [work on generous thinking](https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/generous-thinking) and the importance of community for the academy, I was [advocating for the importance of the mission-driven nature of the publishers](/2019/09/19/the-problems-of-unit-costs-per-article/) that we choose infrastructurally to support.

Every five minutes or so, someone tries to come up with a cost-per-article figure for academic publishing. In the past, I've tried to do it too. But more and more I find myself wanting to resist the temptation. Not only because the data collection takes forever, but because the figures that I would produce, from my organisation, would likely not be cross-applicable to another organisation.

There's [an article](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/new-deals-could-help-scientific-societies-survive-open-access) out in The Times Higher Education Science Magazine (edit 11:38am) about Learned Societies and open access. As usual, it points out the thorny problem that Learned Societies derive revenue from subscriptions that they fear will be lost under an OA model. A few points spring to mind on this.

Here's an interesting one for me. The article processing charge (APC) model for open access is [attracting a lot of flack](https://items.ssrc.org/parameters/the-library-solution-how-academic-libraries-could-end-the-apc-scourge/). It's being called the "scourge" of the scholarly communications world and is criticized for perpetuating global epistemic inequality. I think this is right in many ways.