At the time of a global health emergency – the Zika virus – there are renewed calls for a faster and more open research publication system in disciplines where lives may be saved. This is important, valuable work. We should not be letting people suffer through the slowness of output. The remarks in this post do not apply to those spaces of biomedical advance, on which I am not qualified to comment.
Last night I spent almost three hours reading the full Ofqual statistical paper on subject comparability at school level in the UK. I am not a statistician (obviously) but I’ve set out below my working through of what they have presented and the underlying assumptions that they have made in case it’s of interest to anyone.
Last week, the Tickell review of open access in the United Kingdom was published. There are no unwelcome nasty surprises in the review and, in fact, there are a number of extremely progressive elements, most notably the formation of a monographs sub-committee to address this increasingly important area of practice.
I’m not one to mope or to seek any special sympathy but this month marks an ambivalent anniversary for me and I promised myself I’d write publicly about it. I want to do so because I know other people who have had a similar experience and someone else might find this blog and find it of interest. Ten years ago I was a very strong and fit young man, whose primary life-interest, to be blunt, was competition bouldering;
Today I don’t feel well. In fact, I’ve got some horrible virus that’s confining me mostly to bed, which I hate.
I had some utterly fantastic news yesterday that I think/hope it’s now OK for me to share. At the start of the next academic year (from 1st October 2016) I will take up a personal chair as Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing at my wonderful institution, Birkbeck, University of London. Ever since I had an idea to try for a career in academia a full professorship has been my dream;
The Budapest Open Access Initiative statement begins: “An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good”. The old tradition is the practice of scientists and scholars to publish their work without remuneration. The new technologies are the internet and the world wide web. It remains true that it is a conjunction of these elements that can make open access work in academia.
I keep trying to write about the economics of open access to academic books via Book Processing Charges (BPCs) in a clear way. So there’s nothing really new in this post but I think I did stumble today upon a way of putting things that I’ve said before in a different and more concise fashion. If the academic “book market” was a fixed size, we could just about do a transition to open access books in the UK at some of the lower prices.
An article in the Times Higher Education yesterday got me thinking about institutional stability, finance, and the ongoing “reforms” to UK higher education. For those who don’t know the background: until recently, universities who wanted their students to be able to get the government-underwritten income-contingent repayment loans could only recruit a specific number of students.
Yesterday, I attended my university’s official training course for Ph.D. examiners. It was an extremely useful day to familiarize myself with the regulations at the University of London and to hear about incoming procedures for independent viva chairs. However, one thing did leap out at me that I’d forgotten but that, in light of much thinking about scholarly communications, struck me as interesting. One of the criteria for the award of a Ph.D.
