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 states: Provisional response: I do not agree with the proposed deregulatory measures, which provide poor accountability on public funding as well as hampering various practices that have aided competitive benefit in other areas.
In today’s Research Professional (paywalled) Martin McQuillan asks: This gets to the crux of what I’ve been trying to say in a couple of other pieces, namely that TEF is not in any way about teaching.
In my recent book I set out some of the benefits but also the challenges of transitioning to a world of open-access monographs. I’ve also written previously about some of the discourse of double dipping in the monograph space. In the past few weeks I’ve had cause to think some more about this and have come up with two additional areas of difficulty that present a challenge for OA books: sites of risk/selection and offsetting.
Elsevier has just published a response of sorts to the resignation of the Lingua editors and editorial board. The company there claims that: While Elsevier claims that it presents these “facts” to “clarify some misconceptions”, I thought they might appreciate some facts to clarify their own misconceptions. Firstly, as far as I know, the editor-in-chief of Lingua did not want to take ownership of the journal.
#About This is an author’s accepted manuscript for a review published in Journal of American Studies . It will appear in a revised form, subsequent to editorial input by Cambridge University Press. This article is copyright 2015 Cambridge University Press. This version of the paper is made available as green open access in accordance with the publisher’s policy.
Dear Mr. Johnson, I read this morning the report on the Conservative Home website about future plans for British higher education. Although we await the Green Paper, this piece reads as though it knows the contents and given Conservative Home’s past record for accurately pre-empting policy, I propose here to treat it as such. I wish to make some points on this. First of all, UK HE is extremely competitive in an international context.
I’ve been sitting on the below piece for a while, but have written about academia.edu before. In recent days, though, Gary Hall and Kathleen Fitzpatrick have both written critiques of the site and so I thought it also worth adding this specific angle rather than just letting it sit on my hard drive.
It has been drawn to my attention that the 2014 report from the British Academy seems to have disappeared from their site. I hereby re-host it: Darley, Rebecca, Daniel Reynolds, and Chris Wickham. Open access journals in humanities and social science. London: British Academy, 2014. The report is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 provision.
An off-cut from writing. In his seminal work, We Have Never Been Modern , Bruno Latour highlights (and criticises) two opposed strains of social-scientific thought. The first school to come under fire from Latour is the social constructivists. This mode of thought is one wherein most aspects of objective reality can be shown as determined by social convention. The classic example of this is gender.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has “named and shamed” several top universities for allowing claimed “hate speech” on campus. Cameron said: Yet this is precisely a case where it is about stifling academic freedom. I think the term academic freedom is often over-used. In this case, however, it seems to me an unambiguous violation of the principle.
