Open access and the humanities/Notes

by Martin Paul Eve

Notes

1 introduction, or why open access?

8 Throughout this work I use the invariant US spelling of ‘license’.

9 Neil Selwyn, ‘Editorial: In Praise of Pessimism – the Need for Negativity in Educational Technology’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (2011), 713–18 (p. 167) http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–8535.2011.01215.x.

10 Nigel Vincent and Chris Wickham, ‘Debating Open Access: Introduction’, in Debating Open Access, ed. Nigel Vincent and Chris Wickham (London: British Academy, 2013), pp. 4–12 (p. 6).

11 Cameron Neylon, ‘@d_mainwaring . . . I’ve Also Been Described as “Neo Liberal” (alongside Uber Capitalist) and “Marxist” in the Past Year Which Is Fun . . .’, @CameronNeylon, 2013 https://twitter.com/CameronNeylon/status/410035300388597760 [accessed 18 January 2014].

12 Veletsianos and Kimmons, ‘Assumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship’, p. 172.

13 Although it is interesting to note that the movement’s origins were couched in terms of ‘subversion’. Harnad, ‘Overture: A Subversive Proposal’.

14 See the submission of Nature group House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, ‘Supplementary Evidence from Nature Publishing Group’, UK Parliament, 2004 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we163.htm [accessed 7 January 2013].

15 Sara L. Rizor and Robert P. Holley, ‘Open Access Goals Revisited: How Green and Gold Open Access Are Meeting (or Not) Their Original Goals’, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 45 (2014), 321–35 (p. 329) http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jsp.45.4.01.

16 As with any manner of digital resource (for scholarship must now be thought of in such a way), it is never simply that there is one single way of funding its production, dissemination and continued existence. Although, as will be seen, dominant models are emerging, a relatively recent Ithaka report noted that ‘There is no formulaic answer or single approach to achieving sustainability.’ Kevin Guthrie, Rebecca Griffiths and Nancy Maron, Sustainability and Revenue Models for Online Academic Resources (New York: Ithaka, 2008) www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/events/2010/04/ithakasustainabilityreport.pdf [accessed 4 May 2014]; Suber, Open Access, p. 53.

17 Directory of Open Access Journals, ‘Journals by Publication Charges’ www.doaj.org/doaj?func=byPublicationFee&uiLanguage=en [accessed 20 January 2014].

18 Jisc, ‘Publisher Copyright Policies & Self-Archiving’, SHERPA/RoMEO www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [accessed 20 January 2014].

19 For a good summary of the economic challenges presented by issues of digital preservation, see Blue Ribbon Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access, Sustaining the Digital Investment: Issues and Challenges of Economically Sustainable Digital Preservation, December 2008 http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Interim_Report.pdf [accessed 2 May 2014].

20 Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy (New York University Press, 2011), p. 122.

21 The evidence for the claims that green open access does not result in subscription cancellations is discussed below in Chapter 2.

22 Peter Suber, ‘Helping Scholars and Helping Libraries’, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 2005 http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4552051 [accessed 1 May 2014].

23 For introductory material, see Robert Darnton, ‘What Is the History of Books?’, Daedalus, 1982, 65–83; Robert Darnton, The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie, 1775–1800 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); The Book History Reader, ed. David Finkelstein and Alistair McCleery, 2nd edn (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006); Michael Bhaskar, The Content Machine: Towards a Theory of Publishing from the Printing Press to the Digital Network (New York: Anthem Press, 2013).

24 John Willinsky, ‘The Unacknowledged Convergence of Open Source, Open Access, and Open Science’, First Monday, 10 (2005) http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1265 [accessed 9 July 2014].

25 University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign, ‘The Cost of Journals’, University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign, 2009 www.library.illinois.edu/scholcomm/journalcosts.html [accessed 25 November 2013]; Björn Brembs, ‘A Fistful of Dollars: Why Corporate Publishers Have No Place in Scholarly Communication’, bjoern.brembs.blog, 2012 http://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/08/a-fistful-of-dollars-why-corporate-publishers-have-no-place-in-scholarly-communication/ [accessed 27 November 2013]; Martin Paul Eve, ‘Tear It Down, Build It Up: The Research Output Team, or the Library-as-Publisher’, Insights: The UKSG Journal, 25 (2012), 158–62 http://dx.doi.org/10.1629/2048–7754.25.2.158.

26 Association of Research Libraries, ‘ARL Statistics 2009–2011’, 2014 www.arl.org/storage/documents/expenditure-trends.pdf [accessed 1 July 2014].

27 Stephen Bosch and Kittie Henderson, ‘Periodicals Price Survey 2013’, Library Journal, 2013 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/04/publishing/the-winds-of-change-periodicals-price-survey-2013/ [accessed 6 May 2013].

28 Ian Sample, ‘Harvard University Says It Can’t Afford Journal Publishers’ Prices’, The Guardian, 2012 www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices [accessed 31 May 2014].

29 See, for contrasting views on the relative degree of dysfunction, Martin Paul Eve, ‘Utopia Fading: Taxonomies, Freedom and Dissent in Open Access Publishing’, Journal of Victorian Culture, 18 (2013), 536–42 (p. 538) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13555502.2013.865979; Peter Mandler, ‘Open Access for the Humanities: Not for Funders, Scientists or Publishers’, Journal of Victorian Culture, 18 (2013), 551–7 (p. 557) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13555502.2013.865981.

30 For more on markets and the problems of competition in scholarly publishing, see Peter Suber, ‘Open Access, Markets, and Missions’, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 2010 http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/ 4322590 [accessed 21 April 2014].

31 Suber, Open Access, p. 39.

32 Theodore C. Bergstrom and Carl T. Bergstrom, ‘Can “Author Pays” Journals Compete with “Reader Pays”?’, Nature: Web Focus, 2004 www. nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/22.html [accessed 1 May 2014].

33 For more on the expansion of higher education, see Thomas Docherty, For the University: Democracy and the Future of the Institution (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011), p. 136.

34 This phenomenon is exemplified in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its predecessors, the Research Assessment Exercises; Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia; and the brutal and infamous tenure-track appointment system in the States. Key Perspectives Ltd, A Comparative Review of Research Assessment Regimes in Five Countries and the Role of Libraries in the Research Assessment Process: A Pilot Study Commissioned by OCLC Research (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2009) www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2009/2009-09.pdf?urlm=162926 [accessed 19 January 2014].

35 This was most recently flagged in a report by the MLA that noted that academics should ‘challenge expectations for book publication as the primary criterion for conferral of tenure’. MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study in Modern Language and Literature, Report of the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study in Modern Language and Literature (Modern Language Association of America, 2014), p. 15 www.mla.org/pdf/taskforcedocstudy2014.pdf [accessed 16 July 2014].

36 For more on the rhetoric of utility, see Humanities in the Twenty-First Century beyond Utility and Markets., ed. Eleonora Belfiore and Anna Upchurch (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

37 See Suber, Open Access, p. 46.

38 The exception is when attackers deliberately overwhelm a server by over-taxing its resources in order to block others, a ‘denial of service’ (DoS) attack.

39 Veletsianos and Kimmons, ‘Assumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship’, p. 173.

40 As is the license on this book.

41 Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal (Supreme Court of the United States, 1932), my emphasis.

42 Stallman also believes that the term ‘intellectual property’ is nonsensical and refuses to use it.

43 Richard Stallman, ‘Misinterpreting Copyright: A Series of Errors’, in Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard Stallman (Boston, MA: Free Software Foundation, 2010), pp. 111–20 (p. 113).

44 See Suber, Open Access, pp. 9–15.

45 There are also a small proportion of academic authors who do make substantial money out of their book sales. These are by no means the majority, though.

46 Bhaskar, The Content Machine, pp. 103–36.

47 Suber, Open Access, p. 7.

48 See Suber, Open Access, pp. 86–90 for a note on why the term ‘mandate’ is problematic, though.

49 Peter Suber and others, ‘Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing’, 2003 http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199 [accessed 4 May 2014].

50 Helen Small, The Value of the Humanities (Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 30.

51 Jerome McGann, A New Republic of Letters (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), p. 4.

52 Just as John Thompson differentiates fields of publishing on the basis of Bourdieu’s work, I think this kind of definition works here to separate the sciences from the humanities. They are different ‘structured space[s] of social positions’ each with their own ‘resources and power with [their] own forms of competition and reward’, with some overlaps. John B. Thompson, Books in the Digital Age: The Transformation of Academic and Higher Education Publishing in Britain and the United States (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), p. 6.

53 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. 155; see also Elizabeth Markovits, The Politics of Sincerity: Plato, Frank Speech, and Democratic Judgment (University Park, PA: Penn State Press, 2008), p. 57, which first reminded me of this part of Arendt’s thought.

54 See, of course, C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures, Canto edn (Cambridge University Press, 1993).

55 Commonly paraphrased and listed in several quotation books as: ‘academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low’.

56 ‘[T]he production of research output fulfils two distinct but equally important functions – dissemination and certification.’ Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, p. 82.

57 It is notable that much humanities work criticises the individualist nature of neoliberal late capital, particularly in literary and sociological fields, while also clinging to single-authored works as the benchmark of quality. Indeed, despite Foucault’s well-known observations on the ‘death of the author’, Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford have picked up on the degree to which there are ‘disjunctures or contradictions between theory and practice in the academy’, noting that ‘Literary scholars such as Jonathan Arac, James Sosnoski, Evan Watkins, Maria-Regina Kecht, and Paul Bove have pointed out the extent to which contemporary academic practices in English studies constitute, as Sosnoski puts it in the title of his 1995 study, “modern skeletons in postmodern closets”.’ Indeed, as they go on, ‘In his In the Wake of Theory, Bove explores the relation of theory and practice in English studies, noting that too often scholars have assumed “that ‘theory-work’ somehow would or could stand outside the given realities of our time and place” (5). Similarly, in Work Time Watkins calls attention to the importance of acknowledging that “actual practices of resistance depend on specific working conditions” and to the danger of “the dream of transubstantiation” – the dream that work done in one location (the writing of an article or a book, for instance) will effect political change in another location (28–29).’ Lisa Ede and Andrea A. Lunsford, ‘Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship’, PMLA, 116 (2001), 354–69 (p. 356).

58 Anthony Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 233.

59 Steve Hitchcock, ‘The Effect of Open Access and Downloads (“hits”) on Citation Impact: A Bibliography of Studies’, 2013 http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html [accessed 21 April 2014]; Alma Swan, ‘The Open Access Citation Advantage: Studies and Results to Date’, 2010 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ [accessed 24 March 2014]. While advocates would claim that this ‘citation benefit’ is evidence of broader use of material, the counter-argument of sceptics is that such a focus could prioritise accessibility over relevance or appropriateness.

60 This is an extremely common misconception about OA. See Thiede, ‘On Open Access Evangelism’.

61 Robin Osborne, ‘Why Open Access Makes No Sense’, in Debating Open Access (London: British Academy, 2013), pp. 96–105 (p. 104).

62 Osborne, ‘Why Open Access Makes No Sense’, p. 97.

63 Osborne, ‘Why Open Access Makes No Sense’, p. 104.

64 Osborne, ‘Why Open Access Makes No Sense’, pp. 104–5.

65 I am well aware, following Thomas Docherty, that the term ‘taxpayer’ is a hideously loaded phrase that summons to mind a miserly caricature who believes only in self-gain; one that probably doesn’t actually exist. Indeed, there is clear benefit to society in simply having educated people who have access to research. I nonetheless use the term because of its prevalence in political discourse.

66 For more on the strong and weak forms of the ‘taxpayer’ argument see Peter Suber, ‘The Taxpayer Argument for Open Access’, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 2003 http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725013 [accessed 1 May 2014].

67 ROAPE Editors, ‘Yes to Egalitarian “Open Access”, No to “Pay to Publish”: A ROAPE Position Statement on Open Access’, Review of African Political Economy, 40 (2013), 177–8 (p. 177) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2013.797757.

68 Editors of History Journals, ‘Written Evidence’, UK Parliament, 2013 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmbis/writev/openaccess/m44.htm [accessed 24 January 2014].

69 Peter Mandler, ‘Open Access: A Perspective from the Humanities’, Insights: The UKSG Journal, 27 (2014), 166–70 (p. 168) http://dx.doi.org/10.1629/2048–7754.89.

70 Mandler, ‘Open Access for the Humanities’, p. 556.

71 See Andrew McGettigan, The Great University Gamble: Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education (London: Pluto Press, 2013), pp. 79–95.

72 For more on this, see McGettigan, The Great University Gamble.

73 John Holmwood, ‘Markets versus Dialogue: The Debate over Open Access Ignores Competing Philosophies of Openness’, Impact of Social Sciences, 2013 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/10/21/markets-versus-dialogue/ [accessed 24 January 2014].

74 I use the term ‘left-spectrum’ here for those OA advocates who wish to eradicate the profit motive from scholarly communications.

75 Bob Grant, ‘Elsevier Abandons Anti-Open Access Bill’, The Scientist, 2012 www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31798/title/Elsevier-Abandons-Anti-Open-Access-Bill/ [accessed 21 January 2014].

76 Alicia Wise, ‘Evidence to House of Commons Select Committee Inquiry’, in Inquiry into Open Access: Fifth Report of Session 2013–2014, by House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (London: House of Commons, 2013), pp. Ev1–Ev11 (p. Ev3).

77 Robert L. Bradley, ‘Oil Company Earnings: Reality over Rhetoric’, Forbes, 2011 www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html [accessed 21 January 2014].

78 ‘The Cost of Knowledge’ http://thecostofknowledge.com/ [accessed 21 January 2014].

79 Heather Morrison, ‘Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey: Critique’, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, 2013 http://poeticeconomics. blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/taylor-francis-open-access-survey.html [accessed 21 January 2014]; Taylor & Francis, ‘Open Access Survey’, 2013 www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey [accessed 21 January 2014].

80 Informa, Annual Report, 2012, p. 1 www.informa.com/Documents/Investor%20Relations/Corporate%20Governance/Informa%20Annual%20Report%202012-web.pdf [accessed 22 January 2014].

81 Informa, Annual Report, p. 9.

82 Informa, Annual Report, p. 1.

83 While Peter Mandler claims that the situation in the humanities is one wherein journals are less frequently owned by large commercial entities, I am unaware of any actual surveys that measure this and the prevalence of mega-presses seems to contradict such a view. Mandler, ‘Open Access: A Perspective from the Humanities’.

84 For more on mergers in the book world, see Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, pp. 54–64.

85 Bloomsbury Group, Annual Report, 2012, p. 7 www.bloomsbury-ir.co.uk/annual_reports/2012/pdf/2012ar.pdf [accessed 22 January 2014].

86 Jane Park, ‘An Interview with Frances Pinter of Bloomsbury Academic’, 2008 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10100 [accessed 22 January 2014].

87 Friedman’s doctrine that shareholder profit is the only social factor for which businesses should be held responsible is widely disseminated and equally widely criticised. See Milton Friedman, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits’, The New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970, pp. 32–3, 122–4.

88 Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, p. 45.

89 Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, p. 167.

90 PLOS, ‘Written Evidence to House of Commons Select Committee Inquiry’, in Inquiry into Open Access: Fifth Report of Session 2013–2014, by House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (London: House of Commons, 2013), pp. Ev80–Ev87 (p. 83).

91 For more on symbolic capital in book publishing, see Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, pp. 32–4.

92 Bergstrom and Bergstrom, ‘Can “author pays” journals compete with “reader pays”?’

93 Linguistic Society of America, ‘Journal Sponsorship’, Semantics and Pragmatics, 2014 http://semprag.org/about/journalSponsorship [accessed 22 January 2014].

94 Caroline Sutton, Peter Suber and Amanda Page, ‘Societies and Open Access Research’, Harvard Open Access Project, 2014 bit.ly/hoap-soar [accessed 26 June 2014].

95 Amherst College Press, ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, 2014 www.amherst.edu/library/press/faq [accessed 22 January 2014].

96 Adeline Koh, ‘Is Open Access a Moral or a Business Issue? A Conversation with The Pennsylvania State University Press’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012 http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/is-open-access-a-moral-or-a-business-issue-a-conversation-with-the-pennsylvania-state-university-press/41267 [accessed 22 January 2014].

97 Eelco Ferwerda, Ronald Snijder and Janneke Adema, ‘OAPEN-NL: A Project Exploring Open Access Monograph Publishing in the Netherlands Final Report’, 2013, p. 17 www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf [accessed 24 March 2014].

98 Rod Cookson, ‘Learned Societies More Confident about Future – and a “new Pragmatism” on Open Access’, ALPSP: at the heart of scholarly publishing, 2014 http://blog.alpsp.org/2014/08/learned-societies-more-confident-about.html [accessed 12 August 2014].

99 Learned societies are organisations that promote academic disciplines and professions, often awarding grants and subsidising various activities through their membership base.

100 Agnès Henri, ‘EDP Open Survey Reveals Learned Society Attitudes towards Open Access’, 2014 www.edp-open.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=273&lang=en_GB.utf8%2C+en_GB.UT [accessed 28 May 2014].

101 Mary Waltham, Learned Society Open Access Business Models (Jisc, June 2005) www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/topics/opentechnologies/openaccess/reports/learnedsociety.aspx [accessed 22 January 2014].

102 Paul Jump, ‘Open Access Will Cause Problems for Learned Societies’ Journals, Accepts Finch’, Times Higher Education, 15 January 2013 www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/open-access-will-cause-problems-for-learned-societies-journals-accepts-finch/422395.article [accessed 22 January 2014].

103 ‘Steering Group’ http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/overview/steeringgroup/ [accessed 22 January 2014].

104 Martyn Wade, ‘Thriving or Surviving? National Libraries in the Future’ (presented at the RLUK Conference, Edinburgh, 2010) www.rluk.ac.uk/files/Martyn%20Wade%20-%202010%20Conf.pdf; Frances Pinter and Christopher Kenneally, ‘Publishing Pioneer Seeks Knowledge Unlatched’, 2013 http://beyondthebookcast.com/transcripts/publishing-pioneer-seeks-knowledge-unlatched/; Nancy Kranich, ‘From Collecting to Connecting: Engaging the Academic Community’ (presented at The Library in the Digital Age: Communities, Collections, Opportunities, Temple University, 2013).

105 See also John Bohannon’s ‘sting’ and the retorts from its critics: John Bohannon, ‘Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?’, Science, 342 (2013), 60–5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60; Martin Paul Eve, ‘Flawed Sting Operation Singles out Open Access Journals’, The Conversation, 2013 http://theconversation.com/flawed-sting-operation-singles-out-open-access-journals-18846 [accessed 23 January 2014]; Amy Buckland and others, ‘On the Mark? Responses to a Sting’, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2 (2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162–3309.1116.

106 Jeffrey Beall, ‘The Open-Access Movement Is Not Really about Open Access’, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11 (2013), 589–97 (p. 589); Joseph Esposito, ‘Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall’, The Scholarly Kitchen, 2013 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/16/parting-company-with-jeffrey-beall/ [accessed 23 January 2014].

107 Wayne Bivens-Tatum, ‘Reactionary Rhetoric against Open Access Publishing’, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12 (2014), 441–6 (pp. 442–3).

2 digital economics

1 Richard Smith, ‘The Irrationality of the REF’, BMJ, 2013 http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/05/07/richard-smith-the-irrationality-of-the-ref/ [accessed 11 February 2014]; Lindsay Waters, ‘Rescue Tenure from the Tyranny of the Monograph’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 April 2001 https://chronicle.com/article/Rescue-Tenure-From-the-Tyranny/9623 [accessed 18 May 2014].

2 Michael Jensen, ‘Authority 3.0: Friend or Foe to Scholars?’, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39 (2007), 297–307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/scp.2007.0027.

3 Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 180.

4 Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, p. 195.

5 Longina Jakubowska, Patrons of History: Nobility, Capital and Political Transitions in Poland, Google Books (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012), no page.

6 Peter Suber, ‘Thinking about Prestige, Quality, and Open Access’, 2008 http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4322577 [accessed 21 April 2014].

7 Peter Suber, ‘Open Access and Quality’, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 2006 http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4552042 [accessed 1 May 2014].

8 The most recent of which is Higher Education Funding Council for England, ‘Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment’, 2014 www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/howfundr/metrics/ [accessed 21 June 2014].

9 It is, of course, possible to put technological counter-measures in place to combat this type of technological cheating. However, this then becomes a game of catch-up, much like search engine optimisation practices, wherein those who are behaving badly (‘black hats’) are simply trying to stay one step ahead of the counter-measures.

10 See Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, pp. 27–30.

11 See Bhaskar, The Content Machine, pp. 131–4 for more on amplification in publishing.

12 See Osborne, ‘Why Open Access Makes No Sense’.

13 Samuel Weber, Institution and Interpretation, Cultural Memory in the Present, expanded edn (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001), p. 27.

14 Weber, Institution and Interpretation, pp. 32–3.

15 Weber, Institution and Interpretation, pp. 132–52.

16 Bill Readings, The University in Ruins (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 2–3.

17 I am wary of the term ‘neoliberalism’ as an overly broad and empty term, but I here define it as in part entailing an at least nominal insistence on transparency, accountability and openness, in order to support the belief that all aspects of society are best handled on a for-profit basis through competition, for which a fixation on quantification and measurement will produce the ultimate rational market actor.

18 Docherty, For the University, p. 134.

19 Readings, The University in Ruins, p. x, emphasis mine; Keith Hoeller, ‘The Academic Labor System of Faculty Apartheid’, in Equality for Contingent Faculty: Overcoming the Two-Tier System, ed. Keith Hoeller (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2014), pp. 116–55 (p. 117).

20 UCU, ‘Over Half of Universities and Colleges Use Lecturers on Zero-Hour Contracts’, 2013 www.ucu.org.uk/6749 [accessed 6 September 2013].

21 Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, p. 113. Furthermore, covering the cost of fairly subsidising academic labour for the production of a book would cause the price of books to skyrocket, thereby further impeding access.

22 Suber, Open Access, p. 10.

23 ‘Submit to SAGE Open today to lock in the $99 APC before the price goes up!’

24 Stuart Lawson, ‘APC Pricing’, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9. figshare.1056280 [accessed 13 June 2014]; see also David J. Solomon and Bo-Christer Björk, ‘A Study of Open Access Journals Using Article Processing Charges’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (2012), 1485–95 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22673 for an older study.

25 Palgrave Macmillan, ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, Palgrave Open, 2013 www.palgrave.com/open/faq.asp#section2 [accessed 21 December 2013].

26 For just one example, see Meera Sabaratnam and Paul Kirby, ‘Open Access: HEFCE, REF2020 and the Threat to Academic Freedom’, The Disorder of Things, 2012 http://thedisorderofthings.com/2012/12/04/open-access-hefce-ref2020-and-the-threat-to-academic-freedom/ [accessed 27 November 2013].

27 Mandler, ‘Open Access: A Perspective from the Humanities’; Sabaratnam and Kirby, ‘Open Access: HEFCE, REF2020 and the Threat to Academic Freedom’; Suber, Open Access, p. 79.

28 American Association of University Professors, ‘Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure’, 1940 www.aaup.org/report/1940statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure [accessed 13 February 2014].

29 Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters (Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 131–2.

30 ‘Education Reform Act 1988’, para. 202 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/part/IV/crossheading/academic-tenure [accessed 9 July 2014].

31 As a disclaimer: I am a Co-Director of the Open Library of Humanities.

32 Beall, ‘The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access’. See above, p. 57.

33 Joss Winn, ‘Helplessness’, Joss Winn, 2013 http://josswinn.org/2013/07/helplessness/ [accessed 29 January 2014].

34 Winn, ‘Helplessness’.

35 I am a little wary of the glib way in which the word ‘capitalism’ is sometimes used in debates such as this, an aspect that I owe to a conversation with Joe Brooker. Indeed, beyond a return to nomadic bartering communities, I am unsure whether the term carries a huge degree of imaginative traction and, instead, feel that enterprises that exist within capital tend simply towards more or less egalitarian premises. That said, because research work in the humanities is so often theorised as an activity somehow separate from economic activity, it is nonetheless useful to deploy this thinking.

36 Amy E. Wendling, Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 52.

37 Richard Hall, ‘On the Context and Use-Value of Academic Labour’, Richard Hall’s Space, 2014 www.richard-hall.org/2014/02/02/on-the-context-and-use-value-of-academic-labour/ [accessed 4 February 2014].

38 Nigel Tubbs, ‘The Importance of Being Useless’, Times Higher Education, 11 October 2012 www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/the-importance-of-being-useless/421413.article [accessed 4 February 2014]; Michael Bérubé, ‘The Futility of the Humanities’, in Humanities in the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Utility and Markets, ed. Eleonora Belfiore and Anna Upchurch (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 66–76.

39 As Benjamin Ginsberg points out, there are ways in which all forms of research income grants are desired for universities as sites of direct value extraction from research work, even in the humanities. Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty, pp. 180–97.

40 This is also why Robin Osborne is mistaken: the liberation of research material is not impossible because teaching is bought, but rather it is ideal because teaching is a profit-making activity that can extract surplus value from research.

41 Raymond Hogler and Michael A. Gross, ‘Journal Rankings and Academic Research: Two Discourses about the Quality of Faculty Work’, Management Communication Quarterly, 23 (2009), 107–26 (p. 111) http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335419.

42 Hogler and Gross, ‘Journal Rankings and Academic Research’, pp. 119–21.

43 For more see Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, p. 21.

44 Joss Winn, ‘Is an Open Access Journal Article a Commodity?’, Joss Winn, 2014 http://josswinn.org/2014/02/is-an-open-access-journal-article-a-commodity/ [accessed 15 February 2014].

45 For the explanation of the BBB definition, see above, p. 21.

46 Suber, Open Access, pp. 20–7.

47 Suber, Open Access, pp. 149–61.

48 Chris Beckett and Simon Inger, Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Co-Existence or Competition? (Publishing Research Consortium, 2006) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13179 [accessed 9 July 2014]; Stevan Harnad, ‘Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Critique of PRC Study’ http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5792.html [accessed 9 July 2014].

49 Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, ‘ALPSP Survey of Librarians on Factors in Journal Cancellation’, 2006.

50 Suber, Open Access, p. 158.

51 Jingfeng Xia and others, ‘A Review of Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate Policies’, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12 (2012), 85–102 (p. 98).

52 House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, ‘Open Access: Fifth Report of Session 2013–14’, UK Parliament, 2013, p. 18 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/99.pdf [accessed 9 July 2014].

53 House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, ‘Open Access: Fifth Report of Session 2013–14’, p. 18.

54 Rebecca Darley, Daniel Reynolds and Chris Wickham, Open Access Journals in Humanities and Social Science (London: British Academy, 2014).

55 House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, ‘Open Access: Fifth Report of Session 2013–14’, p. 18.

56 Taylor & Francis, ‘Information for Funders & Institutions’, 2014 www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/funders [accessed 11 May 2014].

57 I am aware of institutions with budgets of £4,000 per year, which leads to approximately three articles on the levels outlined above.

58 Stevan Harnad, ‘Pre Green-OA Fool’s Gold vs. Post Green-OA Fair Gold’, Open Access Archivangelism, 2013 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1007-Pre-Green-OA-Fools-Gold-vs.-Post-GreenOA-Fair-Gold.html [accessed 17 May 2014].

59 Consider as an illustrative example of this the evidence of Nature to the House of Commons select committee in 2004, justifying a £30,000 APC purely on the basis of their current practice: ‘The £30,000 figure was arrived at simply by dividing the annual income of Nature (£30 million) by the number of research papers published (1,000).’ House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, ‘Supplementary Evidence from Nature Publishing Group’.

60 Alice Meadows and David Sweeney, ‘Meet David Sweeney of HEFCE – the Higher Education Funding Council of the UK’, Wiley Exchanges, 2014 http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/05/06/meet-david-sweeneyof-hefce-the-higher-education-funding-council-of-the-uk/ [accessed 17 May 2014].

61 Once more, consider Nature group’s pricing: a print-only (and, therefore, single concurrent-user) institutional subscription to Nature in North America comes to $4,958.00. Nature, ‘Pricing’, 2014 www.nature.com/nmat/pricing/index.html#site_licence [accessed 17 May 2014]. It is also worth noting the extremely high costs paid by some institutions to Elsevier with huge variance even within the top tier of UK universities. Imperial College, for example, currently spends £1,340,213 annually. Tim Gowers, ‘Elsevier Journals – Some Facts’, Gowers’s Weblog, 2014 http://gowers.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/elsevier-journals-some-facts/ [accessed 17 May 2014].

62 For a parallel in the sphere of online music distribution, see Aleksandr Dolgin, The Economics of Symbolic Exchange (Berlin: Springer, 2009), pp. 32–40.

63 Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, p. 24.

64 Note well that there are no current mandates that insist exclusively on gold open access. The Wellcome Trust’s mandate, however, was fulfilled through the gold route in 85% of the compliant cases in 2012 according to Nature. Richard Poynder, ‘Open Access Mandates: Ensuring Compliance’, Open and Shut?, 2012 http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/open-access-mandates-ensuring.html [accessed 17 May 2014].

65 Joseph S. Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 1991). The benefit of this approach for centre-right, market-orientated governments is that they do not have to set caps on APCs but can rather let the market ‘guide itself ’.

66 P. Ginsparg, ‘Winners and Losers in the Global Research Village’ (presented at the Electronic Publishing in Science, UNESCO HQ, Paris, 1996) www.cs.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/physics/blurb/pg96unesco.html [accessed 10 April 2014].

67 arXiv, ‘FAQ’, 2013 http://arxiv.org/help/support/faq [accessed 22 December 2013].

68 SCOAP³, ‘Frequently Asked Questions and Answers’, SPARC, 2014 www.sparc.arl.org/resources/papers-guides/scoap3-faq [accessed 20 May 2014].

69 Rebecca Kennison and Lisa Norberg, A Scalable and Sustainable Approach to Open Access Publishing and Archiving for Humanities and Social Sciences (K|N Consultants, 11 April 2014), p. 3 http://knconsultants.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/OA_Proposal_White_Paper_Final.pdf [accessed 5 May 2014].

70 In my view, such logic is societally disastrous if applied unilaterally as it negates the potential for any kind of communally underwritten social security.

71 Rebecca Bliege Bird and Eric Alden Smith, ‘Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital 1’, Current Anthropology, 46 (2005), 221–48 (p. 221).

72 arXiv, ‘FAQ’.

73 arXiv, ‘FAQ’.

74 Science Europe, ‘Principles for the Transition to Open Access to Research Publications’, 2013 www.scienceeurope.org/uploads/PublicDocumentsAndSpeeches/SE_OA_Pos_Statement.pdf [accessed 17 May 2014].

75 Global Research Council, ‘About Us’, 2014 www.globalresearchcouncil.org/about-us [accessed 17 May 2014].

76 Global Research Council, ‘Action Plan towards Open Access to Publications’, 2013 www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_magazin/internationales/130528_grc_annual_meeting/grc_action_plan_open_access.pdf [accessed 17 May 2014].

77 Stevan Harnad, ‘ROARMAP’ http://roarmap.eprints.org/ [accessed 25 July 2014].

78 Richard Van Noorden, ‘Chinese Agencies Announce Open-Access Policies’, Nature, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.15255.

79 Dehua Hu, Aijing Luo and Haixia Liu, ‘Open Access in China and Its Effect on Academic Libraries’, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39 (2013), 110–12 (p. 110) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.11.009.

80 Hu, Luo and Liu, ‘Open Access in China and Its Effect on Academic Libraries’, p. 111.

81 Leila Fernandez, ‘Open Access Initiatives in India – an Evaluation’, Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 1 (2006) https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/110 [accessed 19 May 2014].

82 Bhaskar Mukherjee and Bidyut Kumar Mal, ‘India’s Efforts in Open Access Publishing’, Library Philosophy and Practice, 2012 http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/mukherjee-mal.htm [accessed 19 May 2014].

83 Thomson Reuters, ‘SciELO Citation Index’, 2014 http://thomsonreuters.com/scielo-citation-index/ [accessed 19 May 2014].

84 Enrique Peña Nieto, ‘Open Access in the Knowledge Society’, 2014 http://en.presidencia.gob.mx/open-access-in-the-knowledge-society/ [accessed 25 May 2014]; Luis Reyes-Galindo, ‘Mexican Policy-Making on OA: A Bitter-Tweet State of Affairs’, Sociology of science and Open Access http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/luisreyes/121/ [accessed 3 June 2014].

85 Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand, ‘Open Access to Research’, 2014 http://creativecommons.org.nz/research/ [accessed 5 August 2014].

86 Henrik Bendix, ‘Regeringen: Alle Danske Forskningsartikler Skal Være Frit Tilgængelige’, Ingeniøren, 2014 http://ing.dk/artikel/regeringe-nalle-danske-forskningsartikler-skal-vaere-frit-tilgaengelige-169271 [accessed 26 June 2014]; Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, ‘Denmark ́s National Strategy for Open Access’, 2014 http://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/cooperation-between-research-and-innovation/open-science/open-access-to-research-publications/engelsk-version-national-strategy-for-open-access.pdf [accessed 24 July 2014].

87 Lisa Spiro, ‘“This Is Why We Fight”: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities’, in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Matthew K. Gold (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012), pp. 16–35 (p. 24).

88 Higher Education Funding Council for England, ‘Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework’, 2014, paras. 17–19 www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2014/201407/HEFCE2014_07.pdf.

89 Higher Education Funding Council for England, ‘Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework’, para. 36.

90 Higher Education Funding Council for England, ‘Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework’, para. 30.

91 Research Councils UK, ‘RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance’, 2013, p. 6 www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf [accessed 10 July 2014].

92 Research Councils UK, ‘RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance’, p. 2.

3 open licensing

1 A reminder that I here use the invariant US spelling of ‘license’ throughout.

2 United States of America, ‘U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 8’, The U.S. Constitution Online, 2010 www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html?ModPagespeed=noscript [accessed 21 February 2014].

3 Charles W. Bailey Jr, ‘Strong Copyright + DRM + Weak Net Neutrality = Digital Dystopia?’, Information Technology and Libraries, 25 (2013), 116–27, 139 (p. 117) http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ital.v25i3.3344.

4 Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom, ‘Copyright: Essential Reading’, 2011, p. 2 https://ipo.gov.uk/c-essential.pdf [accessed 21 February 2014].

5 Bailey Jr, ‘Strong Copyright + DRM + Weak Net Neutrality = Digital Dystopia?’, p. 17.

6 See Lee Edwards and others, ‘“Isn’t It Just a Way to Protect Walt Disney’s Rights?”: Media User Perspectives on Copyright’, New Media & Society, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444813511402.

7 See, for instance, Palgrave Macmillan Journals, ‘Copyright FAQs’, 2014 www.palgrave-journals.com/pal/authors/copyright_faqs.html [accessed 22 February 2014].

8 Creative Commons, ‘Case Law’, 2013 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law [accessed 6 March 2014].

9 Ellen Collins, Caren Milloy and Graham Stone, Guide to Creative Commons for Humanities and Social Science Monograph Authors, ed. James Baker, Martin Paul Eve and Ernesto Priego (London: Jisc Collections, 2013) http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/17828 [accessed 23 February 2014].

10 Creative Commons, ‘About the Licenses’, 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [accessed 23 February 2014].

11 Creative Commons, ‘About the Licenses’.

12 Collins, Milloy and Stone, Guide to Creative Commons. Licensed under a CC BY license. I have removed legal and license code links and removed some portions of description text, including reference to CC0.

13 Collins, Milloy and Stone, Guide to Creative Commons, p. 10.

14 Richard Stallman, ‘Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software’, in Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard Stallman (Boston, MA: Free Software Foundation, 2010), pp. 83–8.

15 Paul Duguid, ‘Material Matters: The Past and Futorology of the Book’, in The Future of the Book, ed. Geoffrey Nunberg (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), pp. 63–101 (p. 74).

16 The Ad Hoc Committee on Fair Use and Academic Freedom, Clipping Our Own Wings: Copyright and Creativity in Communication Research (The Media and Communication Policy Task Force, 7 May 2010) www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/related-materials/documents/clipping-our-ownwings-copyright-and-creativity-communication-r [accessed 1 May 2014].

17 Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom, ‘Permitted Uses of Copyright Works: Teaching in Educational Establishments’, 2006 https://ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-teaching.htm [accessed 4 March 2014].

18 It is extremely difficult to work out exactly how much the CLA license costs each institution in the UK, but the yearly charge that would allow a researcher to photocopy one chapter of a recent book for distribution to students is £A/B x C x 38.50 (where ‘A’ is the Licensee’s income from UK industry, commerce and public corporations; ‘B’ is the total income of the Licensee; and ‘C’ is the full-time equivalent number of academic staff). Copyright Licensing Agency, ‘Comprehensive HE Licence 1 August 2010’, 2010 www.cla.co.uk/data/pdfs/he/uuk_basic_he_licence_specimen.pdf [accessed 23 April 2014]. The variance in cost between institutions is large and depends heavily upon the corporate revenue ratio. An estimated figure of £10,000 per year, however, is not unrealistic. Taking, for instance, the figures for Durham University in 2012/2013: A in this case is 57,334,000 (3,783,000 (‘UK industries’) + 35,789,000 (residences and catering), 6,487,000 (‘other services rendered’), 11,275,000 (‘other income’)). B is 283,379,000. C is approximately 1,250 from UK HESA statistics. This yields a cost of £9,737 per year (57,334,000/283,379,000 x 1,250 x 38.50). Durham University, ‘Annual Accounts 2013’, 2014, pp. 24, 29, 30 www.dur.ac.uk/resources/treasurer/financial_statements/Accounts13.pdf [accessed 4 July 2014]. Although a drop in the ocean for an individual institution’s budget, open licensing would circumvent the restrictions on quantity imposed here and also avoid the costs because anybody would have permission to redistribute the work.

19 Suber, Open Access, pp. 73–4.

20 See, for instance, Theresa Lillis, ‘Economies of Signs in Writing for Academic Publication: The Case of English Medium “National” Journals’, Journal of Advanced Composition, 32 (2012), 695–722.

21 John Willinsky, The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship, Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), pp. 155–71.

22 Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, p. 82.

23 Christopher M. Kelty, Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), p. 3. Emphasis in original.

24 Klaus Graf and Sanford Thatcher, ‘Point & Counterpoint: Is CC BY the Best Open Access License?’, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1 (2012), 2 http://dx.doi.org/http/10.7710/2162–3309.1043.

25 Mark Philp, ‘Foucault on Power: A Problem in Radical Translation?’, Political Theory, 11 (1983), 29–52 (p. 33).

26 Google, ‘Ngram Viewer’, 2013 https://books.google.com/ngrams/ [accessed 5 March 2014].

27 I am, of course, aware of the problems of defining digital humanities as a ‘field’ and use it only broadly as a shorthand within which to refer to the growth of various computational corpus analysis techniques.

28 Jisc, ‘Research Funders’ Open Access Policies’, SHERPA/JULIET, 2014 www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php [accessed 26 February 2014].

29 Taylor & Francis, ‘Open Access Survey’, 2014 www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014 [accessed 21 January 2014]; Verity Warne, ‘To CC-BY or Not to CC-BY? A Vignette on Author Choice’, Exchanges, 2014 http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/04/14/to-cc-by-or-not-to-cc-by-a-vignette-on-author-choice/ [accessed 23 April 2014]; Morrison, ‘Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey: Critique’; Heinrich Mallison, ‘Taylor & Francis Misrepresents DFG Guidelines on Open Access – an Innocent Error?’, dinosaurpalaeo, 2014 https://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/taylor-franics-misrepresents-dfg-guidelines-on-open-access-an-innocent-error/ [accessed 20 April 2014].

30 Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (New York: Penguin Press, 2008), p. 18.

31 Richard Stallman, ‘Why Software Should Not Have Owners’, in Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard Stallman (Boston, MA: Free Software Foundation, 2010), pp. 37–41 (p. 39).

32 Lessig, Remix, pp. 34–5.

33 ‘[W]rite your own work’. Mandler, ‘Open Access: A Perspective from the Humanities’, p. 169.

34 Editors of History Journals, ‘Written Evidence’; Mandler, ‘Open Access for the Humanities’.

35 Aaron Keyt, ‘An Improved Framework for Music Plagiarism Litigation’, California Law Review, 76 (1988), 421–64 (p. 422).

36 Mandler, ‘Open Access: A Perspective from the Humanities’, p. 169.

37 Nietzsche Source, ‘Digital Critical Edition of Nietzsche’s Works and Letters’, 2009 www.nietzschesource.org/documentation/en/eKGWB.html [accessed 18 July 2014].

38 Text Encoding Initiative, ‘Projects Using the TEI’, 2014 www.tei-c.org/Activities/Projects/ [accessed 5 August 2014].

39 Creative Commons, ‘Attribution 4.0 International Legal Code’, 2014 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode [accessed 28 February 2014].

40 Robert Dingwall, ‘Why Open Access Is Good News for Neo-Nazis’, Social Science Space, 2012 www.socialsciencespace.com/2012/10/why-open-access-is-good-news-for-neo-nazis/ [accessed 1 March 2014].

41 Mike Godwin, ‘Meme, Counter-Meme’, Wired, 2 (1994) www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html [accessed 22 May 2012].

42 Dingwall, ‘Why Open Access Is Good News for Neo-Nazis’.

43 Small, The Value of the Humanities, p. 59.

44 Small, The Value of the Humanities, pp. 174–5.

45 Mandler, ‘Open Access: A Perspective from the Humanities’, p. 169.

46 Erik Möller, ‘Creative Commons – NC Licenses Considered Harmful’, kuro5hin.org, 2005 www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655 [accessed 21 January 2013].

47 Huppertz Justizbeschäftigte als Urkundsbeamtin der Geschäftsstelle, ‘Urteil Landgericht Köln in Dem Rechtsstreit Klagers Rechtsanwälte Lampmann, Haberkamm & Rosenbaum gegen Die Deutschlandradio K.d.ö.R.’, 2014 www.lhr-law.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/geschw%C3%A4rztes-Urteil-LG-K%C3%B6ln-2.pdf [accessed 6 April 2014].

48 Adam Crymble, ‘Academic Freedom License: An Alternative to CCBY’, Thoughts on Public & Digital History, 2013 http://adamcrymble.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/academic-freedom-license-alternative-to_24.html [accessed 11 July 2014].

49 Andrés Guadamuz, ‘Academic Publishers Draft and Release Their Own Open Access Licences’, TechnoLlama www.technollama.co.uk/academic-publishers-draft-and-release-their-own-open-access-licences [accessed 18 July 2014].

50 For more on this, see McGettigan, The Great University Gamble, p. 86.

51 John Holmwood, ‘The Neo-Liberal Knowledge Regime, Inequality and Social Critique’, openDemocracy, 2013 www.opendemocracy.net/johnholmwood/neo-liberal-knowledge-regime-inequality-and-social-critique [accessed 3 March 2014].

52 John Holmwood, A Manifesto for the Public University (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011) http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781849666459 [accessed 3 March 2014].

4 monographs

1 The Specialized Scholarly Monograph in Crisis or How Can I Get Tenure If You Won’t Publish My Book, ed. Mary Case (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1999).

2 James McPherson, ‘A Crisis in Scholarly Publishing’, Perspectives on History, 2003 www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2003/a-crisis-in-scholarly-publishing [accessed 1 May 2014].

3 See Sanford G. Thatcher, ‘The Crisis in Scholarly Communication’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 (1995); Stephen Greenblatt, ‘Call for Action on Problems in Scholarly Book Publishing: A Special Letter from Stephen Greenblatt’, 2002 www.mla.org/scholarly_pub [accessed 8 May 2014]; Philip Lewis, ‘The Publishing Crisis and Tenure Criteria: An Issue for Research Universities?’, Profession, 2004, 14–24; Judith Ryan, ‘Publishing and Purchasing: The Great Paradigm Shift’, Profession, 2004, 7–13; Domna C. Stanton, ‘Working through the Crises: A Plan for Action’, Profession, 2004, 32–41; Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, pp. 103–7; Jerome McGann, ‘Information Technology and the Troubled Humanities’, Text Technology, 14 (2005), 105 if you would really like to read more on this.

4 Judith Ryan and others, ‘The Future of Scholarly Publishing: MLA Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Scholarly Publishing’, Profession, 2002, 172–86 (p. 176).

5 Peter Suber, ‘Open Access to Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs)’, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 2006 http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4727443 [accessed 1 May 2014]; Gail McMillan and others, ‘An Investigation of ETDs as Prior Publications: Findings from the 2011 NDLTD Publishers’ Survey’, University Library Faculty Publications, 2011 http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/univ_lib_facpub/53.

6 Colin Steele, ‘Scholarly Monograph Publishing in the 21st Century: The Future More Than Ever Should Be an Open Book’, Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11 (2008) http://dx.doi.org/http/10.3998/3336451.0011.201; John Willinsky, ‘Toward the Design of an Open Monograph Press’, Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12 (2009) http://dx.doi.org/http/10.3998/3336451.0012.103.

7 Ellen Collins, ‘OAPEN-UK Literature Review V1’, 2012 http://oapenuk.jiscebooks.org/files/2012/06/OAPENUK-Literature-Review-V1-June2012.doc [accessed 14 March 2014].

8 Higher Education Funding Council for England, ‘Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework’.

9 Nicholson Baker, ‘A New Page’, The New Yorker, 3 August 2009 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/03/090803fa_fact_baker?currentPage=all [accessed 2 May 2014]; Ian Bogost, ‘Reading Online Sucks’, 2008 www.bogost.com/blog/reading_online_sucks.shtml [accessed 2 May 2014].

10 Janneke Adema and Paul Rutten, ‘Digital Monographs in the Humanities and Social Sciences: Report on User Needs’ (OAPEN, 2010), pp. 12–14 http://openreflections.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/d315-user-needs-report.pdf.

11 David Nicholas and others, ‘E-Journals: Their Use, Value and Impact: Final Report’ (Research Information Network, 2009), pp. 20–1 www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/e-journals-their-use-value-and-impact.

12 Monica Bulger and others, ‘Reinventing Research? Information Practices in the Humanities’ (Research Information Network, 2011), pp. 72–3 www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/information-use-case-studies-humanities.

13 Adema and Rutten, ‘Digital Monographs in the Humanities and Social Sciences’, p. 13.

14 Collins, ‘OAPEN-UK Literature Review V1’, p. 2.

15 Adeline Koh and Ken Wissoker, ‘On Monographs, Libraries and Blogging: A Conversation with Duke University Press, Part One’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 2013 http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/what-is-the-future-of-the-monograph-a-conversation-with-duke-university-press-part-one/48263 [accessed 16 March 2014].

16 Hazel Newton, ‘Breaking Boundaries in Academic Publishing: Launching a New Format for Scholarly Research’, Insights: The UKSG Journal, 26 (2013), 70–6 (p. 71) http://dx.doi.org/10.1629/2048–7754.26.1.70.

17 At a risk of a technical digression too far, XML is a markup language in which information is encoded alongside its metadata. For instance <lastname>Smith<lastname> might be the way in which the word ‘Smith’ is signalled as an author’s last name inside such a document. The most common format for encoding of scholarly documents is the Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS), which, despite its name, can also handle books (although there is also a parallel format). Such a format serves as an intermediary stage in a three-step plan: (1) authors submit in a format of their choice; (2) this is then converted to the intermediate XML; (3) which is then, itself, converted into all the various desired output formats (PDF, EPUB, MOBI, HTML etc.). Stage 2 is difficult (and expensive as this software can often cost tens of thousands of US dollars per year to license), but it then enables a far easier and unified process at stage 3 whereby all the outputs are created from a single, easily readable source. Martin Paul Eve, ‘The Means of (Re-)Production: Expertise, Open Tools, Standards and Communication’, Publications, 2 (2014), 38–43 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications2010038.

18 I.T. Strategies, ‘The Evolution of the Book Industry: Implications for U.S. Book Manufacturers and Printers’, 2013, p. 21 http://rpp.ricoh-usa.com/images/uploads/Literature/whitepapers/IT-Strategies_FINAL.pdf [accessed 11 July 2014].

19 G. Dean Kortge and Patrick A. Okonkwo, ‘Perceived Value Approach to Pricing’, Industrial Marketing Management, 22 (1993), 133–40 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0019–8501(93)90039-A.

20 Kristina Shampanier, Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely, ‘Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products’, Marketing Science, 26 (2007), 742–57 http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0254; Mauricio M. Palmeira and Joydeep Srivastava, ‘Free Offer ≠ Cheap Product: A Selective Accessibility Account on the Valuation of Free Offers’, Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2013), 644–56 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/671565.

21 Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, p. 46.

22 Jennifer Crewe, ‘Scholarly Publishing: Why Our Business Is Your Business Too’, Profession, 2004, 25–31 (p. 25).

23 By which I mean that the typesetting is done digitally and print is derived from this same source.

24 For more on these costs in the journal sphere, see Brian D. Edgar and John Willinsky, ‘A Survey of Scholarly Journals Using Open Journal Systems’, Scholarly and Research Communication, 1 (2010) http://srconline.ca/index.php/src/article/view/24 [accessed 1 May 2014].

25 Ferwerda, Snijder and Adema, ‘OAPEN-NL’, p. 3.

26 Ferwerda, Snijder and Adema, ‘OAPEN-NL’, p. 68.

27 Ferwerda, Snijder and Adema, ‘OAPEN-NL’, p. 67.

28 Ferwerda, Snijder and Adema, ‘OAPEN-NL’, pp. 55–7; Swan, ‘The Open Access Citation Advantage’.

29 Ferwerda, Snijder and Adema, ‘OAPEN-NL’, pp. 40–53.

30 Ferwerda, Snijder and Adema, ‘OAPEN-NL’, p. 83.

31 OAPEN-UK, ‘The Pilot’, 2013 http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/pilot/ [accessed 25 March 2014]. There is some confusion around the numbers here. Technically, there were 29 original matched pairs (yielding 58 titles), which were then to be joined by a further 18 pairs from Oxford University Press (adding a further 36), making a total of 94. However, four titles remain listed as ‘TBC’.

32 Disclosure of interest: I am a member of the OAPEN-UK project’s steering group.

33 See Susan Brown and others, ‘Published Yet Never Done: The Tension between Projection and Completion in Digital Humanities Research’, 3 (2009) http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/2/000040/000040.html [accessed 3 May 2014] for an introduction on the issues of versioning and completion that often inhere in digital humanities projects. Note well, however, that despite the lack of print materiality, this sphere is less delineated from traditional writing than might be supposed; is a piece of writing ever finished, or merely committed as a specific version to the page? I’d suggest the latter.

34 OAPEN-UK, ‘Year 1 Focus Group Summary Report’, 2012, p. 1 http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/research-findings/y1-initial-focus-groups/ [accessed 25 March 2014].

35 OAPEN-UK, ‘Year 1 Focus Group Summary Report’, p. 3.

36 Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, pp. 122–3.

37 Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, p. 124.

38 Donald J. Waters, ‘Preserving the Knowledge Commons’, in Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, ed. Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007), pp. 145–67.

39 OAPEN-UK, ‘Researcher Survey’, 2012 http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/research-findings/researchersurvey/ [accessed 25 March 2014].

40 OAPEN-UK, ‘Royal Historical Society Case Study’, 2013 http://oapenuk.jiscebooks.org/research-findings/learned-society-case-studies/rhs-casestudy/ [accessed 26 March 2014].

41 Research Information Network, ‘Activities, Costs and Funding Flows in the Scholarly Communications System’, 2008, p. 8 www.rin.ac.uk/ourwork/communicating-and-disseminating-research/activities-costs-and-funding-flows-scholarly-commu [accessed 21 April 2014].

42 OAPEN-UK, ‘Regional Studies Association Case Study’, 2013 http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/research-findings/learned-society-case-studies/rsacasestud/ [accessed 26 March 2014].

43 Paul Jump, ‘Evolution of the REF’, Times Higher Education, 17 October 2013 www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/evolution-of-the-ref/2008100.fullarticle [accessed 27 March 2014].

44 Higher Education Funding Council for England, ‘Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework’, paras. 17–19.

45 Higher Education Funding Council for England, ‘Policy for Open Access in the Post-2014 Research Excellence Framework’, para. 14.

46 G. R. Evans, ‘Questions over Open Books’, Times Higher Education, 29 May 2014, sec. Letters.

47 Palgrave Macmillan, ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.

48 Wellcome Trust, ‘Position Statement in Support of Open Access Publishing’, Wellcome Trust, 2013 www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002766.htm [accessed 28 March 2014].

49 Emily Philippou, ‘First Wellcome Trust Open Access Book Charts Serious Fungal Disease’, The Wellcome Trust, 2013 www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2013/Press-releases/WTP054748. htm [accessed 28 March 2014].

50 Gary Hall, Digitize This Book! The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008).

51 Association of American Universities and Association of Research Libraries, ‘AAU-ARL Prospectus for an Institutionally Funded First-Book Subvention’, 2014 www.arl.org/publications-resources/3280-aau-arl-prospectus-for-an-institutionally-funded-first-book-subvention [accessed 1 July 2014].

52 Gary Hall, ‘Towards a New Political Economy: Open Humanities Press and the Open Access Monograph’ (presented at the OAPEN 2011: The First OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) Conference, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany, 2011) www.garyhall.info/journal/2011/5/30/towards-a-new-political-economy-open-humanities-press-and-th.html [accessed 29 March 2014].

53 Purdue University Scholarship Online, ‘Purdue E-Pubs’, 2014 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ [accessed 29 March 2014].

54 Andrew Albanese, ‘Pitt Library and Press Join Forces to Expand Digital Backlist’, Library Journal, 2007 http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2007/12/academic-libraries/pitt-library-and-press-join-forces-to-expand-digital-backlist/ [accessed 29 March 2014].

55 MediaCommons, ‘History’, 2014 http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/history [accessed 29 March 2014].

56 OpenEdition, ‘OpenEdition Freemium’ www.openedition.org/8873 [accessed 28 March 2014].

57 Athabasca University Press, ‘About’, 2014 www.aupress.ca/index.php/about/ [accessed 29 March 2014].

58 Moshe Y. Vardi and Richard Baraniuk, ‘A New Model for Publishing Research Monographs’, 2012 www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/newmodel.txt [accessed 29 March 2014].

59 For the costs incurred at various points in the publishing cycle, see Thompson, Books in the Digital Age, pp. 16–20.

60 Hugh Look and Frances Pinter, ‘Open Access and Humanities and Social Science Monograph Publishing’, New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16 (2010), 90–7 (p. 95) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2010.512244.

61 Look and Pinter, ‘Open Access and Humanities and Social Science Monograph Publishing’, p. 91.

62 Lucy Montgomery, ‘Knowledge Unlatched Pilot Collection to Become Open Access – Nearly 300 Libraries Globally Pledge Their Support’ (Knowledge Unlatched, 2014) www.knowledgeunlatched.org/pressrelease/ [accessed 30 March 2014].

63 Lucy Montgomery and others, ‘Pilot Proof of Concept Progress Summary’ (Knowledge Unlatched, 2014) http://collections.knowledgeunlatched.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/KU_Pilot_Progress_Summary_Report.pdf [accessed 25 May 2014].

64 Lucy Montgomery, ‘Knowledge Unlatched Announces the Launch of Its Pilot Collection’ (Knowledge Unlatched, 2013) www.knowledgeunlatched.org/press-release/ [accessed 30 March 2014].

65 Sanford G. Thatcher, ‘Back to the Future: Old Models for New Challenges’, Against the Grain, 2011, 38–43; Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. 450 www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3645773.html [accessed 30 March 2014]. Ellipses are Thatcher’s.

66 Gluejar, ‘Vision’, 2014 http://gluejar.com/vision/ [accessed 30 March 2014].

5 innovations

1 Suber, Open Access, pp. 20–1.

2 Among the more interesting ranks Patrick Bazin, ‘Toward Metareading’, in The Future of the Book, ed. Geoffrey Nunberg (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), pp. 153–69.

3 Michel Foucault, ‘What Is Enlightenment?’, in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984 (London: Penguin, 2000), pp. 303–19 (p. 316).

4 Carlos J. Alonso and others, Crises and Opportunities: The Futures of Scholarly Publishing, 57 (American Council of Learned Societies, 2003), p. 2 www.acls.org/uploadedfiles/publications/op/57_crises_and_opportunites.pdf [accessed 2 May 2014].

5 Hall, Digitize This Book!, pp. 59–61.

6 Domenic V. Cicchetti, ‘The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (1991), 119–35.

7 I owe the phrase ‘genealogies of validation’ to Martin McQuillan.

8 Peter Binfield, ‘Open Access MegaJournals – Have They Changed Everything?’, Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand, 2013 http://creativecommons.org.nz/2013/10/open-access-megajournals-have-they-changed-everything/ [accessed 28 November 2013]; Damian Pattinson, ‘PLOS ONE Publishes Its 100,000th Article’, EveryONE, 2014 http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2014/06/23/plos-one-publishes-100000th-article/ [accessed 24 June 2014].

9 PLOS, ‘PLOS ONE Journal Information’ www.plosone.org/static/information [accessed 6 May 2013].

10 Clay Shirky, ‘It’s Not Information Overload. It’s Filter Failure’ (presented at the Web 2.0 Expo, New York, 2008) http://blip.tv/web2expo/web-2-0-expo-ny-clay-shirky-shirky-com-it-s-not-information-overloadit-s-filter-failure-1283699 [accessed 1 May 2014].

11 Willinsky, The Access Principle, p. 203. Note that Biagioli (‘From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review’) argues that peer review developed at an earlier stage than the conventionally held point of the Transactions and has roots instead in the seventeenth-century book trade.

12 Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, p. 196.

13 Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, pp. 110–12, 192.

14 Palgrave Macmillan, ‘Introduction’, Palgrave Macmillan: Open Peer Review Trial http://palgraveopenreview.com/introduction/ [accessed 4 April 2014].

15 Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, p. 192.

16 A good example of such pragmatism is evinced in Gordon M. Sayre, ‘The Crisis in Scholarly Publishing: Demystifying the Fetishes of Technology and the Market’, Profession, 2005, 52–8. I do not agree with all that Sayre says but his method of establishing what we need and want, while shying from a fetishisation of technology-for-technology’s-sake is worthwhile.

17 Ginsparg, ‘Winners and Losers in the Global Research Village’.

18 Peter Suber, ‘Guide to the Open Access Movement’, 2003 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm [accessed 10 April 2014].

19 For more on the genesis of this type of logic, see Tim O’Reilly, ‘Piracy Is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution’, O’Reilly P2P, 2002 www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/12/11/piracy.html [accessed 21 April 2014].