GOGSoc Episode VI: The GoG, the Bad and the Ugly

By that characterisation I'm definitely old school - I think the finch report will be one of the worst things that could possibly happen to academia if it does come in unabated. It's an awful, awful model.

Bronze medal

Bronze medal

Welp, at best about a week before I know whether or not I'll be a student or not again.

can anyone please clarify how we find out if we have been shortlisted by our department for (research council) studentship?


Thank you!

They tell you?

Nope, doing something commercial based. (Hopefully).

Congrats Becca I'll try and read about the Finch report when I get a moment.

Welp, at best about a week before I know whether or not I'll be a student or not again.

Got my results for last term's modules last week. Simultaneously have the highest and lowest marks in the year. Unfortunately the low mark was so low I've actually failed that module, so my degree will be capped as a pass . Just checked the essay and found out I actually submitted a draft of the version and saved it over my final copy . And now my hard drive with all my PDFs for my dissertation is no longer working .

Sorry I haven't been keeping up with the news, but best of luck to everyone waiting on hearing stuff!

In other news - had an awesome supervision on Friday and I now have a complete outline, plan and chapter areas

Good luck, phile. BTW I finally picked up Murray's book on Early Greece based on your recommendation and it was well worth it.

Thanks! Craghy, that includes funding etc in this case so yeah, pretty tight.

Voluntary work for the spare time. I loved it so much I'm still doing it.



The debate was eeerrr interesting. Big issues over us and them and old school versus new school. The representatives from Wiley and Wellcome caused the most ruffled feathers. Wiley kept making the point about the half life of journal articles (am talking Arts and Social Sciences here) and it made for depressing listening. Wellcome already adopt the open access policy and are considering to take the action that anyone who publishes under Wellcome funding but doesn't agree to open access will lose 10% of final money!

What I got from it was that there are two issues that can be divided but also cross over. Firstly the issue of open access and secondly the changes to REF which will impose on who/where you publish.

Open access wise - Peter Mandler did a show of hands and the majority of the room were actually in favour. What isn't liked is the fact that work will be freely available and open to edits, to then be passed off as someone else's. Most people don't/won't mind articles being offered to be downloaded instantly (apparently the CUP rep said they already offer this...)

Also from an early career researcher's viewpoint (someone from History Lab Plus presented) - whilst open access is fine but not abused, the cost of it to the researcher is preventative. The researcher would have to stump up the £1500-£6000 to pay the publisher to allow your own journal to be free to download from the day it was officially published. Few people are going to be able to afford this!

Interesting latest read: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/news/news/2013/open_access_letter.pdf

REF changes - only certain publications will count as REF acceptable and I think they have to be UK based. Lyndal Roper made the point that a historian could publish in the American Historical Review (a leading history journal) but it wouldn't be counted under the new REF which is stupid. Also highlighted how monographs might not count either.


I have to say I did tune out by the end of - the amount of acronyms flying around, very little evidence being used and the old school being SO openly opposed was quite tiring! The twitter feed is worth a read.



That's the one