AI, copyright, London Book Fair

The Charles Clark Lecture 2023 on AI

Gold Leaf

The London Book Fair wouldn’t be complete without the annual Charles Clark lecture, perhaps also the highlight of the year for those interested in copyright. This year’s lecture was especially ‘buzzy’ because it addressed the copyright issues arising from the use of Artificial Intelligence [AI]. Entitled Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright?, it was delivered by Dr Andres Guadamuz, Reader in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Sussex and chaired by Dan Conway, the current CEO of the Publishers Association.

Dr Guadamuz was an engaging and unpretentious speaker who drew in the audience with a witty and attractively eccentric presentation. He said that he had spent ten years reading about AI, not a fashionable subject until recently, so he felt like a groupie supporting an obscure pop group that had suddenly shot to fame. Most of his research has been connected not to language models but to images. He has also explored the ethical issues attendant upon ChatGPT.

With regard to the latter, his conclusion is that if someone ‘practises transparency’ by admitting they used ChatGPT – for example, to prepare a presentation – that would be ethical. However, its use implies the need for massive changes in the way that many activities are conducted. For example, if a student uses AI a significant number of times in an essay, academics can detect it and perhaps disqualify the student; but the student may not have been told that this is against the rules.

More broadly, everyone must come to grips with the idea that the world is changing. Every day a new intelligence language model is deployed. Generative Pre-Trained Transformer [GPT] discovery is now on version GPT4; free ChatGPT is on version 3.5. Other, similar intelligent languages include LLAMA; Alpaca; Dolly 2.0 and Ernie. AI is everywhere! And Open Source technology means that advances are accelerating exponentially. AI will continue to develop and be deployed regardless of litigation or regulation. “The genie is out of the bottle.”

So how is it most useful to think about AI and copyright? Dr Guadamuz suggests there are 3 main separate debates:

  • Are AI-generated works protected by copyright?
  • Is training an AI application using existing creative works infringing copyright?
  • Are AI works themselves infringing copyright?

This raises several interesting authorship scenarios, with the following premises:

  • Only humans can create copyright.
  • Machines can generate work that could under some circumstances be protected by copyright.
  • Sui generis rights – database rights, reward of investment – may exist, but be of shorter duration.

Dr Guadamuz went on to describe the legal approach to these scenarios throughout the world. Different countries have very different laws, from the USA, which says such content can’t be copyrighted, to the UK (and others), which stipulates that copyright exists in favour of the person who made the arrangements necessary for the work to be created and lasts for 50 years.

What is copyright for? Is it to protect investment? Is it to protect authors? Is it to protect human authors from free or cheap competition? Do we want ‘copyright police’ to conduct human points tests?

The key technical issue is that to train the various AI models, data is needed to start with. The early phases of developing a model therefore involve copying; the later phases, when the models have been built, don’t need copies – i.e., there is nothing original left in the application.

Copyright law already allows temporary copies of a work to be made for lawful use. Then there is Text and Data Mining [TDM]. TDM was created with different objectives in mind, to aid scientific research, not to create something. In the UK, bona fide TDM is already regarded as an ‘exception’ to copyright law; and in 2021 a UKIPO consultation proposed that a new exception should make TDM lawful for any purpose, not just scientific research. The House of Lords threw this out, calling it ‘misguided’, because self-regulation creates loopholes, which allow, for example, academic institutions to engage in data ‘washing’ or laundering.

Outputs of AI include models for producing text, images, videos, music; but these outputs do not appear in the form of a collage. They are derivative of the inputs, but not fragments of them. (Parody, to which the law is sometimes, but very rarely, applied, is a ‘poor relation’ of these outputs.)

In conclusion, Dr Guatamuz said that he tells his students they “should be scared, they should be terrified”, because they are about to enter a jobs market that no one understands. Echoing his words, Dan Conway said that publishers “shouldn’t be scared, they should be terrified”, and artists should be terrified more. Alternatively, AI could be great for publishing – it could potentially lead to more licensing and the capacity to create more work – but there are obviously pitfalls. How would Dr Guatamaz tackle infringements in an AI world? Dr Guatamaz said that the great challenge was that any case of infringement must focus on the inputs, not the outputs; and therefore relate to the training phase of the application (i.e., before the outputs have been created). The UK government has yet to get its act together over this. There is EU legislation – but of course the UK no longer belongs to the EU. Lessons can be learnt from the music industry, which “won the battle, but lost the war”.

There followed a lively debate. The question that made most impression on me came from Oliver Gadsby, who was present in his capacity as a member of the PLS board. He said, “The human mind can surprise and delight [perhaps echoing Jane Austen]. My experience of AI is rather bland text. Can AI surprise and delight?” Dr Guatamaz’s alarming answer was yes – because the human mind responds with its soul. “Sometimes there’s an image that’s really, really good; I know it’s me bringing my own values and emotions to the image – but that’s art.” Chilling! Or exhilarating?

[written by Linda Bennett]

AI, Conferences, London Book Fair, Sustainability, Trends in Publishing

London Book Fair 2023

Gold Leaf

This year’s London Book Fair took place between 18th and 20th April at Olympia (still my favourite venue of the four I have experienced). Annika and I attended on the first and second days.

We agreed it was one of the most enjoyable and productive LBFs we have been to for several years. It had much more of a buzz than last year’s rather limp, Covid-dominated experience, (which was not improved by periodic musical disruptions from the host country). Under the new director, Gareth Rapley, LBF 2023 seemed to achieve a much better balance between business conducted on the stands / in the rights centre and events than in the several pre-Covid years that culminated with the 2019 fair, when there were so many events taking place that there was barely time to engage in ordinary conversations, let alone negotiate. The rights centre, at which 500 publishers took tables – there wasn’t a spare space anywhere – was particularly vibrant and busy.

Ukraine was this year’s host country. During the course of the fair, Ukrainian publishers, led by Oleksandra Koval, Director of the Ukrainian Book Institute, issued several heartfelt pleas to UK and international publishers to continue to support Ukraine by blocking deals with Russian publishers. Apparently there has been some slippages since last year.

Several academic publishers chose not to pay for stands this year, presumably because LBF 2022 didn’t work very well for them, though most still took tables in the rights centre; and it was noticeable that others (both academic and trade) either paid for smaller stands or compromised by securing their place on one of the co-operative stands. Such moves are perhaps to be applauded in a post-Covid industry that now rates sustainability above ostentation.

To be sustainable implies many things, however, and maybe still first among these is the traditional definition of sustainability meaning ‘to be economically viable’.  Several high-profile talks were devoted to the fact that, in real terms, the price of books (which has changed very little in the last ten years) is much lower than it was in 2002 or 2012, because the industry has not believed itself to be robust enough to keep up with inflation. This has had a serious knock-on effect on booksellers and wholesalers (both operating in low-margin industries) as well as publishers themselves. There are signs now that we are managing to loosen the grip of austerity and that book prices are rising modestly, though there is still quite a lot of ground to make up.

Discussions about AI and ChatGPT were prominent, whether at the formal events, informally or covered in the free trade ‘show dailies’ (the Publishers Weekly dailies were excellent for their substance this year, The Bookseller ones also lively but rather more chatty in nature). Various experiments have been conducted by industry luminaries who have concluded that ChatGPT can’t write a sequel to The Waste Land (surprise, surprise) or a decent book review, but would be very useful to a lazy student wishing to churn out an assignment to meet a deadline. Academic publishers, take note! The Charles Clark lecture (which will be covered in more detail in a further post tomorrow) also focused on AI.

To return to sustainability, but now focusing on its more modern incarnation of observing a set of measures designed to preserve the planet and respect human rights – it was the subject of several extremely well-attended seminars during the course of the fair. The one Annika and I attended was presented by Susan Pinkney and Alice Wood, from the Publishers Association, who described the PA’s Carbon Calculator, a tool designed to aid all sectors of the publishing industry in monitoring their carbon footprints. The Calculator can be applied to areas of publishing activity as diverse as travel, materials, packaging, production and distribution. Every publisher who takes advantage of the Calculator can use it to keep a record of their own carbon footprint and monitor improvements. Although only employees of that publisher will be able to contribute, add to and examine their own records, the PA is hoping eventually also to use the Calculator as a benchmarking tool across the industry.

Famous authors and exciting new books were, as always, much in evidence. Granta was doing well with Birnam Wood, the new Eleanor Catton novel; Kathleen Rundell merited a huge book display; Ken Follett and Klaus Flugge were feted for their lifetime achievements; and Dapo Adeola and Ann Cleeves were among the authors of the day.

All in all, it was an excellent fair. Did we have any grouses? The cloakroom system left something to be desired; and there were fewer food outlets than usual (come back, Pizza Express, all is forgiven!). However, in an industry where plain living rarely eclipses high thinking, perhaps in these times of too-low prices and the struggle for sustainable ethics, a little privation was good for us!

[written by Linda Bennett]

Academic Publishing, Libraries, Open Access, Webinar

Free the Books! The Path towards Open Access Monographs

Gold Leaf

30th March 2023, 2.30pm-4.15pm BST
(15.30-17.15 CET)

Webinar hosted by Gold Leaf, sponsored by De Gruyter

We would like to invite our readers to the new 2023 webinar series “Challenging the Status Quo: Taking Libraries into the Future”, run by Gold Leaf and sponsored by De Gruyter.

This webinar explores the knotty world of Open Access books. In principle, most people agree that OA books are a “good thing”; but the associated issues are complex for everyone in the Scholarly Communications industry.

Speakers include Niels Stern, Director of OAPEN, who will give the keynote; Wilhelm Widmark, Library Director at the University of Stockholm and Assistant Director of BIBSAM; and Sarah Thompson, Head of Content and Open Access Librarian at the University of York.

The webinar is the first of a series sponsored by De Gruyter and will be moderated by Linda Bennett of Gold Leaf. Registration is free of charge.
For more details and to book your place on the seminar, click here.

Who should attend

The webinar will be very inclusive. It will be of interest to librarians, including student librarians, information scientists, funders, publishers, academics interested in Open Access and anyone involved in the current period of rapid change in the library and publishing industries.

The series

In this new De Gruyter Webinar Series, we invite library & information scientists, researchers, and industry experts to share their insights and wisdom into latest developments, emerging trends and best practices in the library and publishing services.

Agenda

15.30-15.35 Introduction and Welcome
Andrea Gregor-Adams, Marketing Manager EMEA, De Gruyter
15.35-16.05 Free the Books!
Keynote talk: Niels Stern, Director of OAPEN
16.05-16.45 Librarian Panel session
Two panellists will each speak for 10 – 15 minutes, followed by Q & A
Selling Open Access for books to the country.
Wilhelm Widmark, Library Director, University of Stockholm; Vice-Chairman of BIBSAM
At the coal face: the acquisition and payment issues
Sarah Thompson, Head of Content and Open Access, University of York
16.45-17.10 Plenary Session: What next?
The three speakers and the audience will be invited to discuss what the future will bring for Open
Access for books and share their hopes and concerns.
17.10-17.15 Wrap-up

Niels Stern is director of OAPEN. He began his career in scholarly book publishing in 2003. In this capacity he became a co-founder of the OAPEN project in 2008. Since 2014 Niels Stern has also acted as independent expert for the European Commission on open science and e-infrastructures. Leaving publishing for a few years, he joined the Royal Danish Library in 2017 as director of licensing for five universities and chief negotiator for the national licence consortium.

Wilhelm Widmark is the Library Director of Stockholm University since 2012. Since 2020 he is also Senior Adviser for Open Science to the President of Stockholm University. He has a Master of Arts in Literature and a Master of Arts in Library and information science from Uppsala University. Wilhelm is active in the Open Science movement in Sweden and Europe. He is the Vice-Chairman of the Swedish Bibsam consortia and a member of the Swedish Rectors conference Open Science group. He is also a member of EUAs Expert Group on Open Science and one of the Directors of EOSC Association. During the years he has been a member of several publishers Library Advisory Boards. In year 2016 he got an assignment from the president to start an Open Access academic press for books and journals at Stockholm University. Stockholm University Press was created in 2017 and has published more than 50 Open Access books and host 12 journals. He is also the publisher of Stockholm University Press. Wilhelm is a well-known speaker at both national and international conferences.

Sarah Thompson is Assistant Director for Library, Archives and Learning Services at the University of York, where she has responsibility for Content and Open Research. She takes an active role in the RLUK Collection Strategy Network and in the White Rose Libraries Partnership, and is a member of the White Rose University Press Management Board. She also participates in a number of different national and international consortia groups and publisher and supplier advisory boards.
Sarah has strategic oversight of the Library’s content budget for both paywalled and open access content, and is steering a gradual transition towards the latter. This is being achieved by the Library financially supporting different models of open access monograph publishing; for example, it has signed up to a number of diamond open access monograph initiatives and has recently created an institutional OA fund which pays book processing charges (BPCs). She is also involved in White Rose University Press, which is a non-profit, open access digital publisher of peer-reviewed academic journals and books, run jointly by the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York.

Press Release

White Rose University Press advocacy and communications strategy

Gold Leaf

White Rose Libraries (WRL) and Gold Leaf are very happy to announce that Gold Leaf has been appointed to work on an advocacy and communications strategy for White Rose University Press (WRUP). The project will take approximately two months to complete and will involve working with WRUP’s three parent universities – the Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York – and some relevant third parties.

Michael Fake and Kate Petherbridge are co-ordinating the project for WRL. Linda Bennett and Annika Bennett will work on it at Gold Leaf.

If you are an author or other interested third party at any of these universities, please look out for further announcements. If you are interested in taking part in an author / third party survey, please contact Linda or Annika direct.

Students, Teaching and Learning

OfS Blended learning review

Gold Leaf

This summer the Office for Students [OfS] commissioned a review of blended learning aimed at supporting the English HE sector’s understanding of how blended learning approaches might relate to the OfS’s Conditions B2 and B3, both of which concern the quality of education provided in any manner or form by or on behalf of a provider. The review, which has just been published, is aimed at all stakeholders and focuses on blended learning approaches by six English HE providers, concentrating on four broad subject areas: humanities; medicine and allied health; natural sciences and engineering; and the performing arts.

A review panel was appointed by the OfS to conduct desk-based research, collect survey data and interview academic staff and students about each provider. Here are its main findings:

  • There was an “emergency pivot” or switch by English universities to online delivery at the start of the coronavirus pandemic [a diplomatic way of saying that institutions that had not relied much on online learning previously scrambled to piece together remote learning programmes]. The approach to blended learning is now “emergent” [i.e., more measured, but still developing] as providers consider their long-term teaching strategies.
  • In the academic year 2022-2023 – the current one – there will be greater opportunity to develop an appropriate range of learning techniques.
  • The rationale for blended learning approaches has often not been made clear to students.
  • Many students value the flexibility of “asynchronous online lectures”, which enables them to review and re-watch material at their own speed; but many also appreciate on-campus lectures which support peer learning, separate home and study environments, encourage their motivation to learn and help them to engage with challenging course content.
  • During the lockdowns, students felt isolated when studying online and identified a long-term “negative impact” on the academic community and lack of peer network support.
  • Integrating the online and on-campus learning timetable was a challenge for students and sometimes led to course overload.
  • The review panel identified examples of high-quality blended approaches and innovations by both instructors and supplies that ably supported students’ learning, but there were also “pockets” of poor online teaching practice and poor online learning resources.
  • The panel therefore took the view that the balance of face-to-face, online and blended learning is not the key determinant of teaching quality. High quality (or poor quality) teaching can take place across all modes of delivery.

Some key recommendations of the report are:

  • The procurement and delivery of new learning technology systems represents large and complex programmes for university IT departments operating in a rapidly-changing environment. Therefore providers should have in place the necessary project management and delivery expertise to ensure the maintenance of high standards and the observance of interoperability and accessibility requirements.
  • Using more learning technology will require increased numbers of professional staff with expertise in learning technology at universities; they must be able to work closely with senior leaders and course teams.
  • Understanding of the institutional and individual responsibilities of technical and teaching staff to ensure that learning materials are accessible was found to be “patchy”. The word “accessible” is often used to replace “digital” or “available”, rather than aligned with web accessibility standards [the latter is an issue that the HE community has worked hard to highlight and improve in recent years, an initiative that started well before the pandemic]. More work is needed to ensure that all staff in universities are aware of the policy context, regulations, standards and ethics concerning the use of technology, including equality, inclusion, universal design, “accessibility” in the sense it is used in the HE environment, copyright and data use.

These findings and recommendations may seem obvious to the seasoned HE-watcher and academic publisher. However, despite its rather anodyne language, the report makes some very useful suggestions, which can be of great help both to those established academic publishers already developing online learning solutions and new entrants to the market. Of particular help to the latter are the many sections in the report which describe correct approaches and protocols when working with universities. More generally, there is advice to all stakeholders to get their ducks in a row, to work closely together and to make appropriate investments in people as well as technology. Between the lines, there is also a warning to academics to treat suppliers as equals and to commit to working on products and solutions together.

From this writer’s perspective, the most controversial suggestion is that all modes of delivery of teaching are equal. Whilst not in itself contentious, the statement should be internalised alongside the carefully-articulated view that for students face-to-face teaching is important. In other words, if “quality” HE teaching is to be achieved – the goal of the review – a horses-for-courses approach must be taken. It’s not just a question of catering to different learning styles, but also accepting that a variety of teaching modes is needed to fulfil the whole range of learning experiences and needs.

For the full report, see https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/dc1c3c84-269a-4c40-8f87-15bfae0fcced/blended-learning-review-panel-report.pdf

[written by Linda Bennett]

Students

Student Angst – Five questions for today’s students

Gold Leaf

As this year’s successful A Level students prepare for university and second- and third-year undergraduates get ready to return, they have much to contend with that disturbed previous student cohorts either less or not at all. Here are 5 questions they need to address.

1. What is normal?

Most of us can remember the excitement of our first term at university – making lots of friends, attending parties, optimistically joining more societies than we would ever have time to keep up with. Some of us had second-year mentors to guide us through the bewildering if exciting maze of new opportunities. However, this year’s second- and third-year students have spent much of their time at university either incarcerated, or severely restricted by, Covid rules. If they have enjoyed a social life or belonged to societies, activity has mostly been by Zoom or Teams. Some have spent nearly all their time in dull halls of residence rooms staring at computer screens or the four dingy walls; others have gone home to their parents and worked from there. Either way, they have missed out on the huge people-interactive benefits that university life used to offer; and while the second-years may manage still to get a taste of it, for most third-years it is too late – they will have to buckle down now and work for their exams. Freshers must therefore carve out their own paths and create their own ‘normal’. On the plus side, perhaps they will come up with a better work-life balance than previous generations achieved.

2. How much face-to-face tuition is fair and reasonable?

This question began as a small dot on the horizon long before Covid reared its head. The so-called ‘massification of education’, accompanied by government caps on fees and escalating pressures on academic time, caused most UK universities to begin to experiment with online learning soon after the beginning of this century. It has much to recommend it: it makes study more feasible for part-time and mature students and distance learners; it benefits those new to a topic or slower learners with more opportunities to practise or revise; if used imaginatively – i.e., ‘blended’ with more traditional lectures and tutorials – it can free up academic time to engage students in discussion and debate, leaving more pedestrian ‘fact teaching’ to the technology. However, Covid not only accelerated the use of online learning solutions but for a time caused traditional teaching to be replaced almost entirely by them. Certain UK universities are reluctant to return to previous methods and are openly cutting back on students’ academic contact hours. How much academic-led tuition should students expect for the fees that they pay? Yet more to the point, how much do they need to become well-rounded adults who can contribute original thinking to future jobs instead of being mere fact-retention robots?

3. Should I expect the university to provide all the learning resources that I need?

This question is probably not uppermost in freshers’ minds as they depart for university, but it’s likely to loom much larger as their undergraduate careers progress. Individual universities’ approach to resource provision differs widely. Some make no commitment to ensuring that students have access to basic resources such as textbooks, therefore tacitly expecting them to pay for their own, as students were always expected to do in pre-tuition-fee times; others make ‘free’ textbook provision a selling feature in their prospectuses.  The current trend is to move away from textbooks altogether and replace them with a mixture of other types of resource, including monographs, lecturer-designed content [sometimes OERs, or Open Education Resources], online learning solutions and other web-sourced materials. Students at universities that take this approach can reasonably assume they will be able to obtain the essential resources they need without any additional financial outlay on their part. However, academic library budgets are now being squeezed quite dramatically, meaning that librarians have to find ways of fulfilling everyone’s needs and save money at the same time. Most have been operating ‘e-first’ policies for years, which means they will source an electronic copy over a print one when both are available. Electronic copies allow more students to us the same resource simultaneously. provided that the library has also paid for multi-user access; but some librarians are now saying this is unaffordable, while others say they will no longer acquire backlist monographs electronically if the library already has a copy in print. Consequently, although in theory all the resources the student needs are supplied by the university, in practice availability is restricted. A further pitfall for students is that the less prescriptive the resource lists academics prepare, the more likely students are to conduct Google searches for relevant content and some of the material they find will not be authentic. (It is an increasing part of the librarian’s role to train students how to identify content they can trust.)

4. How do I afford it all?

This is, of course, a question that most students – and their parents – need to be able to answer before they enrol. Currently university fees are capped at £9,250 a year in England (£4,625 for part-time students) and the cost of living for full-time students with no dependents estimated to be between £350 and £550 per month, depending on the university and its location. Most students qualify for help, primarily in the form of a low-interest government loan. This will normally take many years to pay back – many loans will never be repaid because the student’s subsequent employment does not reach the repayment start threshold. There is no easy answer to the affordability question. A more relevant consideration may be that fees can only rise – and universities are now lobbying for ‘realistic’ rises in fees to allow them to meet their costs, some stating that £25,000 a year would be necessary to enable standards to be maintained. If delayed, university education can only become less affordable than it is now.

5. Is it worth it?

That depends …. There is more than one reason for studying for a degree. Most undergraduates, however, embark upon a degree course primarily to get the type of job that would otherwise be unavailable to them. If this aim is not achieved, then patently it has not been worth it. Even if the student is successful, has he or she received value for money; and how should this be assessed? Are degrees being ‘devalued’? Some institutions now award almost all students a First or a 2/1. Does a degree course teach the student to be a competent member of the workforce? Would the student be better off working for a more vocational qualification – e.g., an apprenticeship? And, to turn the argument around, as a society are we in danger of losing sight of the value of scholarship and learning for learning’s sake?

Higher Education is at a crossroads. Rapid changes are under way. We hope to explore some of the implications of this in future articles.

This article was written by Linda Bennett, Gold Leaf. It was first published on the Bookbrunch Website on 12 September 2022.

Conferences, Covid-19, General, Students, Sustainability

Belated New Year’s Greetings!

Gold Leaf

Happy 2022 from Gold Leaf!  We apologise for not having sent our new year’s greetings sooner.

We are not offering excuses for being so tardy, but if we were, we could claim that we have been waiting to get more of a grip on the lie of the land as the new year swings into gear (apologies for the mixed metaphors!).  What do we think 2022 will bring to academic publishing?

Here are a few predictions, some questions and some personal hopes.

Predictions

  • Covid and ways of working. Despite all the ifs and buts, the travelling a few steps forwards in 2021 only to fall many paces back and all the prophecies of the soothsayers of doom, we think 2022 will see a return to a greater semblance of ‘normality’ than we have ‘enjoyed’ since the first lockdown in early spring 2020. This is likely to mean more travelling and more face-to-face meetings for all of us. However, we predict that the virtual meeting is now part of the ecology of academic publishing and is here to stay, though hopefully in lower and less enforced doses.
  • Sustainability. The last point leads directly to something that is hardly a prediction: the need to keep on developing strategies that deliver environmental sustainability. The concept of sustainability has firmly stamped its mark on publishing as much as every other industry. It’s a huge subject, but specifics for us are likely to include more targeted travel; paying greater attention to expenditure on energy; using only FSC paper and other sustainable raw materials; deploying local suppliers wherever possible; and continuing to innovate by developing user-friendly electronic products (though comparisons made between the carbon footprint of these and more traditional products may sometimes yield disappointing results).
  • Open Access. Another huge subject. Burning issues include the anticipation and fulfilment of research funders’ next moves; greater commitment to OA for books and how to achieve a sustainable business model to make it work; and how to publish ‘non-book content’ in fully OA journals.

Some questions

  • Events. What will happen to book fairs, conferences and other mass industry gatherings? We think these will probably survive, but in a less flashy (and lucrative for the organisers) way. Pre-2020, book fairs increasingly turned into events to deliver large numbers of eclectic, expensive seminars. It was the tail wagging the dog. Should book fairs become truer to their original raison d’être, i.e., used primarily to facilitate meetings between people from different parts of the industry and different countries for the discussion of business and closing of deals? Some of this can be done remotely – the fairs are likely to be smaller than in the past – and some of it can’t. Likewise, should conferences be shorter, fewer in number and more co-ordinated: should they be be organised for specific groups of people to share and explore information about genuine topics of interest, not hi-jacked by exhibitions to showcase materials, spawn costly dinners that cause the organisers to eke out the programme for an extra superfluous day, etc.?
  • Undergraduates. Have the experiences of the last two years, combined with the continuing withdrawal of government support for non-STEM subjects and fluctuations in the job market, disillusioned young people to the point where they no longer want to commit the time and expense to gaining a degree? Will those undergraduate courses that survive change completely in nature and become almost solely vocational? And are government measures to make universities more accountable and their teaching achievements more measurable truly aiding the quality of higher education delivery or stifling it?
  • Partnerships. Post-OA, post-‘transformative agreements’, post accelerated delivery of completely online or hybrid courses, what kinds of partnership do publishers need to forge with universities and what are the barriers to success? Where do we draw the line between ‘them’ and ‘us’?

Some personal hopes

  • Meetings. At Gold Leaf, we very much hope to be able to meet all our clients and the many friends who support us during 2022. We celebrated our 20th birthday in 2021. It was necessarily a low-key affair. We hope to be able to celebrate person-to-person with all of you during the course of this year.
  • Success, happiness and above all health for all our readers. It’s a big wish – we’ll need to be in the Good Fairy’s good books to achieve it. But we do mean it most sincerely. We hope this year will be the best ever yet for you, both personally and professionally. No one will be more excited to hear of your successes and more genuinely pleased than we shall.

Please keep in touch with us and let us know how things are going!

Warmest best wishes,

Annika and Linda