RLUK's response is forcefully supportive of the current policy, and firmly dismissive of HSS objections to short embargo periods. But does it sidestep the longer term concerns of learned societies?

Scroll down to get to this letter (it is #4) from several heavyweight academics all or all but one of whom are very heavyweight historians including the current and past presidents of the Royal Historical Society. Starts and ends with statements in favour of Open Access. Three features of the Finch recommendations as acted on by the Government are summarised: 1. inadequate monies for APCs leading to administrators having to create rationing systems; 2. researchers publishing in non-compliant international journals being excluded from REF 2020; 3. short para asserting that CC-BY would seriously undermine the integrity of the work scholars produce.

Tony moved from a senior role in the University of Southampton to a senior role in Microsoft in 2005. Prior to moving he'd presciently coined the memorable term Data Deluge. Over the last few weeks he's been writing a lucid mutli-part series about the journey to open access - essentially from Arxiv, via ePrints and Dspace to Green to..... We do not know yet. This is a link to Part 3.

Piece in Nature about the "Episciences Project" which, with money from the French Government aims to launch a series of free open-access journals that will host their peer-reviewed articles on the preprint server arXiv. See also Tim Gowers on the subject: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/why-ive-also-joined-the-good-guys/

Ross Mounce is a final year PhD Student at the University of Bath & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow. His well-linked response to the Inquiry has a pragmatic and sensible feel, though he down-plays the impact on learned societies of loss of income, and wrongly reduces their outreach work to "perks".

But if the sciences can do it, why not also the humanities and social sciences? Long, enthusiastic but basically exhortatory piece by Gary F Daught promoting "bright and energetic young scholar" Martin Eve's idea.

Science blog post in The Guardian by Mike Taylor which responds to the the arguments that are used to justify the conventional publishing model, under the strap-line "As a scientist you job is to bring new knowledge into the world. Hiding it behind a journal's paywall is unacceptable"

A Harvard Berkman Centre project to track and tag all things Open Access (and not just OA scholarly publishing) with Peter Suber the "ideas guy". Uses TagTeam, an open-source RSS (and atom) aggregator.

Abstract: The economic modelling work we have carried out over the past few years has been referred to and cited a number of times in the discussions of the Finch Report and subsequent policy developments in the UK. We are concerned that there may be some misinterpretation of this work. This short paper sets out the main conclusions of our work, which was designed to explore the overall costs and benefits of Open Access (OA), as well as identify the most cost-effective policy basis for transitioning to OA at national and institutional levels. The main findings are that disseminating research results via OA would be more cost-effective than subscription publishing. If OA were adopted worldwide, the net benefits of Gold OA would exceed those of Green OA. However, we are not yet anywhere near having reached an OA world. At the institutional level, during a transitional period when subscriptions are maintained, the cost of unilaterally adopting Green OA is much lower than the cost of unilaterally adopting Gold OA - with Green OA self-archiving costing average institutions sampled around one-fifth the amount that Gold OA might cost, and as little as one-tenth as much for the most research intensive university. Hence, we conclude that the most affordable and cost-effective means of moving towards OA is through Green OA, which can be adopted unilaterally at the funder, institutional, sectoral and national levels at relatively little cost.

The session starts at 11.40 and lasts for just under 1 hour. In his introduction, the Chair John Krebs says "We are not here to question the whole Open Access agenda. We take that as a given. We are not questioning the recommendations of the report. We are very much focused on the current plans for implementation and on the concerns that have been raised with us by various stake-holders which allude to in your written evidence." During the session 4 or 5 peers spoke in addition to Krebs - Rees, Sharpe, Broers, and Winston. All seemed variously well informed, not least Rees who looks to be aware of the concerns of Humanities and Social Sciences societies. Finch gave a confident and calm account of herself and in some ways this 1 hour session in which the ideas of a clever, knowledgeable and research-experienced person are developed under questioning by other clever, knowledgeable and research-experienced people. The full session on 29 January (when RCUK, HEFCE, and David Willetts will give evidence) will be interesting.

Whether or not you agree with any or all of it, this superbly written 5 page PDF by Colin Jones and Peter Mandler provides a coherent and very comprehensive summary of H&SS concerns about current OA policy in the UK, and its impact. The nine aspects covered are: the gold question; green issues; publishers' business models; universities and gold/green; universities as publication gatekeepers; a way out of rationing; freedom to publish; internationalisation. All set against a backdrop of RHS reiterating its "strong support for widening access to publicly-funded academic work, in forms that sustain peer review and high-quality editorial work."

Useful, broad, measured perspective from Felice Levine with a focus on how the OA position might develop in the US "The best current intelligence for where we are in the US is that the US Federal Government is not likely to issue a narrowly tailored policy on OA which would constrain or define business models. It is clear about the value of OA but it has not mandated particular models of OA. Will there be arrogance from US journals towards non-US scholars and their need for OA? The current model (and the AERA parallels most learned societies) provides toll-free links to authors' webpages and institutional archives of publications and online-first publication. If this does not satisfy the requirements, then the author-fee option is still there."

Videos, text transcripts, and slides from most if not all of the sessions at a two-day Conference organised by the Academy of Social Sciences, sponsored by the THE, Routledge, Wiley Blackwell and SAGE to look at the implementation of the recommendations of the Finch Review for Open Access publishing in the UK.

A consideration by Eric van de Velde of why MOOCs have caught the eye and the imagination of HE leaders in a way that OA never did. Poses three questions: 1. Why do academic leaders not make the same calculation with respect to OA? 2. Why do they fear the potential of OA-caused disruption? 3. Why do they embrace the potential of MOOCs-caused disruption? Puts forward four not entirely convincing explanatory conjectures: 1. MOOCs are in their infancy, providing cover for their pedagogic inadequacy, and allowing for experimentation. 2. MOOCs provide big first mover advantages. (Hasn't PLOS had FMA?). 3. In contrast with OA MOOCs put control in the hands of teachers (!). 4. OA is not sufficiently disruptive (PeerJ, however, is).

Google's "Policy by the Numbers" blog has this coherent summary of the argument for author self archiving rather than Gold. Written by Andrew Adams (Professor of Information Ethics in the Graduate School of Business Administration and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics at Meiji University in Tokyo). An earlier "Policy By the Numbers" post by Andrew Adams "Open Access to Scholarly Literature and Why It Matters" is at http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2012/12/open-access-to-scholarly-literature-and.html.

The ARC has introduced a new open access policy for ARC funded research which takes effect from 1 January 2013. ARC requires that any publications arising from an ARC supported research project must be deposited into an open access institutional repository within a twelve (12) month period from the date of publication.

Jonathan Eisen is the academic editor-in-chief of PLoS Biology. This post, which is a reaction to the #PDFtribute surge after Aaron Swartz's suicide, presents options for making articles Open as a 10-point hierarchy.

13 January 2013 post by Martin Paul Eve on the beginnings of a possible PLOS for Humanities and Social Sciences

Coherent and thoroughly argued piece, with some telling and informative calculations in paragraph 7, and an interesting suggestion that APC fee-capping be introduced.

Blog post by OKN Fellow Ross Mounce in whiich he provides a plot of APCs against Openness of various GoldOA article options.