pirater

In the 10th part of her series on how to build a blog, Andrea Wren looks at generating money with advertising

Right. On to business. How do I start turning my new blog Butterflyist.com into something that earns a profit? What I really want from my site is that it becomes my key income. As I said at the outset, I don't want to have to rely on freelancing any more.

Glen Allsopp, my blogging mentor from Viperchill, says there are plenty of ways of making money from your blog, and one of the most common is through advertising. That is, from getting companies who are related to your niche to buy some space, where they can place an advertising banner or a box.

Of course, it's important to have built up your web traffic in order to make your space appeal to advertisers. This is something I learned early on, having contacted a few potential advertisers – by looking at who was advertising on sites in my niche – before Butterflyist had properly got going.

At that point, no one was interested. For instance, one response was: "There is no link juice here unfortunately but please contact me when you are at more of an advanced stage."

However, now the site is receiving a lot more attention, I'm starting to think again about approaching suitable advertisers. Now I see how my site is developing, they can be from sources other than travel companies.

In terms of what to charge, it's worth speaking to bloggers in similar fields to you to find out their rates. The more visitors your site receives, the higher the price you can quote.

Glen says many bloggers earn revenue from sponsored links. This is where advertisers pay the blogger to publish a post in which there is a link to their website. Most bloggers will ensure the audience is aware that the post is sponsored, to keep everything transparent.

There's also affiliate marketing. Here, you place links (into posts or in advertising boxes) which refer readers to sites selling something. The blogger earns a commission on any sales.

You can find merchants (companies wanting to place affiliate links) on sites such as TradeDoubler, and some companies have their own systems set up, such as Amazon Associates.

It is worth pointing out that many people are turned off by affiliate links. Also, they should be based on a genuine endorsement from you. Otherwise, your integrity could come into question.

If your blog is based on what you do, you can use it to sell yourself too. For example, on Butterflyist I've set up a page which has some samples of my travel writing and invites travel editors to commission me.

This isn't strictly the same as "earning online" of course, but it's another way you can make your blog profitable. Will Kemp, a reader who has been following this column, has had some success in this way from his art school blog after only three months.

Will says: "I've managed to earn $1,000 (£640) from my blog, both directly from $400 of product sales and from $600 local events, speaking, and live classes."

Go to BloggingCaseStudy.com, a site Glen has created for more in-depth information on this topic area.

Next time, we'll be looking at product creation as a monetisation strategy.

This column appears fortnightly.

In the 10th part of her series on how to build a blog, Andrea Wren looks at generating money with advertising

Right. On to business. How do I start turning my new blog Butterflyist.com into something that earns a profit? What I really want from my site is that it becomes my key income. As I said at the outset, I don't want to have to rely on freelancing any more.

Glen Allsopp, my blogging mentor from Viperchill, says there are plenty of ways of making money from your blog, and one of the most common is through advertising. That is, from getting companies who are related to your niche to buy some space, where they can place an advertising banner or a box.

Of course, it's important to have built up your web traffic in order to make your space appeal to advertisers. This is something I learned early on, having contacted a few potential advertisers – by looking at who was advertising on sites in my niche – before Butterflyist had properly got going.

At that point, no one was interested. For instance, one response was: "There is no link juice here unfortunately but please contact me when you are at more of an advanced stage."

However, now the site is receiving a lot more attention, I'm starting to think again about approaching suitable advertisers. Now I see how my site is developing, they can be from sources other than travel companies.

In terms of what to charge, it's worth speaking to bloggers in similar fields to you to find out their rates. The more visitors your site receives, the higher the price you can quote.

Glen says many bloggers earn revenue from sponsored links. This is where advertisers pay the blogger to publish a post in which there is a link to their website. Most bloggers will ensure the audience is aware that the post is sponsored, to keep everything transparent.

There's also affiliate marketing. Here, you place links (into posts or in advertising boxes) which refer readers to sites selling something. The blogger earns a commission on any sales.

You can find merchants (companies wanting to place affiliate links) on sites such as TradeDoubler, and some companies have their own systems set up, such as Amazon Associates.

It is worth pointing out that many people are turned off by affiliate links. Also, they should be based on a genuine endorsement from you. Otherwise, your integrity could come into question.

If your blog is based on what you do, you can use it to sell yourself too. For example, on Butterflyist I've set up a page which has some samples of my travel writing and invites travel editors to commission me.

This isn't strictly the same as "earning online" of course, but it's another way you can make your blog profitable. Will Kemp, a reader who has been following this column, has had some success in this way from his art school blog after only three months.

Will says: "I've managed to earn $1,000 (£640) from my blog, both directly from $400 of product sales and from $600 local events, speaking, and live classes."

Go to BloggingCaseStudy.com, a site Glen has created for more in-depth information on this topic area.

Next time, we'll be looking at product creation as a monetisation strategy.

This column appears fortnightly.

Censorship fears are misplaced, tweets from the Middle East will still buzz around the world

When Twitter announced it was giving itself the ability to censor particular tweets or users in certain countries, the immediate reaction among users of the network in the Middle East – as elsewhere – was: #sh*t.

Without overplaying its importance, Twitter has proved to be an invaluable tool for activists, enabling them to find up-to-date, accurate information and news, to publicise and to communicate among themselves, particularly in times of crisis. The hashtag #egypt was the most widely used on the social network in 2011, and a Dubai School of Government survey estimates Egypt had the largest number of active Twitter users in any Arab spring country.

Such is the fear of governments from social networks, particularly Twitter, the service has repeatedly been blocked in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

But Twitter has proved to be among the most activist-friendly of social networks. From delaying a scheduled maintenance during the 2009 protests in Iran to quietly fighting a US court order to disclose private information on a number of its activist users, it is hard to accuse the microblogging platform of being a client of Middle Eastern governments. Fears that the $300m stake Saudi businessman Prince Alwaleed bin Talal took in Twitter would affect its freedom were rapidly cast aside by logic: the stake, at only 3% of the company – hardly qualifies anyone to make extensive policy changes.

Nevertheless, talk of using alternative sites spread on the network after the news broke on Friday. The site identi.ca was mentioned, as was open-source social network Diaspora, with users comparing their merits and disadvantages. The spirit of Jordan-based microblogging platform Watwet, which closed in June 2011, was also briefly touched on before being laid to rest: if censorship is the concern, a website under dictatorial jurisdiction may not be the best idea.

Workarounds that would neutralise the risk of censorship began to circulate rapidly, the simplest being to change, in the user's profile, the country of location to one where tweets would not be blocked. Many users, particularly in the Middle East, do not list their country of origin to protect their identities – a discrepancy noted by social media experts. It explains why estimates of user numbers in Arab spring countries vary wildly.

Others questioned how well Twitter's censorship could work. Social media expert and University of Maryland sociology professor Zeynep Tufekci cited the impossibility of dictatorial regimes fighting Twitter "tweet-by-tweet". The usefulness of Twitter, after all, lies largely in multiple sources and routes of information than individual tweets. Tufekci is supportive of the transparency Twitter's move introduces, by effectively informing users of what has been cancelled rather than the content disappearing with no trace.

It is doubtful that users, in the Middle East or beyond, will leave Twitter. The strength and breadth of its network makes it near impossible to replace or replicate on the short or medium term. Furthermore, it doesn't appear users would be willing to let go of their favourite platform: discussions about a one-day blackout of the network in protest appear lukewarm at best.

Most importantly, though, it doesn't appear it will be necessary, given the softness of Twitter's censorship and its easy circumvention.

As Twitter appears to be willing to fight for its users' freedom of speech, by pledging to report tweets censored or, as it has done before, to challenge court orders, users feel relatively comforted that the network won't sell them out. That trust, particularly for activists, is hard to replace.

Mohamed El Dahshan is an Egyptian activist and blogger

With revelations still emerging from the Leveson inquiry about the cynical behaviour of News International, readers might like to note that the exhibition on the Wapping dispute in 1986-87, when Murdoch sacked the workforce at his newspapers and set out to destroy the print unions, continues at the Bishopsgate Institute, London EC2, until 29 February. The News of the World phone-hacking scandal, which has revealed the dark side of Murdoch's global empire, should be no surprise when you look at the collusion 25 years ago between the Tory government, the police and NI to promote corporate interests over and above workers' rights or responsible journalism. With the ejection of the unions, editors and managers were handed unlimited power and ethical reporting went out of the window. I hope Leveson considers the lessons offered by history during his inquiry. Chris Guiton Crowborough, East Sussex

A New Yorker living in Germany tells of his love for the Guardian, which began in Morocco thanks to the late actor Richard Harris

I fell in love with the Guardian on a holiday long ago in Morocco, where I stayed at the same resort as the late actor Richard Harris. He'd leave his copy by the pool every morning after breakfast for me to filch. Now, as a native New Yorker who has lived in Germany for the past eight years, I have a new perspective – that of a native English-speaking European – that has been largely formed by what I continue to read in the Guardian.

I used to be a loyal New York Times reader but, as my trust in it has waned, the Guardian has continued to produce proper investigative reporting. To me, not only does it thus use its gifts to make the media industry a better place, but the quality and craft behind most of what I read in it also allows me to tell my American friends it's the best news organ in the English language today.

Having recently discovered the Guardian iPad edition, my reading patterns have been transformed – it fits my hectic travelling schedule, and allows me to meander horizontally and vertically through the paper. I'll always read Simon Jenkins, whose well-grounded command of the facts is compulsive, and I maintain my strange addiction to the football coverage – it arms me with a heap of banter usable across the globe!

Tweets don't always flow freely – voice of Arab spring accused of imposing gagging system in some countries

"The Tweets must flow", Twitter declared a year ago, and quickly became an instrument of fast-moving revolution across the Arab world, coordinating mass protests in Egypt and sidestepping the state censorship in Syria. But, the microblogging site conceded that the tweets would not flow evenly in every country.

The company was accused of censorship by many users and threatened with a one-day boycott on Saturday after announcing that it could remove tweets in certain countries which have "different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression".

Twitter insisted that it would not use the gagging system in a blanket fashion, but would apply it on a case-by-case basis, as it happens when governments or organisations complain about individual tweets. But the reassurances were not enough to prevent a torrent of outrage from twitter users and freedom of speech campaigners.

Jeff Jarvis, the media commentator, said the move set the microblogging site onto the "slippery slope of censorship". "I understand why Twitter is doing this – they want to be able to enter more countries and deal with the local laws," he said. "But, as Google learned in China, when you become the agent of the censor, there are problems there."

Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist and dissident, put it more simply, posting: "If Twitter starts censoring, I'll stop tweeting".

In a blog on its website, Twitter argued that the change marked an improvement as previously "the only way we could take account of those countries' limits was to remove content globally".

"Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country – while keeping it available in the rest of the world," the blogpost said, citing the prohibition of pro-Nazi content in France and Germany. The company also said that any user whose tweets were withheld would be notified, and stressed that Twitter's transparency would be maintained by flagging any withheld tweets on an independent website, Chillings Effects, maintained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a group of universities.

The announcement came a day after the first anniversary of the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt, in which Twitter played a prominent role drawing particular criticism from Middle Eastern users. More than half the posts marked with the hashtag #TwitterCensored were in Arabic.

One tweeter from a Gulf Arab state, @abatmeem, parodied the Twitter logo by showing a dead blue bird on its back with feet in the air. "Twitter punctured the silence with its beak, and now it has provoked the tyrants to take revenge," @abatmeem tweeted. "Sorry Twitter bird, you are no longer that bird that could sing all tunes. You have become a parrot that repeats only what is required of it."

Other critical tweets showed the blue bird with a red cross or black strip over its beak. Another Arabic tweeter, @alanoud45 demanded: "How much did they pay you, Twitter?"Twitter insists that the system will only formalise a method it already uses, where tweets are blocked or deleted after full judicial process. Being able to limit tweets to particular countries, rather than blocking them altogether, expands its ability to "let tweets flow".

In theory the system could have been used last year in the UK to block tweets exposing details hidden by superinjunctions about celebrities, or in 2010 when Trafigura used a superinjunction to block the Guardian and BBC from revealing details about a report on activities in Africa. A number of superinjunctions have been abandoned after details leaked on Twitter, to the displeasure of some judges.

Google, Yahoo, eBay and Facebook use similar systems to control what content is shown in which countries.

In China, Google indicates when a search result has been censored. In the same way, blocked tweets will say: "This tweet from [username] is withheld." The blocking can work at the individual tweet or account level.

The US civil liberties website, Demand Progress, opened a petition declaring: "Twitter's importance as an open platform has been demonstrated time and again this year. We need you to keep fighting for and enabling freedom of expression – not rationalize away totalitarianism as a legitimate 'different idea'."

Some bloggers speculated the announcement could have been linked to a $300m (£191m) )investment in Twitter made in December by Saudi prince, Alwaleed Bin Talal, but that was denied by Twitter's counsel, Alex Macgillivray.

Jillian York, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued that the change was inevitable, given Twitter's global presence. "This is censorship. There's no way around that. But alas, Twitter is not above the law," she wrote.

"Just about every company hosting user-generated content has, at one point or another, gotten an order or government request to take down content," York argued. "Google lays out its orders in its transparency report. Other companies are less forthright. In any case, Twitter has two options in the event of a request: Fail to comply, and risk being blocked by the government in question, or comply [read: censor] And if they have 'boots on the ground', so to speak, in the country in question? No choice."

More from Twitter itself:

It will give users the option to define their country as "worldwide", and that "will show all public tweets" (which would include banned ones).

Twitter spokesperson Jodi Olson said: "We want to reach every person on the planet, and to make Twitter available to people everywhere. The distinction is there are countries which Twitter will not operate in as a business."

Twitter's funding model is to sell adverts against users' tweets, and also to let businesses buy "sponsored" tweets and "trends". By setting up businesses in specific countries, it can sell adverts in those countries for local users. But the service still operates in countries where it does not have its own local operation.

Off message

Twitter is not the first internet giant to control the transmission of content in certain countries.

Yahoo Was sued in 2000 by French civil liberties groups over the sale of Nazi memorabilia via its auction facility. Yahoo had blocked the sale but argued that as it is based in California, Yahoo.com was governed by American law. But US courts ruled they had no jurisdiction in France; the French courts could enforce decisions about Yahoo in their territory.

Twitter Until this week, the entire service could be blocked (as happens in China) or tweets and accounts had to be deleted wholesale, across the world. Now the microblogging service Has a system where tweets and accounts can be blocked in particular countries. It will post them on the Chilling Effects website (which records takedown requests). But observers note that it is giving users clues about who and what has been banned – which could make the original discoverable.

Google Is able to ban content by country: in China it would note when a set of search results had been censored (at the government's order). In Germany and France, searches are filtered.

Facebook Can restrict access to content based on who is viewing it: if it's legal in one country but not in another, Facebook can prevent its viewing in the latter.

eBay In 2000 the auction site changed its policy after public pressure so that Nazi goods and memorabilia cannot not be traded.

Social networking site expected to offer a 10% stake, raising up to $10bn and valuing the company at $100bn

Facebook could fire the starting gun on the biggest-ever technology company flotation by filing papers for an initial public offering as early as next week.

Morgan Stanley is close to being picked as the lead underwriter for the social networking firm's stock market listing, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The company is understood to be looking at a valuation of between $75bn and $100bn (£63bn).

Facebook is expected to offer a 10% stake, raising up to $10bn in an exercise which could also make millions in fees for banks and other advisers. The appointment of Morgan Stanley as lead book-runner would be a blow to Goldman Sachs, which was seen as the frontrunner after arranging a $1.5bn private offering of Facebook shares in January last year.

The float would dwarf Google's 2004 listing, which is still the largest American internet stock market float. The search engine giant raised $1.9bn, based on a valuation for the entire company of $23bn.

Expectations of an imminent filing with the US securities and exchange commission, the precursor to any public offering, have been high since Wednesday, when Facebook suspended trading of its shares on the private secondary market.

The California company's law firm, Fenwick & West, said it would not approve transactions until Friday, the end of the week, according to US reports. Suspensions are normal practice before public offerings, to limit insider dealing until all the information about the company is made public.

Fellow executives and union foes run the rule over the DG's tenure, from the licence fee deal to rows over executive pay

Mark Thompson's decision to signal the end of his tenure running the BBC may run the risk of turning him into a lame duck – but the fact remains that once the Olympics are out of the way, his work at the BBC will almost be complete.

The painful "Delivering Quality First" cuts process is nearing its end and Thompson has already overseen the current licence fee settlement. Whoever succeeds him will have to oversee a new charter in 2016 and Thompson will be long gone by then.

Observers are divided about assessing Thompson's achievements since he took over from Greg Dyke following the damning Hutton report in 2004.

Dawn Airey, the former Channel 5 chief executive, argues that Thompson will be looked upon as a man who did a steered the BBC through "difficult circumstances". These include the fallout over incidents such as the controversy over "Sachsgate", when Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand left a lewd message on the answerphone of the Fawlty Towers actor.

It didn't help that Ross, the BBC's star man, was paid a reputed £6m per year over three years and helped political opponents of the BBC argue that the corporation was out of touch with the people who paid the licence fee.

"You can criticise anybody in such a prominent role, and there is huge pressure on him personally and on the BBC," Airey says of Thompson. "The reality is – to have given an organisation of that size stability and that level of income is still fantastic. The iPlayer has been a significant development and the BBC's other achievements in digital space means that he has done a bloody good job."

However, one senior ex-BBC executive, who asked not to be named, told the Guardian that while he thought Thompson had "done a pretty good job all in all" some of his supposed achievements were not necessarily his. "A lot of the things he did were in train before he got the job such as the iPlayer and the move to Salford. Also – should we credit someone who got the licence fee frozen for six years?" said the executive. "Isn't that setting the bar just a little bit low?"

Gerry Morrissey, the general secretary of broadcasting union Bectu, also has some praise for the man he has faced as an old foe over the negotiating table. "I have found him very personable to negotiate with and he knew his stuff. He was also successful in maintaining the BBC's audience share," said Morrissey.

However, he insists that the 54-year-old's director generalship has been a "mixed bag". Morrissey's main gripe was the way Thompson negotiated the latest licence fee settlement — a quickfire negotiation with the Tory culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, that froze the licence fee and forced the BBC to agree a future date in which the corporation would pay for the World Service (which was previously funded by a direct Foreign Office grant). "Thompson did it without consulting anyone and it will be to the detriment of the BBC in years to come," said Morrissey.

The union official conceded that "whoever was going to be director general was going to have to make savings". Morrissey is also critical for Thompson's failure to rein in the salaries of senior managers including his own. "This and his huge £800,000-per-year salary made negotiation with the government over the licence fee much more difficult," he concluded.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

A journalist's murder and jailing of two others is an attempt to silence the media – but it makes me more determined to speak

Including my emotionless "thank you", the phone conversation lasted less than a minute. "The newspaper's owner has decided… Er… not to… renew your contract… I am sorry."

I had already been warned about writing "too much" about two arrested journalists, and my last two articles – one on the prime minister's war on journalists, and the other on the rights of the Kurdish people – were considered controversial. So the conversation was not unexpected.

But then came the readers' uproar on Twitter. Some of my fellow columnists too protested about the political motives behind my firing – while government supporters said: "She deserved it!" .

It took me several days to see the bigger picture. But when I did I realised it was all connected to three lost colleagues: one dead and two imprisoned and a story that started five years ago.

On 19 January 2007 the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was shot dead in broad daylight in front of his office in Istanbul. A man who was just 17 years old at the time of the killing was found guilty of his murder five years later. Yet from day one it was obvious to those who know the history of assassinations in Turkey that this was a political killing.

The murder occurred just two days before I was supposed to meet Hrant to discuss a book he wanted me to write about the Armenian diaspora. Instead, I raced to the scene and found myself standing outside his offices in a pool of his blood.

Afterwards I felt deeply guilty for taking the death threats against him too lightly, making me more determined to write Deep Mountain – the book he asked for. I didn't know it then, but among the 100,000 people who marched at Hrant's funeral, there were also two others eager to dedicate their work to him: my friends and colleagues Nedim Sener and Ahmet Sık.

During the next four years articles in the newspaper Milliyet pointed to the police's negligence in the case, the intelligence service concealing evidence, and the fact government departments knew in advance of a murder plot against Dink.

Yet soon it was the author of these reports, Nedim Sener, who was arrested. The arrest came three months after publishing his book The Red Friday – Who broke Dink's Pen?, which brought together his findings on Dink's case and linked the murderers with the state. Reporter Ahmet Sık, meanwhile, did not even have time to publish his book on the same subject before he was arrested, on the same day – March 3 2011.

Both men have now been in jail for 11 months and are accused of being members of a terrorist organisation that might have killed Dink. This is Ergenekon, a clandestine organisation supposedly consisting of retired generals, journalists and politicians who are said to have planned a string of high profile assassinations to create chaos and lay the ground for a military coup.

The indictment in court said their years of journalistic work were just a cover to hide their real terrorist identity. Open threats from the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, against journalists who continued to cover news about their arrested colleagues led to protests against their arrests gradually fading away before Nedim and Ahmet's first hearing months after they were imprisoned.

But on 27 December, despite fearing arrest, Turkey's brave journalists started tweeting from the trial. The weak evidence made it clear any one of us reporters could also be arrested and accused of terrorism; because all that linked Ahmet, Nedim and the Ergenekon organisation was an infected Word document in their computers, casual phone conversations and interviews that they carried out for their respective books. The indictment was so ridiculous that it caused constant laughter in the court room.

Before their last hearing of 23 January, five years after his murder, there was a verdict in Dink's case. The court refused to acknowledge the obvious links between the murderers and the state, leading to a 30,000-person strong demonstration. Three days later, Nedim, during his defence statement, made it clear he believed he was being kept in prison as part of the attempt to conceal evidence in Dink's case, saying: "Actually it is good that I am still in prison when Hrant's verdict is delivered." Not to mention the government's promotion of all the officers who have alleged ties with the murder.

Ahmet, an expert on paramilitary organisations, had written a book, Army of Imam, exploring how the intelligence service had been infiltrated by the Fethullah Gülen movement – a moderate Islamist network. "As a socialist," he said in his defence statement, "I find it condescending to be accused of being a member of militarist, nationalist terrorist network, Ergenekon." For the fifth time, Ahmet and Nedim will be forced to defend themselves in court as the case continues.

The inquiries for Ergenekon started five years ago, and despite thousands being arrested and imprisoned no verdict has been reached. According to freedom of speech advocates, the Ergenekon case, along with the KCK case – against the civil organisation linked to the armed Kurdish movement PKK – has become a handy tool for the government to harass the opposition.

Both use an infamous anti-terrorism law to get rid of government opponents. And a few days before Hrant's verdict the minister of the interior, Idris Naim Sahin, said: "Terror is a multifaceted phenomenon that includes psychology and art … Sometimes it is on canvas, sometimes in a poem, in daily articles, or even jokes. We know that terrorist cells might include a university chair, an association or a NGO."

Thanks to this mentality, Turkey is now ranked the 148th of 179 in Reporters Without Border's press freedom index – just a bit above Afghanistan and slipping down constantly. More importantly the silent fear among journalists is impossible to put into numbers; consider the 3,500 Kurdish and Turkish politicians, the 500 students and the 100 journalists who are now in jail.

Yesterday the prime minister made a statement saying that arrested journalists are not behind bars because of journalism but for their crimes of sexual harassment or terrorism. As Dink said five ago in his last article, we journalists are "like frightened doves". One killed, two imprisoned, myself unemployed – and as Nedim said in his latest defence statement: "It hurts."

We're expanding our network to cover more scientific fields and are seeking some of the UK's best science bloggers

Just under 17 months ago, the Guardian launched a small network of science blogs. Each blogger – Martin Robbins, Evan Harris, Jon Butterworth, GrrlScientist and Mo Costandi – was given complete freedom to write about whatever they wished, as often as they wished, independent of any oversight (other than legal) from Guardian editors. We hope that, in the intervening time, they've managed to do what I tentatively promised at the time of launch: to entertain, enrage and inform.

Right from the start of this experiment, our intention was to expand the network so that our blogs covered more science subjects and could better reflect the sterling work being done in the farthest reaches of the blogosphere, everywhere from Scientific American and Wired Science to Scientopia, Deep Sea News and Occam's Typewriter.

These blogs and websites (and the associated reader and Twitter conversations that run in parallel with them) have demonstrated an ever-growing thirst for science on the web. As such, we're pleased to announce that the Guardian's science blogs network is easing itself out of experimentation mode and into rapid growth.

Our plan, to start with, is to find some of the best UK-based science bloggers and add them to the network. If you already run a blog or website and think it would fit well into our existing network, let us know by filling in the form below. We particularly want to encourage applications from women bloggers and people who write about subjects that are not already covered in our current mix. We're particularly interested in space, cosmology, palaeontology, Earth science, mathematics, chemistry and genomics, for example.

You might be a practising scientist, a journalist or just a fan of science. We want to hear from you. You may be an experienced blogger or someone who's just started. Either way we'd love to hear from you.

If you read good blogs and think we should consider adding them to our science network, then let us know too in the comments (or contact the blogger in question and ask them to fill out their details in the form below).

Finally, if you're a blogger based outside the UK, then hold your fire for now. We have imminent plans for you, too.

The closing date for submissions is 9am on Monday 13 February. We look forward to hearing your ideas.

We're expanding our network to cover more scientific fields and are seeking some of the UK's best science bloggers

Just under 17 months ago, the Guardian launched a small network of science blogs. Each blogger – Martin Robbins, Evan Harris, Jon Butterworth, GrrlScientist and Mo Costandi – was given complete freedom to write about whatever they wished, as often as they wished, independent of any oversight (other than legal) from Guardian editors. We hope that, in the intervening time, they've managed to do what I tentatively promised at the time of launch: to entertain, enrage and inform.

Right from the start of this experiment, our intention was to expand the network so that our blogs covered more science subjects and could better reflect the sterling work being done in the farthest reaches of the blogosphere, everywhere from Scientific American and Wired Science to Scientopia, Deep Sea News and Occam's Typewriter.

These blogs and websites (and the associated reader and Twitter conversations that run in parallel with them) have demonstrated an ever-growing thirst for science on the web. As such, we're pleased to announce that the Guardian's science blogs network is easing itself out of experimentation mode and into rapid growth.

Our plan, to start with, is to find some of the best UK-based science bloggers and add them to the network. If you already run a blog or website and think it would fit well into our existing network, let us know by filling in the form below. We particularly want to encourage applications from women bloggers and people who write about subjects that are not already covered in our current mix. We're particularly interested in space, cosmology, palaeontology, Earth science, mathematics, chemistry and genomics, for example.

You might be a practising scientist, a journalist or just a fan of science. We want to hear from you. You may be an experienced blogger or someone who's just started. Either way we'd love to hear from you.

If you read good blogs and think we should consider adding them to our science network, then let us know too in the comments (or contact the blogger in question and ask them to fill out their details in the form below).

Finally, if you're a blogger based outside the UK, then hold your fire for now. We have imminent plans for you, too.

The closing date for submissions is 9am on Monday 13 February. We look forward to hearing your ideas.

Helen Boaden and Caroline Thomson have joined leading pack of contenders to replace Mark Thompson

The BBC could have its first female director general by the end of this year following Mark Thompson's departure, according to TV industry and corporation insiders.

Lobbying for the job of BBC director general of the BBC is expected to begin in earnest following MediaGuardian's revelation late on Thursday that Thompson was planning to step down at the end of the year or the beginning of 2013.

Officially the BBC is saying there is no vacancy yet as Thompson has not confirmed a departure date, but potential candidates are understood to be seeking to raise their profiles in preparation for having a tilt at the most important job in British broadcasting and already two women have joined the leading pack of contenders.

The BBC's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, is the second favourite to land the job, according to bookmakers Paddy Power, which put her chances at 2-1 behind the favourite, the BBC director of vision, George Entwistle, whose odds are 7-4.

A second leading female candidate is the BBC's director of news, Helen Boaden, who has odds of 9-2 according to Paddy Power. Boaden has a number of backers in the industry including the former BBC2 controller Jane Root.

Root, who left the BBC for a job with the Discovery network and now runs her own independent production company, Nutopia, has ruled herself out of applying for the post but told MediaGuardian: "Helen is a very strong candidate and I would love to see her get the job." Boaden would not comment when approached by the Guardian.

However there are a range of other potential candidates in the race for the most important job in broadcasting which industry insiders believe is perhaps the most wide-open contest in modern times. By contrast, when the job last became vacant, Thompson was seen as hot favourite, assuming he could be talked into applying.

ITV's director of programmes, Peter Fincham, is also tipped following a successful tenure at the commercial broadcaster. However his chances are said to be hampered by the fact he left the BBC under a cloud, resigning as controller of BBC1 in the wake of the "Crowngate" editing row.

The Channel 4 chief executive, David Abraham, is said by colleagues to have always coveted the post and is thought to be a strong candidate.

The director of BBC North, Peter Salmon, is also regarded highly inside the BBC and may stand an outside chance of getting the job, according to BBC insiders. "He is a born leader, who will bring the staff with him," said a very senior former BBC employee. "I would see him as a more likely candidate that Caroline Thomson, say and he has handled the move to Salford well."

Traditionally the BBC's regulatory body – the trust, formerly known as the Board of Governors – have also looked abroad for candidates, especially from the US. In 1999 when the BBC governors were looking to replace Lord Birt, Michael Lynton, now the chairman and chief executive of Sony Pictures Entertainment, was thought to have made the shortlist. The job eventually went to Greg Dyke.

"I think to really understand the BBC you have to be British," said another senior broadcasting source. However this would not rule out another candidate, Michael Jackson, the former channel 4 chief executive, who has been based in the US in recent years.

One stumbling block, however, is the question of remuneration with the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, making it clear that the BBC will reduce the current director general salary of £671,000 in future. "Will this mean they can get somebody of the calibre they want?" said another senior broadcaster thought to be in possible contention for the role. "Or will it be someone who wants to do the job in spite of the low remuneration?"

The BBC would not be drawn on speculation about the timing of Thompson's announcement and in particular claims from one senior former BBC executive who wondered whether Thompson hand was forced by Patten's announcement earlier this week that he had appointed an international firm of headhunters to produce a "succession plan".

The former executive told the Guardian: "It is likely that his hand was forced a bit by Patten saying that he was engaged in the search for another DG. I think Mark wanted to stay for around two years and that his hand may have been forced a bit by this.

"This is the best sport for governors – choosing director generals – and if you want a change you will want it sooner rather than later. Also, Mark is in place and with these sorts of jobs the person who was there first is the most powerful. In some ways it is an old-fashioned power struggle."

BBC insiders denied that claim, saying that there is no suggestion that Thompson was pushed out. But while many within the organisation are now briefing about Thompson's departure, the BBC's only on-record response is this statement: "Whilst speculation is inevitable, as the BBC chairman has made clear earlier this week this is sensible succession planning and does not signal an immediate vacancy."

Root added she didn't consider herself a candidate. She said: "I would absolutely not want to do it even if approached. It is one of the most difficult jobs in the country and I live in America and I wouldn't even think about it. "

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.

Users of the social network have shared their views on news that Twitter has implemented a system to withhold tweets on a country-by-country basis. Many tweeters have accused the service of censorship and, under the hashtags #twittercensorship and #twitterblackout, are planning to protest by not tweeting on 28 January in a stand against what they see as a threat to freedom of expression and information. Others question the extent to which this system will be used and if this move by Twitter will result in a shift away from the network

@guardianworld It's an affront on a free society & could be a PR disaster for Twitter after it's much praised role in the #Arabspring

— Tyson B. (@globalvybe) January 27, 2012

Dear @Twitter, I've decided to join #TwitterBlackout Protest of new #TwitterCensored policy. I will NOT tweet on Sat, Jan 28.

— luis prieto (@luisprieto) January 27, 2012

Why boycott it just for 1 day If you really think it's wrong, talk about a week or a month & I shall take you seriously #TwitterCensorship

— Hani Arif (@haniarif) January 27, 2012

Twitter's new policy on tweet censorship will make it increasingly difficult to not be seen as a tool of US-foreign policy during unrest.

— Chanders (@Chanders) January 27, 2012

Surprised there's not more outrage about #twittercensorship - although maybe there is and the tweets are being blocked.

— Rory Wilson (@alnya) January 27, 2012

Twitter, why don't you ban porn spammers instead of free thinkers? #TwitterCensorship

— Noemi Shams (@NoemiShams) January 27, 2012

#TwitterCensorship. Dear Twitter, I face so much censorship in Sudan as a journalist, you were my free and safe space. I'm grieving now.

— ريم ايس كريم (@ReemShawkat) January 27, 2012

#twittercensorship At least they have stated that a removed tweet will be prominently displayed as removed (as opposed to simply vanishing).

— Matt Giuca (@mgiuca) January 27, 2012

I wonder how much energy will be expended today debating #TwitterCensored that would otherwise be spent discussing #Syria.— Andy Carvin (@acarvin) January 27, 2012

Share your reaction with @guardianworld

Users of the social network have shared their views on news that Twitter has implemented a system to withhold tweets on a country-by-country basis. Many tweeters have accused the service of censorship and, under the hashtags #twittercensorship and #twitterblackout, are planning to protest by not tweeting on 28 January in a stand against what they see as a threat to freedom of expression and information. Others question the extent to which this system will be used and if this move by Twitter will result in a shift away from the network

@guardianworld It's an affront on a free society & could be a PR disaster for Twitter after it's much praised role in the #Arabspring

— Tyson B. (@globalvybe) January 27, 2012

Dear @Twitter, I've decided to join #TwitterBlackout Protest of new #TwitterCensored policy. I will NOT tweet on Sat, Jan 28.

— luis prieto (@luisprieto) January 27, 2012

Why boycott it just for 1 day If you really think it's wrong, talk about a week or a month & I shall take you seriously #TwitterCensorship

— Hani Arif (@haniarif) January 27, 2012

Twitter's new policy on tweet censorship will make it increasingly difficult to not be seen as a tool of US-foreign policy during unrest.

— Chanders (@Chanders) January 27, 2012

Surprised there's not more outrage about #twittercensorship - although maybe there is and the tweets are being blocked.

— Rory Wilson (@alnya) January 27, 2012

Twitter, why don't you ban porn spammers instead of free thinkers? #TwitterCensorship

— Noemi Shams (@NoemiShams) January 27, 2012

#TwitterCensorship. Dear Twitter, I face so much censorship in Sudan as a journalist, you were my free and safe space. I'm grieving now.

— ريم ايس كريم (@ReemShawkat) January 27, 2012

#twittercensorship At least they have stated that a removed tweet will be prominently displayed as removed (as opposed to simply vanishing).

— Matt Giuca (@mgiuca) January 27, 2012

I wonder how much energy will be expended today debating #TwitterCensored that would otherwise be spent discussing #Syria.— Andy Carvin (@acarvin) January 27, 2012

Share your reaction with @guardianworld

Matthew Anderson, the company's director of strategy and corporate affairs in Europe and Asia, will leave on 31 March

James Murdoch's right-hand man in London, Matthew Anderson, is stepping down from his News Corporation post.

News Corp announced on Friday that Anderson, the company's director of strategy and corporate affairs in Europe and Asia, will leave his post on 31 March.

However, he is not severing ties with News Corp entirely – he will continue to be a senior adviser to the company "focusing on select international initiatives and relevant directorships".

The statement said Anderson will return to San Francisco with his family "and pursue new opportunities".

In the statement Rupert Murdoch, News Corp's chairman and chief executive, described Anderson as a "tenacious and effective executive whose counsel and skills have made a real difference".

James Murdoch, News Corp deputy chief operating officer, said: "Matthew has played a key role in many of our most important projects for more than 10 years. He has ranged across varied and wide terrain, and has been a versatile, resourceful and highly insightful colleague.

"The whole team will miss him greatly. Upon his long-planned return to California with his family we wish him the very best and look forward to the next chapter."

Anderson has been one of James Murdoch's closest advisers and first forged a relationship with him when James was in charge of Star TV, News Corp's Asian pay-TV business, and he ran Ogilvy PR Asia in Hong Kong, back in 2000.

James Murdoch then took him to BSkyB in London in 2005 and again to Wapping after he was put in charge of News Corp Europe and Asia, with responsibilities including the News International newspapers.

It has been reported that James Murdoch planned to take Anderson with him to New York, when he relocates to News Corp's global headquarters.

On Friday GlaxoSmithKline, the UK's largest drug company, announced that James Murdoch was stepping down from its board, a move triggered by his move to New York.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.

Dan Sabbagh is your charming host for this week's Media Talk, which was hastily rewritten in light of news exclusively revealed by MediaGuardian - that Mark Thompson is preparing to step down as director general within the next 12 months.

The DG hasn't yet given a precise timetable for his departure but it seems certain that the corporation's Olympic year will be Thompson's eighth and final one at the helm.

So, who are the runners and riders for the top job in British television? Did Thompson jump or was he pushed? And what sort of BBC will his successor inherit? Maggie Brown joins us down the line to offer her analysis.

Have a listen and let us know what you think of our small but perfectly formed show on the blog below.

News Corp executive to leave corporate responsibility role at GlaxoSmithKline, though UK's largest drug company denies link to phone-hacking scandal

James Murdoch, the media executive at the centre of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, is to quit his seat on the board of GlaxoSmithKline, the UK's largest drug company.

The son of Rupert Murdoch was brought in as a non-executive director and member of the corporate responsibility committee at Glaxo in 2009 but has decided not to seek re-election for the near £100,000-a-year post.

Glaxo insisted there had been no pressure on the media executive to stand down and said the decision had been triggered by Murdoch's decision to relocate to the US.

Sir Chris Gent, the Glaxo chairman, said: "James has taken this decision to focus on his current duties as non-executive chairman of BSkyB, and following his decision to re-locate to the United States, as chairman and chief executive, international, of News Corporation.

"On behalf of the board, I would like to thank James for the very strong contribution he has made since he was appointed in 2009 and wish him well for the future," he added.

The pharmaceutical company said at the height of the phone-hacking scandal last summer that Murdoch was making a "strong contribution" to the firm but added that it would watch investigations into the issue.

Murdoch took charge of News International only after the illegal activity at the now-closed News of the World took place, but he has been accused of either leading a cover-up or not taking adequate action to tackle the problem.

Last week News International paid out financial settlements to halt a string of legal claims after admitting that staff working for the paper had hacked into the private phones of celebrities and others to generate stories.

The Leveson committee is due to publish a report in the next few weeks over the scandal, which could criticise Murdoch for his handling of the matter.

Last year the 39-year-old came under pressure from some investors to step down from the boards of BSkyB and News Corporation but he retained his positions.

Some questioned three years ago why a media man in his 30s who had spent all his working life inside the family firm should be brought on to the board of a pharmaceutical group.

But Gent said at the time that Murdoch had useful experience of global business and marketing: "He will also be an excellent addition to the board's corporate responsibility committee, an area where he has shown particular leadership at BSkyB and News Corporation."

Veteran media executive to join Ofcom and past and present PCC executives in giving views on future of press watchdog

The veteran media and entertainment executive Lord Grade is to give evidence at the Leveson inquiry next week, when it will scrutinise the workings of the Press Complaints Commission.

Grade, whose colourful media career spans six decades and includes stints as a talent agent, US TV producer, chairman of Camelot and Pinewood Studios, as well as senior positions at the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, will appear on Tuesday in his role as a PCC commissioner.

The week will also give the PCC a chance to salvage its reputation, which has taken a mauling since the phonehacking scandal erupted last July.

Politicians – including David Cameron and culture secretary Jeremy Hunt – have called for the PCC to be replaced with a new press regulator with beefed-up powers, a move that is backed by several national newspaper editors. The PCC has also faced sustained criticism at the Leveson inquiry from victims of alleged press harassment.

Six witnesses with current or past connections to the PCC, including Grade, have been lined up for the inquiry, with the body's current director Stephen Abell and his predecessor Tim Toulmin appearing on Monday.

On Tuesday, Grade will be joined by the former PCC chairman and ex-British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer.

But all eyes will be on Lord Hunt, the new chairman of the PCC, who has been waging a behind-the-scenes campaign for reform of the existing body that will win favour with the press, the public, Lord Justice Leveson and the government.

Also appearing is Lord Black, seen as another behind-the-scenes kingmaker, trying to repair relationships between newspaper groups that became fractured in the fall out over the PCC's failure to question News International when it misled the watchdog about the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World.

Black is an executive director of the Telegraph Media Group and a former director of the PCC. He is currently chairman of Press Standards Board of Finance Limited – Pressbof – the committee of newspaper and magazine executives responsible for the PCC's funding and enforcing the editors' code of practice.

During his time as director of the PCC, Black was responsible for strengthening the code in 1999 in the wake of the death of Princess Diana to tackle the issue of what the watchdog's then chairman, Lord Wakeham, called the "cumulative intrusion" into Prince William and Prince Harry's life.

Black will appear on Wednesday along with representatives from three other media industry regulators – Colette Bowe, chairman of broadcast regulator Ofcom, Guy Parker, chief executive of the Advertising Standards Authority and Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

Det var en WS-tät kväll i onsdags när Fred Armisen körde sin första europeiska ståuppföreställning på Strand i Stockholm. Martin Degrell fick komma upp på scenen som snuttefilt (Armisens ord) när det var Q&A, och både Per Perstrand och jag själv tog vårt ansvar och ställde frågor. (Per: Fråga om hans faktiska arbete. Jag: Fråga om ställen han gillar i Portland.)

Det gick förstås inte att låta bli att fnissa lite åt hipstertätheten i publiken. Eller åt att Armisen uppträdde på Strand, så när han sa att hans favoritfigur i Portlandia var föreståndaren för den feministiska bokhandeln och frågade om vi hade några såna i Stockholm kunde vi svara att ja, Hallongrottan ligger precis runt hörnet.

Överlag var det ganska mycket Stockholms- och Sverigefokus. Armisen charmade publiken med att dra lite svenska glosor, och prata om hur mycket han älskar Sverige och Stockholm, och som alltid är det lite svårt att avgöra hur uppriktigt menat det är. Ganska? Tror jag? Dock var det roligt att klassikern »Ni är så snygga här« följdes upp med den logiska följdfrågan »Ser vi andra ut som monster när ni reser utomlands?«.

Charmigt var kanske också ledordet. Ganska snäll observationshumor om hotellmusik och olika gitarrist- och trummisstilar, bilder på Armisen som barn och tonåring och när han första gången träffade Carrie Brownstein. Inga elakheter, inte särskilt vasst. Och först var jag lite besviken, jag tänkte att jag hade väntat mig lite mer edge, lite mer gapflabb och lite mer syra. Men sen insåg jag att det egentligen är helt i linje med Portlandia – som är oerhört kärleksfullt gjord. Den är inte hipsterhånande för hipsterhatare, den är hipsterhånande för hipsters. Lite självmedveten och koketterande men oerhört ömsint.

Vad det egentligen var, är den där snubben man känner som är sjukt rolig men som inte behöver ta plats hela tiden, inte stå i centrum och skämta jämt. Alla småroliga saker han säger under ett år fast ihopklämt på en dryg timme. På gott och ont.

Publishers have made more scientific research available to more readers at a lower unit cost than ever before

Writing in these pages last week, Dr Mike Taylor used strong language to support his assertion that academic publishers have "drifted out of alignment" with science – language that demands a response.

I won't comment on the multiple references to one significant publisher – which is just one of 2,000 active scholarly publishers, most of them learned societies – but it is unfair and wrong to characterise a progressive industry in these terms. These publishers are not anti-science, anti-publication, pouring scorn on new entrants to the industry, exploiting people with preventable diseases (are you serious?) or doing almost nothing to earn their "obscene profits".

They are offended to be branded "enemies of science" who are sending it "back into walled gardens", when the reality is that their investments have made more research available to more readers at a lower unit cost than ever before. Publishers are human too, and our successful industry, of which the UK is the epicentre, employs large numbers of dedicated staff, many of them scientists, working for the dissemination of science worldwide.

The scholarly world is not yet fully open access, nor even approaching it, but that is not the fault of the publishers. We are not philanthropists, charities or funding agencies. We need a flow of accessible funds through the scholarly communication system to finance what we do. Hitherto these funds have flowed through academic library budgets, the "old" subscription model, which Dr Taylor describes as "a useful service in pre-internet days". In future they will likely flow from research funding agencies (and a few charities and foundations) looking to enable open access.

This is entirely in their gift. As the Wellcome Trust has shown with its pioneering publication policy, supported by economic studies into the cost-benefits of the various publication models, such a policy would consume 1.25% of the overall cost of its grants.

Publishers are certainly not opposed to open access. As Dr Taylor points out, PLoS ONE, in volume terms at least, has been successful, and its "review-lite" style has since been much emulated and extended into other communities. Dr Taylor offers no practical sustainable alternative other than his reference to PLoS ONE, yet a more systematic survey of the landscape of publishing would reveal a host of experiments and alternatives looking to exploit the potential of internet technology.

Publishers pursue the goal of universal access through whatever means are practically available. We are not conspirators looking to "cripple" the progress of science. Open access is being driven by market forces just as much as it is by funder mandates. It is widely acknowledged that there is not an access problem for researchers based in universities, research institutes or the corporate sector. We are actively working in the UK with other stakeholders, including funders, to extend access to global research into other sectors as well, such as smaller enterprises, perhaps through public libraries.

Public funds have not paid for the peer-reviewed articles that are based on research supported by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). They have only paid for the research itself and whatever reports the researchers are required to submit to the agency. The journal article based on the research has been the subject of significant extra investment that must somehow be recovered if scholarly communication as we know it is to survive. That, to use Dr Taylor's words, is a wholly reasonable policy.

What of the US Research Works Act, the catalyst for Dr Taylor's tirade? The RWA, if it makes it through Congress to become law, would prevent US agencies from appropriating published articles for "network dissemination" without the prior consent of the publisher. It would also prevent the agencies from requiring authors to do so.

The case study for network dissemination is PubMed Central, a digital archive that predates the current NIH mandate to deposit final peer-reviewed manuscripts into the archive, and which was actually routinely populated by publisher deposits before the mandate was imposed on them.

It is not PubMed Central that publishers object to, but many do object to a mandate that appropriates their material without compensation. A better strategy would be to support the "gold" open access publication model, as favoured by the Wellcome Trust. This puts funds into the system, makes the "version of record" set up by the publisher (the full-functionality final published version set up with all the linkages in place) available via the web, and respects the need for a professional standard of publication as the final output of public investment in science.

The RWA has attracted much aggressive criticism, not all of it valid, but at heart it is a plea to government agencies to work sustainably with a successful industry and not to undermine us unfairly. To say that we are anti-science is unworthy and faintly ridiculous. Science needs a sustainable, adequately funded means to communicate and preserve its outputs.

Our UK science minister David Willetts, in his Innovation and Research Strategy published in December, has set out a commitment to open access, but in a way that ensures peer review and supports scholarly publishing. He acknowledges that publication needs to be paid for somehow, and not by appropriation. The industry recognises this direction of travel and is working towards it.

Worldwide, around 3m research papers are submitted every year to scholarly journals – rising by around 3% per year in line with research budgets – of which around 1.5m are eventually published, including over 120,000 from UK researchers. Such journals are on the whole by their very nature tailored and adapted to the needs and interests of specific research communities. This is a complex and nuanced system that needs time to adapt to new methodologies.

Dr Taylor's assumption that this can somehow all be routinely accommodated on a "service" basis is to misunderstand the nature of publishing. Publishers invest at their own risk and quality standards are essential to manage that risk. We need a market to organise such a high volume of transactions. Take that away and we would be left with a Stalinist nightmare.

Moving from the "old" system to a system whereby all science is available on open access, while maintaining the quality of the output and sustaining a service for those 3m submissions, is a far from trivial undertaking. The journey is under way, but the transition will take time.

Given that the cost of publication should be around 1% of the overall cost of science, surely it is not beyond the wit of the parties involved to evolve a strategy that supports the needs of all necessary actors for the benefit of the future of science, without degenerating into public adversarial rants. In the UK at least – and I know off-stage in the US as well – such sanity continues to work patiently for sustainable, forward-looking solutions, and that is where my colleagues and I intend to apply our energies.

Graham Taylor is director of academic, educational and professional publishing at the UK Publishers Association