Hi Andy. Thanks for the feedback on my paper. For your metric suggestion, I added a footnote: “Normalized metrics will be needed once more US criminology units are adding more outputs to URs.” For your copyright section suggestion, I thought a lot about how to address it. The reason I detail copyright is you need knowledge of it to understand open access, why it’s needed, how to make it work, etc. For example, a lot of criminologists illegally post their versions-of-record because, I think, they don’t know copyright. This illegal access is arguably better than providing no access, but it’s clearly better to provide legal open access. Yet if criminologists don’t realize they’re committing a crime, they’re less motivated to understand open access and contribute to it. To them, open access doesn’t make sense—they can already freely share the version-of-record on ResearchGate, Academia, or their personal website. They can do so, just not legally. Once authors understand this, open access becomes more important to them; or at least it should. To address your suggestion, therefore, I kept the copyright section as-is, except I added the argument outlined above.