- Jan 2019
-
www.alyssaarbuckle.com www.alyssaarbuckle.com
-
scholarsworking within China are highly encouraged to publish in journals that are indexed by standardservices like theArtsandHumanitiesCitationIndex. This removes any incentive to provide dataand publish within digital humanities projects whose output is not part of a standard recognizedindex. Database projects are not well suited to indexing services, because the metadata used byan index to determine frequency of publication and to quantify the output of the project are diffi-cult to measure in a constantly active database. Despite this limitation we have begun to archiveindividual entries from the project within UBC Library’s Open Collections service so that we canestablish a record of published entries with DOIs. This anecdotal evidence suggests that what wemight assume is a natural pull towards digital humanities publications as an indication of new andexitingmethodologiesmightbeabsentincertainacademiccontextsaroundtheglobe. Thisislikelyto change rapidly and we should be ready for any potential interest in our project despite its lack ofbelonging to an index. At the same time our attempts to publish within an open platform and issueDOIs are also a potential way to approach an indexing service and provide them with a historicalrecord of regular publication and proof of editorial oversight. An added benefit of archiving andpublishing with the UBC Library system is that it also serves as a data preservation method for ourproject,allthePDFsarestoredonUBC’sOpenCollectionsserviceandareopen-accessdocumentsthat the library has committed to hosting for the long future.
issues in uptake for non-traditional publishing in the Humanities; compensating values offered through library publishing & preservation platforms
-
situated understandings of aboutness and local accountability.
in national infrastructure this favoured approach can't be achieved without meaningful, ongoing participation of regions and communities.
-
Understanding & Enacting OpenScholarship
Updated package Jan 10
-
-
www.alyssaarbuckle.com www.alyssaarbuckle.com
-
Understanding & Enacting OpenScholarship
early package, missing contents
-
Altmetric.com
Why Altmetric vs. ImpactStory? Description
-
esults are very dependent on the use of similarity measures based on probabilistic algorithms and a reliance on external Web services. Nevertheless, our work aims to build on Bush’s vision bycreating tools to emphasize the connections between documents that can be treated as objects of study as well.
If I understand properly, the project outcome differs from an embedded PlumPrint or Altmetric widget at the item level in the IR in that social media mentions are used algorithmically to re-rank search results from the IR.
-
the development of more creative publishing tools and platforms all bode well for a future academic publishing system with interests shifted from prestige and profit for the few to access and relevance for the many
To this end, important to distinguish 'freemium" and open-washing strategies of for-profit publishers from those projects that align with the principles of the Budapest Open Access Initiative and that may be truly transformative.
-
as long as privilege, systemic bias, and harassment are acknowledged
Engagement through social media should also consider implications of commercial ownership of commonly used social media platforms, including ownership and stewardship of contributed content, portability of contributed content, privacy, long term access/preservation...
-
initiatives like the massive, online, community-produced encyclopedia Wikipedia. This state of interaction is a significant departure from previous assumptions about the university’s purported monopoly on knowledge creation.
Worth noting that Wikipedia's role as social knowledge product is significant, but role in knowledge creation is constrained by the mandate to write encyclopedically. Wikipedia seeks to rely on authoritative published secondary sources, so depends on scholarship, and IME regards submissions that appear too "primary" as problematic. Wikipedia may disrupt the academic monopoly, but in particular ways, and is itself highly regulated.
-
It is up to those working in academia to explore these prospective collaborations in a way that fairly reflects and encourages the active engagement of the many forces and figures involved in knowledge creation, dissemination, and sharing.
The notion of accountability is also important in this discussion, in relation to community collaborators/partners/subjects in research, and to funders, who are often the broader tax-paying "us". Performing a public good may be better conceived as reciprocity than benevolence or noblesse oblige. Conceptualizing pubic engagement in terms of collaboration without reference to public good seems insensitive to the potential for extractive practice.
-
Networked technologies have the potential to facilitate more engaging, democratic interaction and scholarship—but that does not mean that they automatically will.
Yes, and networked technologies are not neutral to the content they carry. How the platform is made, controlled, offered, does influence what content, ideas may be welcome, find a place.
-
Wikipedia edit-a-thon
In relation to the funding discussion that follows, this event would have been a candidate for funding through the Wikipedia Art+Feminism project: Description
-
GIS for research that relates to occupancy mapping and traditional land use in indigenous communities.
Complex issues when it comes to publication. Consent is ongoing, a process. Implications of publication if consent is later withdrawn.
-
In doing so, it encourages discussion across a number ofcommunities, around scholarly practices, the publishing ecosystem, and barriers to access
Yes. Also promotes resourceful use of open or free tools to maximize and extend value of the licensed portal resources.
-
If funding is no longer available tocontinue to offer OER grants to SFU faculty, what other strategies could be explored to supportand incentivize adoptions of open, affordable and accessible teaching and learning materials oncampus in future?
The outcome of an "open" product might be considered among criteria for ANY internal grants and supported leaves - in other words, make the expectation mainstream or at least create the conditions to value this work in as a matter of regular business.
-
introduction of an OA policy, the rate of deposit in the institutional repository (Summit)has more than doubled
Interesting. Without benefit of OA policy, at mpow we had dramatic increase through targeted outreach and facilitation.
-
potential barriers for authors
IK/TK, proprietary or sensitive info, other?
-
Sustainability of the journal is a concern, since the continuation of the journal is dependent on the course instructor choosing to run the project again in future courses. This is particularly true for Model 2, where setting up and designing the journal forms the foundation for the course, making it challenging to sustain the journal in future terms. T
In some cases maybe potential to promote sustainability/continuity by bringing other faculty into the project. Possible to incentivize through release? This might result in a journal that is more program- or discipline- than course-based.
-
Staffing for the institutional repositorywas also reviewed in order to support mediated deposit, ensuring that articles met requiredpublisher policies and managing any required fulltext embargos.
Yes. Mediation essential to build uptake, but also to support standard metadata > reliable discovery, long term stewardship.
-