251 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2023
    1. he symbiosis of fast scienceand industry has privileged disembedded knowledgeand disembedding strategies abstracted from the messycomplications of this world. But in ignoring messiness,and dreaming of its eradication, we discover that wehave messed up our world. So I would characterise slowscience as the demanding operation that would reclaimthe art of dealing with, and learning from, what sci-entists too often consider messy, that is, what escapesgeneral, so-called objective, categories.

      This is a good summary

    2. This may be the challenge that slow science shouldanswer, enabling scientists to accept that what is messyis not defective but simply that which we have to learnto live in and think with.

      Messiness instead of slow/fast binary, also see Angela McRobbie's work on the messiness of CS

    3. he eggs leavetheir native environmen

      I am getting a bit sick of this eggs mataphor, it makes no sense to me...

    4. She insists that her only loyalty is, and must be, tothe advancement of knowledge, and thus, as Whiteheadwrote, she is entitled to treat the remainder ‘superfi-cially, with the imperfect categories of thought derivedfrom [her] profession’.

      Ah so the distinction is between thought for thought's sake and slowing that down vs more socially engaged science

    5. hose academics who justask for time to think – who do not name those puttingpressure on them, preferring to address ‘society’ andask for protection – do not feel there is an option at all.They just dream of a past where they, and the so-calleddisinterested knowledge they produced, were respected.The ‘exposing oneself to sniggers’ option requires usto accept that we academics are, among many others,called upon by our role in the creation of the future.We cannot evade that call by pleading that we do notdeserve to play such a role.

      Hmm I haven't read the previous chapter but I am not sure about the reasoning here, I think having time to unconditionally think and asking for that is not incompativle with creating a different future?

    6. My intervention takes ‘slow science’ as a name for thechallenge that is addressed to us as academics. A namewhich also includes a trap we have to resist; namely, thecall for an agreement to go ‘back to the past’

      Not regressive

    7. We now have to tell our studentsto choose subjects that will lead to fast publication inhigh-ranking journals specialising in professionally rec-ognised issues – issues which, in general, are of interestto nobody except other fast-publishing colleagues.

      The issue of speed is quite interesting in relation to how this is increasingly monetised in academic publishing, less about being able to publish, more about doing so quickly or quicker...

  2. Oct 2023
    1. Open Book Publishers does not engage in this kind of practice: it neitherpublishes a printed catalogue nor sends its representatives to book fairsthroughout the world, having a strict no flight policy. Most publishershave not engaged in such low-energy practices; in these cases, additionallayers have to be added to the calculation.

      Although of course laudable, many commercial publishers are already making the argument that due to their scale they can be much more environmentally friendly on these kind of aspects, so I think there is a reason to remain cautious about these kinds of arguments.

    2. Much of the impact related to the production of this book has todo not so much with the production itself, but with the next step: itsdissemination to an audience


    3. it would have been much easier to explain thecomplexity of the di ̇erent layers of representation involved in digitalapproaches to text with the help of a few illustrations.

      I think there is a bit of an issue though here in more or less arguing for these kinds of measures on an individual level (which in principle is fair enough) but then not also outlining the more macro levels of environmental impact in the larger publishing industry. There really is a staggering scale difference there and more importantly perhaps, the commercial publishers buy into these narratives too as part of their greenwashing strategies.

    4. When it comesto environmental questions, my training has been much less systematic— this chapter bears obvious marks of this di ̇erence in training quality,especially in the references that frame it.

      To be fair, yes, but with the caveat added underneath.

    5. This approach was greatly facilitated by the publishing house, OpenBook Publishers, who contributed essential information to the followingpages.2

      Amazing, but I would have very much like to see a comparison with commercial publishers too, but maybe that is still to come. A great example though of how scholar-led publishers always pave the way in these contexts.

    6. While sharedinfrastructures o ̇er the best guarantee for sustainable preservation, theyshould ideally rely more on distributed community-based needs andsolutions, and not unilateral benefit resulting from top-down instructions.


    7. Duplicationmeans that datasets are being archived in at least two di ̇erent locationsthat mirror one another. If one of the locations ceases to work, or burnsdown, or if its hard drive content gets erased or crashes, the other iterationcan provide backup. Relying on one single copy of digital files is a riskybusiness. But the environmental cost of multiplying by two — if noteven by three for a backup of the backup, as is often done — comesdown to asking the canon question anew

      This is what I am interested in in relation to P2P file sharing. Also in relation to LOCKSS and CLOCKSS

    8. This would mean thatarchives, libraries, publishers, and scholars all somehow work with asimilar, standardised, economical workflow.25

      The issue is also whose workflow...

    9. mentation of this standardised, stable, economic way to provide textualand meta-textual information can also be standardised in terms of theworkflows it is integrated into.

      Standardisation vs diversity is an intereting topic to look into more from an environmental impact perspective. Might not be that straightforward.

    10. n others, we will have to make choices. Itwill not be possible to archive everything (not that it was possible before,but digitisation might have given the illusion that it did), and it willnot be possible to archive in as inflationary a manner as we have doneover the past decades.

      I think this is a very important argument to make: the issue of overproduction in academic publishing and our tendency to want to preserve everything needs questioning.

    11. Reducing the time dedicated to an impactfulproductive output has an added advantage of making more time avail-able for activities like gardening, barter, craft, and other socio-culturalactivities that can be recentred at a more local level, and contribute tolowering overall impact.

      Hmmm, yeah... or for more excessive consumption...

    12. For archivists, librarians, publishers, and editors toconceive their activity in such a way that it does as little natural harmas possible, for the largest possible cultural good, it means paying closeattention to at least three elements: natural resources, human activity,and energy consumption.

      And greed? (might fall under human activity...)

    13. Borrowing a book from a friend or alibrary, or sharing a downloaded digital resource locally are all gesturesof reuse that minimise the individual environmental cost for using theconcerned item. The production, use, and end-of-life impact can be splitamong all those who benefit from it, and the part each individual has toaccount for is reduced

      Would be interesting to look into the environmental aspects of shadow libraries, not sure any research has been done on this?

    14. It adds an-other source of pollution to the whole process, and questions yet anothertraditional academic habit.17
    15. On the one hand,someone who has studied extensively comes at a high societal cost sincethey received an education over a lengthy period; however, because theystudied for a long time, one could assume that they will be more eÿcientat working once they have completed their studies than someone whohas not received as much training.

      Again, I think this study suffers a bit from not working with (for me) clear parameters.

    16. This means having to produce more e-readers, and more access to virtualstorage that will be solicited by more people

      Is this not forgetting the myriad other things that are done on top of digital text that would need to be discussed here? For example all the data mining of the publishing surveillance industry? Isn't the digital file itself, its production and storage, the mere basic beginning of all of this?

    17. The technologies I had been using relied on the idea that it wasperfectly sensible to use resources (in some respects, a lot of them) inorder to make what I considered a better text available. In a way, myuse of digital solutions led me to push the boundaries, perhaps even toignore to some extent the unavoidable tension of having to make choices,of having to define limits to preservation, of accepting that resources,room, and time are finite.

      This I think is a better argument, and ties in with calls for minimal computing

    18. In the bigger picture, it leads or will eventually lead to restrictionson their side — electricity shortages, degradation of infrastructures, andmore

      I find this quite a strange argument, it is quite a correlation to make and there is far from a clear cause and effect here. I get the point the author is making but I don't find this argument very convincing, when we move out to the bigger picture the general energy consumption of 'more resourced' countries also needs to be taken into consideration.

  3. Apr 2023
    1. Tal vez la pista para perseguir la traza de esa sabiduría es acaso la tendencia. ¿Hacia dónde tiende, hacia dónde va la búsqueda, la insistencia de la vida en las plantas? ¿Cómo se comportan interpretando su entorno para poder crecer y vivir?


  4. Jan 2023
    1. 1. I would like to thank Ned Rossiter, David Berry, Patriciade Vries, Nadine Roestenburg, Niels ten Oever, ChloëArkenbout and Sabine Niederer for their valuable edits andcomments

      Where do these references refer to? There are no reference numbers in the text or is that me? Very odd...

    2. This makes it all the morenecessary to draw up road maps with concrete stepson how the internet can be reclaimed.

      I am confused as above he seems to indicate this is futile...

    3. Extinction Internet is about degrowth, putting an end todata extraction and, yes, about moments when screensfall black and doomscrolling comes to an abrupt halt.

      This all flirts too much with accellerationism for me... Not surprising as his influences are Baudrillard and D&G...

    4. we have already ran out of time to do fundamentalresearch but the least we can do is facilitate artists—and listen carefully to their cosmotechnic ‘cli-fi’imagination.

      Not quite sure why these options are presented as opposed though?

    5. Bernard Stiegler.

      This is an incredibly old white male referencing text up to now... quite odd for a professorial I have to say...

    6. the dark states of the young minds, gluedto their devices.

      This sounds way too 'granddad' too me, as if only young minds are glued to their devices...

    7. the fatigue that we feel in

      Is this not also the newness of it and the proliferation of meetings that came with the move to online (socio-cultural causes)? I get tired from reading books too and my eyes prefer the screen (I read a study that many people with bad eyesight prefer the backlighting a screen provides to print).

    8. In my reading of The ThirdUnconscious, media technologies have entered thebody in such a way that the body and soul can nolonger be separated from the semiotic infosphere.

      As I see it they have never been separate...

    9. The human mind has reached a stateof saturation.

      I think every generation feels that though...

    10. First diagnosis, then restorative care.

      This is quite neat

  5. Dec 2022
    1. Deception techniques I: Anti-bot honeypots

      We could have used this for the ACS conference in Shanghai, becuase of the political nature of the event we could only publish the programme a day in advance as otherwise the conference would have been censored etc.

    2. aucuses provide spaces for people towork within their own racial/ethnic groups.

      It might be me but this sounds highly problematic... as it would involve sorting people into racial/ethnic groups in one way or another. I get the intention behind it but it sounds very problematic...

    3. https://planplanner.com/de/events/internet-tourFrontality

      What is meant with frontality?

  6. Oct 2022
    1. Otherwise put, the role of artworks is no longer to form imagi-nary and utopian realities, but to actually be ways of living and modelsof action within the existing real, whatever the scale chosen by the art-ist.” 80


    2. Amazon bought the Amazon Noir software, and the twoparties settled out of court with a nondisclosure agreement.

      I did not know this! How much did they get!

    3. tactical giz-mology

      Did she explain what this is? I might have missed that...

    4. “Tactical Media are what happens when cheap ‘do it yourself ’ mediamade possible by the revolution in consumer electronics are exploitedby those who are outside of the normal hierarchies of power and knowl-edge.”

      Ah! This is informative and resolves my media question

    5. It istherefore not simply critical license that allows me to see beyond theera of tactical gizmology and to discover a range of new media art prac-

      I wonder if she is not just also sidestepping the difference between art and research and art and advocacy/politics? Of course they can all overlap, but maybe these are more tactical art projects than media projects? Not sure why the focus is on 'media' really

    6. but they do recast it such that “us” and “them” are nolonger permanently situated.

      Interesting... not sure what that means in practice though?

    7. no proffered fantasies of radical systemic change: it exists as apossibility within the realm of the imagination—another technology ofsimulation—but it requires collective action, a “ton of protesters.”

      How does this differ from things such as Scholarled and ROAC, COPIM? They don't envision radical systemic change either really, just alternative parallel options. Yet they are more than just tactical interventions? Or is that just a matter of perspective?

    8. A charming but dated and even fu-tile endeavor, perhaps, hopelessly removed from the real politics and ac-tivities of social transformation? Irredeemably caught up in the kind ofirony that disguises a co- optation by the very system with which oneputatively interacts anew? In what terms can we speak of the efficacy ofcybersquatting?

      This is the main question in my opinion: revealing or creating alternatives?

    9. to provoke and to reveal, to defamiliarize andto critique.

      Does this still work in the age of fake news, in a period where still 50% or something of the US voters think Trump was actually elected? Is the 'revelation' still the same now as it was in the noughties or is it simply visualising something that everyone already knows?

    10. on-the-fly critical intervention: statements, performances, and actions thatmust continually be altered in response to their object, “constantly re-configured to meet social demands.” 9

      This seems incredibly time-consuming, what about slow interventions? Does the tactical aspect include a form of temporality?

    11. the temporary creation of a situation in whichsigns, messages, and narratives are set into play and critical thinkingbecomes possible. Tactical media operates in the field of the symbolic,the site of power in the postindustrial society.

      What media do not operate in the field of the symbolic?

    12. disruption

      Ah damn...

    13. disturbance

      Centre for disturbance media would have been so much cooler...

    14. My study will not collapse the material distinctions among thesedifferent media projects, but it will articulate them all as instances oftactical media. This is to say that they are all forms of critical interven-tion, dissent, and resistance.

      Tactical media: critical intervention, dissent, and resistance. In what way are our publishing projects tactical media?

    15. persuasive games

      Didn't know this, way cooler than 'serious games'

    16. new media artist-activists

      What would be a current term to use for this kind of activism? New media is very noughties...

    17. Josh On and Futurefarmers’ They Rule (2001/2004) affords us an ex-ample of a new media work that is at once aesthetic design, intellectualinvestigation, and political activism. 1 A work of tactical cartography,They Rule affords users the ability to visualize the myriad and intricateconnections among Fortune 100 corporations and directors. Users canchoose from a list of institutions, people, and companies and build theirown maps from the data the artists have compiled from SEC filings andpublic Web sites. Or they can view the archived maps that powerfullydocument the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of “the tenrichest people” and “the magnificent seven.”

      Would be interesting to do something similar around the big 5 publishers....

  7. Sep 2022
  8. May 2022
    1. urveillance publishing?

      I am wondering whether I have missed the clear connection between surveillance publishing and predictive analytics.

    2. This article lingers on a prediction too: Clarivate’s business model is coming forscholarly publishing.

      Is this a prediction? They are in the business of scholarly publishing?

  9. Mar 2022
    1. Asan act of resistance to the centralization ofdata, I refuse to include the DOI number inthis citation. A copy of “Excellence R Us”has been inscribed on a cuneiform tabletand has been moved to an undisclosedlocation in case of emerge

      This is quite funny :)

    1. To quote one of the researchers in the study, “whilethey [Thomson Reuters] agreed to essentially all the key points we made, they didnot want to change anything that would collapse journal rankings, as they see thisas their key business asset” (Bohannon 2016)

      This is very similar to critique of the REF, everyone knows it is flawed but then the investments are too high to abandon it now, and the alternatives maybe even worse so we get stuck with these systems as examples of infrastructural failings and inertia.

    2. I have previously argued that by invoking the status of the impact factor without itssubstance, such organizations reveal the journal impact factor for precisely what it is:a fetishized and vacuous number (Bell 2015

      Interesting to classify it is a fetish!

    3. If it includes a set ofjournals that cite each other, those journals and those scholars by definition become‘significant.’ If it excludes a community of journals and scholars, they thereby remaininsignificant.” In essence, inclusion in the index actively produces the impact it claimsto measure.

      The IF is performative and inherently conservative, which is exactly what academia wants.

    4. which only the journals it indexes can achieve.In effect, WoS operates as a Möbius strip, with no orienting point beyond itsel

      It sustains and continuously reinforces itself

  10. Feb 2022
    1. A greatdeal of hope exists concerning the attitudes and habits of researchers, giventhe long tradition of connecting science and society through science shopsin the Netherlands.

      I am still not sure what 'science shops' are? Definitely not familiar with a long tradition of them in NL!

    2. The conference envisaged a renewal in three areas:– Differentiation of career pathways: Universities and University Medical Cen-tres want to provide academic staff with a choice for specific focus areas –teaching, research, knowledge transfer and/or leadership.– Renewal of research assessment methodologies: New approaches to evalu-ating research quality and impact are emerging. The promotion of open sci-ence is integral to this development.– Team science: Alongside recognition and reward for individual accomplish-ments, there is a push to award the collaborative efforts and accomplish-ments of teams with the consideration that they deserve.

      I remain very sceptical of this approach, also given the way Dutch funders and science ministers have been big fans of the UK system and the REF. This reads too much like a REF-like system to me in the end. The Team efforts aspects are interesting though, and moves away a bit from a liberal humanist authorship model.

    3. The major Dutch research funder, NWO,6 is going toimplement a policy of evaluating research based on the quality of publishedarticles, not on where these are published. The number of articles published isalso less relevant than the importance of the individual articles

      Also see what they are doing at Utrecht University around this

    4. On the one hand, most of the governments inLatin American countries invest resources, directly or indirectly, in creatingand improving peer reviewed journals, according to internationally recognisedquality standards. But, on the other, these publications fail to receive recogni-tion of being as valuable as mainstream journals in the research evaluationsystem. This is illustrated in the case of disciplines such as natural sciences ormedicine, where national policies of evaluation of research explicitly requireauthors to publish in journals indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI). LatinAmerican journals continue to be underrepresented in these domains.

      I wonder if the same people are involved in both though, i.e. could it be that academics and universities support local journals, where funders and governments promote international metrics?

    5. Most of the journals’ editors-in-chief and editorial board members are facultymembers of universities who do the editorial work ad honorem

      This is still my preferred OA model

    6. In this environment, a Francophone African platform of open access jour-nals has just been created. The Grenier des savoirs3 is a platform that bringstogether 15 mult

      This is such an excellent project

    7. The idea that service to the community should be included as a criterion forpromotion of academics could be a starting point for the creation of an effec-tive knowledge democracy in this part of the world.

      Unfortunately 'service to the community' seems to have been translated into impact in the global north

    8. This document clearly outlines the importance of publishingin “international” journals or “outside the applicant’s university and country ofpractice”, but does not explicitly mention the impact factor of these journals.

      I wonder if language plays a role here too, i.e. preference for english language journals

    1. o do so, he suggests academics need to document the failures of market-based reforms, show the public their inadequacies, form alliances to debate, refashion,abandon or derail market policies, and come up with new collective imaginaries for thefuture for HE.

      Alternatives to metrics instead of no metrics? Or indeed new imaginaries for the future of HE that are not market-based?

    2. Forms of resistance may be possible, such as refusal at departmental or faculty level toengage with data analytics demands or institutional dashboard rollout.

      This is really hard to do though

    3. The competition aim is to buildsoftware platforms ‘to ensure prospective students have access to data about theoutcomes of subjects and Higher Education providers’ in order ‘to help them makeinformed decisions about where and what to study’

      I wonder if there is any option here for students as 'clients' to opt out of data being gathered about/around them

    4. The software platforms produced to enact Data Futures will encode governmentobjectives into the core operating system of HE.

      very scary

    5. comparative, and predictive data, using ‘lead indicators’, ‘reportable events’, ‘earlywarning systems’ and other ‘intelligence’ for ‘close-to-real-time’ performancemonitoring.

      Missing bit here, but next to ranking and 'student choice' the focus indeed seems to be on monitoring the sector

    6. Data Futures is due for national rollout to all UK HE institutions in2019–2020, requiring universities to carry out ‘in-year’ reporting of student data usinga bespoke data platform

      What kind of data are they really collecting then? I am not sure this is clear enough to me. Performance data? So marks and jobs after the degree period?

    7. data are being ‘made’ toperform the political work of making the sector more market-focused

      great example of measurement for measurement sake. I never understood these nonsense academia.edu rankings but in the end it doesn't matter really what the logic is behind them as long as they rank

  11. Jan 2022
    1. The move from mapping to indicating also enables us to move beyond an appreciation ofscientometrics in terms of its relational approach to data exploration, which we ourselves in-voked above. Rather than celebrating the methodological contribution of relational methodssuch as keyword co-occurences and citation analysis in terms of the emergent entities thesemethods render traceable, to move to indicating is to welcome the task of actively configuringthe context of evaluation, and the community of interpretation, that we produce our mappingfor (Marres, 2017). This could include identifying prevalent themes and ambitions in AI re-search and innovation, their operationalization, the people and resources that are mobilized,and the outputs this generates. In emphasizing process and engagement in indicating interdis-ciplinarity in AI, indicators may play a role in characterizing forms of interdisciplinarity still information. They may be scripted to enable the negotiation of interdisciplinarity among diverseparticipants, data sources, and methodologies, and amidst multiple epistemic commitments,which are not already congealed into a research community; for example, when interdisciplin-arity involves the creation of new combinations and connections between sciences and hu-manities. To explore different ways in which indicators can be used to enable negotiation, itmay be helpful to start with more open-ended spaces of exploration, such as network visual-izations and forms of relational mapping. Thus, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, if our wideraim is to move from indicators to indicating, it is good to start with mapping. In doing so, newways of indicating interdisciplinarity in AI research and innovation might emerge, which sup-port and highlight exchanges across boundaries rather than suppress them

      I have the feeling they should have started with this paragraph...

    2. One important implication of the participatory approach to mapping interdisciplinarity is thatit entails a move away from the classic opposition between maps and indicators in the soci-ology of science and innovation.

      I feel now that I am missing some background field-specific info on what indicators are! I guess I am not interdisciplinary enough...


      Ok so mapping is the method then

    4. the impor-tance of digital mapping—or data cartography—as the methodological framework for indi-cating interdisciplinarity in this area, one that can enable the exploration of transformativeinterdisciplinarity

      I am getting increasingly confused about what indicators are... is it a methodlogical tool? Is digital mapping an indicator or a method to determine indicators?

    5. engaged experts, who take part in formulating the broader projects of ensuring accountabilityand autonomy with which an evaluation is always intertwined

      This seems quite idealistic in practice and would to some extent mean a return to qualitative assessment. This really is not how metrics are used in practice.

    6. This could be taken as a weakness of indicator-based methodologies, but it is also possibleto turn this assessment around: The measurement of interdisciplinarity provides interesting op-portunities to redefine, reconstruct, or reinvent the use of indicators in the evaluation of re-search and innovation

      Or from a more negative viewpoint, to make indicators even stronger and more flexible in measuring knowledge production and evaluating it.

    7. They point out that metrics such as the Klout score—a popular, aggre-gate measure of influence across different online platforms such as Twitter and Facebook—may operate simultaneously in two registers: On the one hand, they perform an epistemicoperation by ordering relations between social media users through mathematical operationsof quantification (producing, among other things, influence rankings). On the other hand, theyenable participation as they assemble users into a dynamic collective, by enabling these users,as well as third parties, to compare, contrast, and relate to one another by way of Klout scores

      So hear metrics are used to measure epistemic relations and participation. It is the leap to evaluation here based on those measurements that is problematic. But does this have to be implied? Does measuring always need to lead to regimes of evaluation?

    8. Rather than deploying scientometric measures to close down the de-bate, the objective then becomes to deploy indicators so as to facilitate exploration ofknowledge in (trans-)formation

      Yes, that's fine, but why does this need to happen with a focus on evaluation and including interdisciplinarity within existing systems, instead of using it as a potential basis to question scientometrics and valuation in general?

    9. pointing precisely beyond the preoccupation with the unification of scientific fields.

      Yes, this is interesting

    10. Scientometrics can help to render visible, and explorable, interdis-ciplinarity as a dynamic space, a space of possible transformation of the relations betweendisciplines, and between concepts, methods, and data. Furthermore, such an analysis of trans-formative interdisciplinarity opens up distinctive methodological opportunities for the evalua-tion of interdisciplinarity.

      I don't really understand why interdisciplinarity gets this special treatment as a transforamtive entity, surely every discipline or disciplinarity itself is transformative and relational following this logic? Why is the question from the outset how it can aid evaluation and not for example, critique or complicate it (on a general level, not only for interdisciplinary scholarship)

    11. ctors located at the margins of or in-between fields

      Or what about scholars that inherently inter or post-disciplinary? Is discinplinarity the main thing that defines a research community? what about politics or activism, theoretical or methodological frameworks, communities of practice?

    12. From this perspective, the key advantage of scientometricsis that one does not have to assume a fixed ontology at the outset of research—say assuming“disciplines”as already constituted ex ante. One can recognize that ontologies are dynamic,so that one cannot only treat as an empirical question what the relevant entities are, whichtheir relations are, and what their attributes are but also recognize that these very categoriesare in question in the empirical realities under study

      I like this approach, it provides a good middle point between absolute relativity and a fixated idea of disciplines. However, recognising that entities are dynamic might not in itself be enough to question their existence as categorisations in the first place.

    13. arry et al. note that interdisciplinarity is best treated as an agonisticcategory. That is, they conceive of interdisciplinarity—and disciplinarity—not just as a givenattribute of existing fields of knowledge but as a contested category: the forms that interdisci-plinary research will take—the division of labor between fields; where key concepts are de-rived from; the relations between data and method—are the focus of disagreement and powerstruggle

      Yes, I like this approach that challenges disciplinarity from the onset, disciplines themselves are always already interdisciplinary too.

    14. the design and deployment of indicators has been identified as apotential site for methodological innovation: Developing indicators of interdisciplinarity couldbe an effective way to counter the devaluation of interdisciplinary research and enable thearticulation and valuation of interdisciplinary research agendas

      In light of the previous sentence this shift seems not warranted? Metrics are ignorance producing devices, so let's create more metrics for interdisciplinary research to value it higher? Is this a version of 'let's just play the game'?

    15. the metricization of research culture (De Rijcke, Holtrop,et al., 2019): The de facto reliance on indicators such as the impact factor in evaluation pro-cesses creates a situation in which scientists, assessors, and policy-makers are encouraged, andbecome more inclined, to value research in terms of quantifiable markers of recognition andsignificance (citation, impact), rather than in substantive terms.

      Nice and clear definition of metricization

    1. cation, extraction, and devastation. It would take another book to run with the consequences of such views But I'll offer what I can imagine here. For one thing, truly answering ques- tions about the communality of a text will avoid mete authorial intellec- tual biography (the books read by the author, the universities or gatherings she attended, the music she considered most influential, the names of her ‘most distinguished friends) and focus instead on the material practices that linked the making of an author’ life to the text. Ricardo Piglia once drily suggested that the true history of literature was not to be found in books, but in the history of jobs held by writers as they wrote them. ‘This alterna- Live history of literature, which isthe history of writing, would have to pose questions about the making ofa life, the writers “livelihood” —the “how-to” ‘of her everyday work—and link these answers to the personal system of aesthetic and political decisions that allowed her to create this book instead of a different one, this cultural artifact instead of another. | imagine that the questions won't always seek to illustrate the specific relationships of the ‘writer's material body in her being-with-others—the identity-focused data ‘on lass and race and gender and age, among other things—but will go far- ther: they'll reach into the depths of where their communal brew is con ccocted. The first such questions will have to address the communal labor (mandatory, in-service-of, through language-in-common) that structures and gives life to the text beyond itself, is will involve a history of reading, indeed—but we're actually already talking about something else, as Volodine would say. If reading, as is so ‘often said, is not an act of passive consumption, but rather a practice of ‘mutual “shareng.” a miniscule act of collective production, then what’ at stake here arent just the books people read. So too, and most importantly, are the books people interpret, reactivate, and bring back to life: the books rewritten by others, whether in their own imagination or in conversations (which also constitute, of course, a practice of our collective imagination). ‘What has become clearer and clearer over time is that book-writing in ‘communality will have to welcome the challenge and explicitly address— and embody—the staging of plural authorship. Will the figures of the nar- rator, point of view, and narrative arc remain the same when bearing wit- ness to the generative presence of others in the very existence of writing? Which platform will best adapt to the continual evolution of the palimp: sest and the juxtaposition intrinsic to every writing process produced in ‘communality? What sort of so-called critical apparatus will we use when every sentence, even every word, would have to be accounted for? “Maybe it isnt outrageous to start imagining books solely or mostly made ‘of acknowledgments pages—the place heretofore designed for recognizing ‘other people's participation in the making of a book

      Annotating the glitch in the page when I wanted to annotate the communalist books of the future part. Maybe this is again the machinic agency interfering :)


  12. Nov 2021
    1. Rather, the difference often lies in the artistic contract between the portrayer and portrayed;

      Also see Mulvey/The male gaze

    2. wake work

      From blurbs: Activating multiple registers of "wake"—the path behind a ship, keeping watch with the dead, coming to consciousness—Sharpe illustrates how Black lives are swept up and animated by the afterlives of slavery, and she delineates what survives despite such insistent violence and negation.

      Sharpe’s methodology takes up the ideas of “the wake and wake work.” Sharpe articulates “that to be in the wake is to occupy and to be occupied by the continuous and changing present of slavery’s as yet unresolved unfolding” (13–14). To perform “wake work” is to labor within the space of paradoxes surrounding black citizenship, identity, and civil rights.

    3. metadata

      Surely not all annotation!

    4. furnish

      Love that :)

  13. Sep 2021
    1. The paranoid trust in exposure seemingly depends, in addition, onan infinite reservoir of naIvete in those who make up the audience forthese unveilings. What is the basis for assuming that it will surprise ordisturb-never mind motivate-anyone to learn that a given social mani-festation is artificial, self-contradictory, imitative, phantasmatic, or evenviolent?

      There is something weirdly british about this too, that everyone is aware of something obvious that one is just not allowed to say out loud (let's say about the monarchy) and then when it is exposed there is all shock and outrage. I never really understood this move...

    2. nowledge in the form of exposure.

      The 'got yah' moment

    3. In this case, as alsofrequently in the case of the tautologies of "sexual difference," the verybreadth of reach that makes the theory strong also offers the space-ofwhich this book takes every advantage-for a wealth oftonal nuance, atti-tude, worldly observation, performative paradox, aggression, tenderness,wit, inventive reading, obiter dicta, and writerly panache.

      What lies beyond the obvious

    4. strong theory

      I am still not sure I am understanding what she means with Strong Theory, is she using it in a similar way as Klein's positions? But that it is a wide-reaching position that can take over other positions?

  14. May 2021
    1. . Yet, putting all our ethical focus on the training of technicians to abide by regulations will always fall short, because technical systems have unpredictable results and because technicians view the systems they build from a particular standpoint.

      This is quite interesting also from the standpoint of co-design

    2. focus attention on emerging complexity

      Or on ever changing circumstances and applications

    3. These approaches moreover treat ethics as a series mandates from the top, to be developed by CEOs and applied by designers. A robust techno-ethics requires that these top-down trends be reversed.

      Very similar approach of course in research ethics

  15. Apr 2021
    1. As a result, in these ‘sneaky moments’ tech activist communities and social justice activist communities, ideally a natural match, come to oppose each other.

      I don't think they have proven this point, it seems like they have been trying to extend their argument further than it goes.

    2. sneaky momen

      This concept has gotten a bit lost in this article, I don't understand its relevance really

    3. This is a significant step away from the culture of secure communications. Practitioners participating in what can be called security design collectives will agree that ‘it takes a village to keep a tool secure’ and that security is a continuous ‘cat and mouse game.’ But this culture is lost on the campaign sites.

      Co-design is especially important in the context of security design

    4. co-designing alternative infrastructures

      So basically this is what they are arguing for: tools for secure communication should be co-designed with the communities for which they are intended. Seems quite obvious?

    5. fibreculturejournal.org FCJ-196 217 Miriyam Aouragh, Seda Gürses, Jara Rocha and Femke SneltingWhen our cultural-political ecosystems intensify or enter moments of agitation, then our relation to tools tends to fall into the paradigm of affordances. It does not matter how radical the political struggle is, people may succumb easily to work with the available. Dependency on the available plot of technological design is precisely what produces the conditions for a sneaky moment, at the risk of discarding very basic political, ethical, and aesthetic sensibilities. To make these residues of our sneaky moment more tangible, we turn to exploring the secure communication campaign sites.Designing the Divide Between Providers and UsersThe three campaign sites we have chosen are intended to mediate between the worlds of tech activists and social justice activists. We are interested in how they use language, design and tool-selection to bridge distances in knowledge, trust, and geography. If these projects are explicitly developed to communicate between agents that are not physically in the same space, how is a relationship of trust established? What do tech activists do to convince activists for social justice that they are on their side, and that the information and technologies provided are worth their trouble? And in the course of these relevant bridging and translation attempts, how do activists for social change find out if the provided tools are appropriate and safe for their situation? The three projects show similarities and also differences in their approach of how ‘us’ and ‘you’ are imagined.

      So basically it is just a study on tool developers and their users and how they can gauge each others needs better?

    6. To make these residues of our sneaky moment more tangible, we turn to exploring the secure communication campaign sites.


    7. The three campaign websites we survey are cultural artefacts, but they are also convivial spaces where various agencies co-habit with tools, discourses, and languages

      I like this phrasing

    8. When it comes to gender, race, age, class and geography diversity among individual tech activists is less noticeable. This lack of diversity has been criticised from within and outside of the community.

      Weird combination of sentences...

    9. These overlapping identities and positions often shift or are part of parallel lives; in other words, some respondents in our respective research cases consciously divide between their techno-engagements for which they get paid and their other political work that they do for activist or ideological reasons and requires technological expertise.

      Here they seem to acknolwedge the overlapping positions more but their point is that socio-technical practices create new divides in sneaky moments? It seems like we are already quite far into the article and I still don't really understand the issue, there is a lot of setting the scene and introduction happening here...

    10. It is at this juncture that the necessity and desire for a convergence between those ‘groups that wish to use the media instrumentally to draw attention to their political efforts versus those who wish to change the media system itself’ (Carroll and Hackett, 2006) became a matter of urgency. In response, a number of secure and private communication campaigns were launched or revamped, which also served to re-shape the delegation relationship between activists and this select group of technologists.

      Why a 'convergence'? It all sounds so heavy?

    11. We propose that the divide between those engaged in politics of technology and those participating in struggles of social justice are being reshaped during those ‘sneaky moments’ and we argue that this reconfiguration requires reflection.

      I am not quite sure I understand the 'divide' at this point, and how you can 'reshape a divide'.

  16. Mar 2021
    1. It builds relation and community, that is: possibility

      Building communities around books as fixed and static print entities will always remain problematic though, as the format/materiality of the book is already inscribed with this individualistic competitive 'writing-without'. So any writing with will also have to include the materiality of the book (as a specific agency).

    2. what is masked in the ‘ “convention” of publishing wherebyacademics put their own names to works’ is the extent to which it is ‘theproduct of a wider collectivity’

      Yes! This is why an acknowledgment of the multiple agencies in knowledge production is so important, but it is still only a gesture, an afterthought really.

    3. Engaging with inherited worlds by adding layersrather than by analytical disarticulation translates in an effort to ‘redescribesomething so that it becomes thicker than it first seems’

      I really like the idea of adding layers, but it still seems a bit disconnected? Annotating in hypothes.is could be perceived quite literally as an act of adding layers but it still takes place literally on another level.

  17. Feb 2021
    1. with a view to exploring the wider range ofOA models and infrastructures.

      I thought all these different OA models were just confusing ;)

    2. of a model so heavily influ-enced by the corporate interests OA sought to circumvent.

      The author needs to make their mind up on what it is OA activists are supposed to be arguing for. Previously their focus was solely on access, here to serve their argument their focus seems to have been on the profit imperative in schol com.

    3. and by others as rein-forcing the Northern-dominated publishing ecosystem of clicks and impactfactors by illicitly widening its market.

      Widening its market? That is an incredibly cynical view on piracy. So is not having access to in some cases life-saving research preferred then?

    4. Diamond OA may represent a wayfor societies to mark out a unique path to success in a way that a commercialenterprise that needs to satisfy shareholder value would be unable to match.Perhaps this is part of the future for society publishers’. Greater attentionto the ecosystems of scholarly associations and society journals, with theirnon-profit, cooperative commitment to the service of the scholarly commu-nity, may reveal natural allies for the OA movement within the ranks ofsubscription journals.

      These allyships are of course already being explored. Also with university presses for example.

    5. OA activists also tend to lumpsubscription journals together with profiteering publishers, collectively re-garded as enemies of OA.

      Again, such a generalisation!

    6. Many hard-line OA activists have put their shoul-der behind the gold OA initiatives driven by liberalizing governments, re-search funders and corporate publishers

      You really need to put some references here to who does OA activists are, and highlight that many OA activists actively critique this!

    7. The result has been apolicy paradox in which efforts to liberate scholarly publishing from the gripof corporate publishers has put corporate publishers at the centre of policydecisions about the design of OA

      I don't think this was ever the aim of most of the policy makers to be honest!

    8. The detachment of OA initiatives such as Plan S from Africanresearch realities is reflected in the willingness of research funders to financeAPCs for African researchers, but not the computer hardware, membershipfees or wifi connections that would allow them to participate in the digitalresearch fora their articles would feed into (Bezuidenhout et al., 2017: 45).

      This is a strong point.

    9. This special collection draws attention to the exis-tence of these alternative scholarly OA infrastructures, which often emanatefrom the global South and are geared to meet the varied needs and inter-ests of scholars in diverse and often low-resource environments.

      I do think this is creating unneccesary binaires here, many nfp open source solutions (such as probably the most well-know and most-used, OJS) emanate from the global north.

    10. Digital ecosystems for managing OA publishing tend to restrict partici-pation to those who can meet stringent technical conditions, ignoring localconstraints with regard to resources, capacity, infrastructure, or familiaritywith technical requirements.

      I do think this is an important point to make. Within COPIM we are therefore for example looking at minimal technical requirements as much as possible.

    11. for-profit and non-profit

      and open source vs proprietary?

    12. (Sagonowsky,2020; Sherkow et al., 2020; Wolitz, 2019; Wu, 2020)

      I am still not following this argument here, and are these references supposed to represent OA advocates? And what does this have to do with publishing?

    13. As Mirowski (2018: 178) notes,OA advocates insist that publicly funded academic research should be madeavailable for free, yet they raise no issue when publicly funded research isprivatized by corporations, and sold back to the public for substantial profits.

      This makes no sense, that is exactly what OA advocates insist on...

    14. Thisallows ‘better resourced researchers in the [global] North who have superiorcomputing facilities to mine and analyse data’ of Southern scholars, and topublish the results themselves, as well as to translate or republish an articlefor sale in any context without the author’s permission or oversight

      So we shouldn't have any data-mining then at all? What about global scholars data-mining global scholars works? There is also the argument that this is partly scare-mongering, rather than backed up by data. I do think there is a good argument to be made for CC BY-NC but I am not buying the no-derivatives stuff...

    15. and in scholarly and editorial infrastructure,drive developing-country scholars disproportionately into the arms of blackOA, as indicated in the contributions by Berger and by Sagemüller et al. inthis collection.

      I will have to read this article because this makes no sense at all...

    16. others argue that black OAexploits the epistemic exclusion of Southern scholars.


    17. Black OA refers to the OA un-derworld of predatory journals and pirate OA platforms like SciHub

      Ehm no, these are not the same! Black OA refers to piracy indeed, not to predatory journals. Please don't conflate the two...

    18. he unsavoury model

      OMG, what happened to not falling foul to ideological red herrings?

    19. Con-versely, gold OA relies on APCs, effectively shifting journals from a pay-to-read to a pay-to-publish model

      Noooo! Gold OA is not a business model!

    20. Yet, this distinctform of OA existed long before gold OA, and remains the model used by themajority of OA journals (Morrison and Rahman, 2020: 10). In 2013, only32 per cent of OA journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals(DOAJ) charged APCs (Fuchs and Sandoval, 2013). Despite widespreadpressures to adopt gold OA, to date over two-thirds of OA journals listedin DOAJ still do not charge APCs (Morrison, 2018).

      Aaargh I am going to stop now, too much wrongness here...

    21. refer todiamond OA as a new model (Normand, 2018; Raju, 2017).

      It is not a new model but a more recent (than gold OA) term.

    22. where as the Gold Route is seen as open only at theaccess end. (Wilson, 2007a; see also Tottossy and Antonielli, 2012; Wilson, 2010)

      Ugh, no, you are only making it worse here by adopting what it is usually promoted as being and which you at the same time critique!

    23. The shift in the name of the diamond/platinummodel only increases the confusion.

      It is not a shift in the name, Diamond and APC-based models are both forms of Gold OA.

    24. This obscures through definitional vagueness the vital issue ofwhether gold OA entails Article Processing Charges (APCs), which makearticles free to read, but not free to publish. It also effectively suppressesclear consideration of a pre-existing distinction between gold OA and

      No, this completely obscures the debate. Gold simply means published in OA by a press/publisher. Diamond was introduced to resolve the issue of people conflating Gold OA with APCs/BPCs. It was not a pre-existing distinction.

    25. wing to itsimmediate openness and removal of copyright barriers to sharing or re-use

      Green OA can allow all of these things too? Weird framing...

    26. with little attention

      I am really not buying all the 'little attention' narrative here, scholars have been writing about this for decades...

    27. urther muddled

      Why classify this as muddled instead of highlighting it as a healthy and diverse and ongoing debate on what OA is?

    28. but more questions need to be raised about whether they sharethe same interests

      I think it is quite clear that they don't, but I do like the focus here on all the forms of open-washing corporate publishers are doing.

    29. Profit margins of thetop corporate publishers have continued to rise even after the shift to OA,

      I don't think we have shifted to OA yet!

    30. Three historicalissues have been central to framing the OA debate: the history of scholarlyjournals, the digitization of scholarly publishing, and the journal pricingcrisis.

      I am really missing an 'as I will argue here'. Not that I necessarily disagree with this framing, but it is presented as a fact here when of course many different framings are possible.

    31. As high-lighted by Kamerlin et al. (this collection), academic journals date back over300 years, and evolved to structure knowledge sharing within non-profit,disciplinary frameworks of scholarly societies and academic bodies. Theirengagement with corporate publishers only emerged from the mid-20th cen-tury, amid academic funding cuts and corporate takeovers of smaller pub-lishers, particularly affecting the social sciences (Larivière et al., 2015).

      I do think this is common knowledge though. Also commercial interests have always played a role in journal publishing (see the struggle in the UK between the Stationers and the Royal Society (or the Crown) over the right to copy. I guess I need to have a closer look at the Kamerlin article!

    32. and internal norms of free scholarly content, andacademic labour for reviewing and editing provided to the journal free ofcharge.

      How is this not completely incorporated into the corporate publishing system too though? Scholarly Ecosystems as presented here don't stand outside of these systems

    33. that have informed thetrajectory of OA in scholarly publishing and development research.

      Here the approach seems to be a bit wider again...

    34. and ideological red herrings

      What is that supposed to mean? Is this article trying to be objective? it is good that the article is now being situated more clearly in the context of development research though, as the above more generalised observations didn't really hit the spot for me.

    35. Onthe other hand, in July 2020, public interest goals led the European ResearchCouncil (ERC) to withdraw from Plan S owing to its lack of attention to eq-uity concerns among less advantaged scholars and research communities(ERC, 2020).

      Interesting, I didn't know this was the reason for the ERC pulling out...

    36. for a few years across a range of scholarly communications blogsites

      For a few years? People have been blogging about this for decades now...

    1. Thisrequiressignificantintentionalityandcoordinationinordertoavoidafragmentedsystemoragrowthincentralization

      In other words: clear governance to say it in a less complicated way.

    2. (2)toadoptresearchassessmentmeasuresthatincentivizeresearcherstopublishinthesevenues.

      Huh? Above they are against bibliometrics of any kind it seems?

    3. 1)todevelopnew,sustainablefundingmodelsforadiverserangeofservicesandpublications

      I am not following this either: didn't they emphasise that the funding model used in LA (i.e. HE institutions supporting their academics in editorial roles as part of their job descriptions plus providing open source publishing infrastructure, is the way forward?

    4. developedcountries.

      Has this been written by someone else? Why are they changing from Global South and North terminology to developing and developed countries here? Very odd...

    5. Thepublishingsectorindevelopingcountrieshastheopportunitytooptimizeitsprocessestomakescientificcommunicationssustainableandcompetitive

      I don't understand this focus on competition here at this point?

    6. whiletheyappeartobetreatedasacommoditypronetocommercializationintheglobalNorth,inLatinAmerica,publishingisconceivedofasthecommunitysharingofpublicgoods (Debat and Babini, 2019).

      Yes, I love this approach and would add to it that publishing is seen as part of research, as something the academic community sees as their responsibility.

    7. paytopublish’models

      When outsourced to commercial publishers! This argument wouldn't count for let's say nfp presses using apcs and bpcs to support their publishing endeavours. (not a fan of APCs/Bpcs but just pointing out the generalisation here).

    8. Ofparticularconcernisthepotentialforalarge-scaleshiftfrom‘paytoaccess’to‘paytopublish’,throughwhatarecalledtransformationalagreements,whichcouldmeanthatresearchersindevelopingcountriesandless-resourceddomainsandinstitutionswillfinditevenmoredifficulttopublishtheirresearch

      Would have been interesting to draw this out much more, especially the national and regional nature of these transformational agreements, meaning that nationality is becoming defining perhaps more than ever towards what can be published in what way.

    9. sincetheBudapestOpenAccessInitiativeDeclarationin2002

      Why have the BBB events as the starting point here for the OA movement, also given the much earlier OA genealogy within LA. Bit weird....

    10. Thisdemonstratestheneedforresearchassessmentsystemstomovebeyondpublication-basedmetrics,inwhichpublishingfromtheNorth—andparticularlyinfor-profitpublishingvenues—hasanadvantage,towardsamorecomprehensive assessment of the quality of research output

      We do have to recognise that the LA region (see Scielo) has adapted its own metrics and citation indexes too in response to the unequal scholcom system. Metrics have played a part there too.

    11. Morerecently,acoordinatedeffortemergedintheLatinAmericanregion,calledAmeliCA—acooperativeinfrastructureforscholarlypublishingandopensciencewithanon-profitpublishingmodelaimingtopreservetheopennature of scientific communications in Latin America.​

      Hmmm, interesting they formulate it like this here (following the binaries already introduced in this article). Elsewhere they argue AmeliCA offers services for the Global South and more recently they said also beyond that (and at some point I thought they were more of a partnering network, where they were partnering with OpenEdition etc. I think).

    12. InLatinAmerica,scholarlypublishingisbasedontheconceptof‘scienceasacommons’,thatis,inherentlyacademy-owned,non-profitandopenaccess

      Is this the case in the whole of LA though?

    13. Thus,scholarlycommunicationstodayfunctionsinacolonizedmanne

      I wouldn't say only today though, it has been set up like that from the start. It might be interesting to argue whether the rise in bibliometrics have increased this development, but up to now although I agree with the general ideas being posited here and I know evidence for them exists too, (and maybe this is controversial) but I feel that this article isn't showcasing a lot of evidence, which might have strengthened an argument which up to now seems to draw mainly on rhetoric.

    14. SpecialOpenAccessEditioninthejournal,DevelopmentandChange,however,waswithdrawnbytheauthorsduetounacceptablelicensingconditionsproposedbythepublisher

      Interesting that even for this one-off apparently OA special issue the publisher wasn't able to allow more liberal license conditions...

  18. Jan 2021
    1. a turn in the relation betweenthinking the political and acting politically.

      This is a quite interesting (though very specific) perspective on the idea of a turn

    2. In such positivity there is no possible exteriority to, andno substantive transfiguration of, a political power/knowledge relation that is always already established byhegemony.

      It is a self-perpetuating binary

    3. until there is a decolonization of the law of the Subject (that is,of identity thinking) there can be no decolonization at all.

      Decolonial posthuman anti-liberal critique? Are liberal humanism and identity thinking here unfairly conflated though?

    4. Given thecontinuity of its essentially criollista ground, there can be no actual “turn”, detour or deviance—no turning ourbacks on post-Independence regimes of representation—from within the decolonial variant of the subalternistturn.

      Yes, but in that sense can there ever be a real turn? I think similar critique has been coined to any perceived turn. Is a turn necessarily a departure or can it be a re-emphasising too? Granted, it is problematic if the previous traditions are not being recognised as influential.

    5. the People’

      very liberal humanist indeed

    6. Given itsclearly Christian and creole identitarian underpinnings, it appears at first glance that decolonial thought mightbe little more than an ontotheological response to the contemporary crisis of ontotheology

      Just saying it does not make this a clearly argued statement... It seems deliberately abstruse

    7. produced three discursive, methodological, and conceptual variants, which Iwill examine in more detail in the pages that follow. I will state from the outset, however, that it is myestimation that of the three variants, only one can be considered to be a “turn” in anything even approximatinga true sense

      This sounds a lot like the set-up of the Politics of the Commons article by Papadimitropoulos...

    8. acquire the potential forbroader practical and theoretical engagements.

      Such as?

    9. “FoundingStatement” (1993)

      Which is about what?

    10. result of a subalternist turn that first began in the early 1990s,when the Latin American Subaltern Studies Group was formed by a small group of Latin Americanists thatwas striving to grapple with the realities of an emergent post-Soviet order, and with the difficulty ofunderstanding the consequences for intellectual work on Latin America of an emerging transformation of theplanetary nomos.

      Here it is. Shame on whoever edited this...

    11. f the subalternist tur

      I know what the subaltern is, but what is the subalternist turn? Very confusing first paragraph...

  19. Dec 2020
    1. Instead of seeking to develop agreement and consensus around universal standards and technol-ogies of “openness,” time and space is necessary for policy makers, scholar activists, and concerned community members to develop collaborative imaginaries for more just and equitable knowledge infrastructures.

      Yes, this is something I argue for again and again too, but the 'standards' community is so powerful within the dominant and more technologist inclined OA discourses that it is hard to get this argument through...

    2. This is what de Sousa Santos calls practic-ing the sociology of absences: “whatever does not exist in our society is often actively produced as non- existent and we have to look into that reality.”

      This is what we struggle with within COPIM for example, as a very Global North situated project, which due to the localities of its researchers and the requirements of its funders has a specific Global North bias.

    3. The project therefore began to take openness not as a set of practices or technologies to follow, but rather, as a “state of mind or attitude” to be adopted primarily by individuals, and as a “methodology” to collaborate and work between diverse communities.

      I get the gist but not sure I understand the fundamental difference between 'set of practices' and 'methodology'.

    4. attempted to reclaim the concept of openness as an opportunity to redress aspects of the historic epistemic injustice they have faced.

      Would this not be a more interesting strategy than positing situated openness against openness, as I perceive the article doing here in the first section (or am I misreading this?). This is the strategy the ROAC also follows to some extend: to reclaim openness from its neoliberal usurpation.

    5. “research [needs to] begin and end with community problems, rather than with scientific problems.”

      Love this!

    6. Rather, these examples show how a careful negotiation of the degrees and conditions around openness can allow for the ideation of community-based mechanisms to address different forms of epistemic injustice

      I really like this as an alternative to the hardline 'definitions and minimum requirement' style of implementation of openness top-down funder and commercial publishers driven openness implies: see Plan S and its compliance regime for example.

    7. situated openness,7 which posits that “openness” needs to be contextualized in its particular history and envi-ronment to determine who benefits or who is at risk in an “open” system.

      This is such a strong concept, I am interested in how they put it in opposition to "openness" though instead of positing that that is how they perceive "openness". There is an interesting distancing happening here from "openness" which provides them the opportunity to dismiss much of "openness" (its discourse and practices) they don't like. Is that the best strategy though I wonder?

    8. What might epistemic injustice look like in an open system, and can openness promote epistemic justice?

      I think the first question is much more interesting to explore, the answer to the second question is clearly yes, so it is begging the question a bit.

    9. However, there is growing evidence that open research practices or “openness”— when decontextualized from their historical, political, and socioeconomic roots— rather than narrowing gaps, can amplify the over-representation of knowledge produced by Northern actors and institutions and further the exclusion of knowledge produced by marginalized groups. In other words, open systems may potentially replicate the very values and power imbalances that the movement initially sought to challenge.

      I don't think it is necessarily correct to argue that "openness" was ever an a-political concept, instrumentalised as a way to achieve greater access to knowledge. I feel that many within the OA movement have been aware from the start that "openness" is a highly politicised concept that indeed has the potential to achieve the goals listed here in the paragraph above, but also always has had the potential to do the opposite. You cannot simply take politics out of it and let the concept itself do all the heavy work.

  20. Nov 2020
    1. seem to be rather libertarian than Commons-based.

      This is quite interesting: where does the one become the other... Governance again seems key here.

    2. In this context, the role of the PPL or any democratic form of financialisation of the Commons like the ones described by Bollier is essential, since it could bring about a transvestment from capitalism to the Commons

      So hence it seems the author is siding with the reformist commons, the version he also spend most time engaging with...

    3. What the anti-capitalist version misses in comparison to the reformist is a ‘realistic’ plan of a transition from capitalism to the commons

      I am finding most of this incredibly dense and I am not sure I am following the argument, but it seems that this article only spend very little time on the anti-capitalist commons, and has categorised them as inconsquential with respect to transition plans without given the actual texts/theories a lot of attention, which he does do in the other two sections. The balance seems off here and hence I am not sure I trust his analysis here...

    4. decentralised

      Is decentralised here offered as an alternative to 'local'?

    5. They break the limits of time and space

      Here the focus seems to return to a space-based definition again...

    6. local Commons, which are governed by a stable community of individuals interacting often and knowing each other

      If this is the definition of a 'local commons', i.e. not defined by space but by relationality, I wonder how the digital commons does actually depend for a large part on the care and maintenance of local Commons/communities.

    7. grounded on a political theory

      Now it is a political theory...

    8. It is argued that the Commons favour decentralisation over central control, self-governance over hierarchical management, access over property, transparency over privacy, distribution of value over profit maximisation, sustainability over growth at all costs

      That's a lot of binaries....