We do this work with OASPA and the Library Publishing Coalition. #96 also involves working with these organizations.

There is language in our service agreement (contract) with clients that makes this not apply.

This is also ongoing - we work quite a bit with SysDev on these matters as well.

This is something that is difficult and ongoing for our program. Managing e-mail lists, contact information, billing contacts, invoices, etc. These are constant.

We do not market so this and the next two do not apply.

We are part of a University Library so we use their facilities. Increasingly our work can be done remotely from any location with the Internet.

Since we do not do sales, this and the next three are not applicable.

We do have annual reporting to OASPA, to DOAJ, to the library, and others.

We use systems in place for the rest of the library to collect fees from our journals and help process payments for our services. We do not sell copies or subscriptions so the next two do not fit into this.

POLP has a Publications Advisory Board that the Director interacts with primarily. This Board gives input on new proposals and changes to the program.

This is something that we are CONSTANTLY doing, and often with a lot of headwind.

We partner with many societies to publish their journals. We leave other society business to them.

This is done by ULS admin; we have a separate account for our publishing program that only they can see. This is an area where things are unfortunately less transparent for us.

Since we are part of the library, we use all of the library's versions of these things

We don't have any of these

Most of this is done by ULS admin using similar resources to what we use for other library services!

SysDev does take care of this for us as well

I don't know what this means. It sounds like Anderson might be talking about datasets or multimedia supplements? Or perhaps special issues? These are all quite easy to do in OJS and not a problem for our program

We do not sell our journals so we do not worry about this. :) The same goes with anti-piracy efforts, comment moderation, or interlinking services.

POLP does hosting in-house with open source software and upgrades, improvements, etc. are done by our sysdev team. We use LOCKSS and the PKP Preservation network to archive.

We certainly help with this, whether it is XML conversion for PubMed Central, depositing article metadata in DOAJ, or automatically exporting references for registration with CrossRef. Much of this is automatic in OJS3.3.

POLP folks hit the publish button :) It's pretty easy. We do not do any of the next 5 items. POLP is an online journal publisher only. Some of our journals have printed copies, but this is increasingly rare. Some editors engage with social media, which is their own prerogative.

A handful of our journals do data publication. This is subject to editorial training and we consult on policy where we can.

A couple of our journals have a rolling publication schedule, and some have a separate "forthcoming" or "ahead of print" publishing mechanism.

This and the next 6 are facilitated by POLP. We contract with an external vendor for XML generation, and we register DOIs and the OJS system has robust capacity for search engine connection and tracking metrics.

This is the purview of editorial teams. We provide a template for them to format their articles, but that work is done by those teams. The next 6 categories fall under this as well.

We have a variety of policies, such as communications protocol, publishing protocols, and others that we have to enforce regularly. We also develop helpful policies, like a name change policy or erratum policy, to help editors.

This is particularly important for a handful of our journals, and they manage this process themselves.

This is often the purview of editors in our program, but we help with resources and interventions if needed.

We train editors in use of the software and help them with resources like COPE and others for help with complex tasks. We have often directed editors to the PKP School for editors as well.

We disagree with Anderson's point here and prefer that copyright remain with authors, so that they can control their own scholarly output. Authors do sign a license with the journal allowing right of first publication.

OJS has a plugin for this (via iThenticate) that several journals use. It is complicated because there are institutional subscriptions to iThenticate, although individuals could purchase their own subscription.

Editors typically do this work in addition to the next 3 items in this list.

This is a robust feature of Open Journal Systems.

POLP has participation from Systems Development, many of whom are active in the PKP community, and help us keep our infrastructure up to date.

This is mostly done through careful selection process and oversight by our Publications Advisory Board.

Library publishing is a strategy for the future. More future planning could happen especially in a mature program.

POLP does have fees for journals, but it is mostly subsidized by the library.

POLP has a trademark for its name, but not for any journal names.

POLP does this. We apply for ISSNs, get journals into DOAJ, and register them for appropriate indices.

POLP does this to an extent via questions in our Proposal Form.

How do we convince cities and governments that this should be a priority? This has been done in the past with guerilla methods, e.g. the Data Rescue projects.

Is this what the Civic Switchboard project is intended to help with?

This is an incredibly favorable and perhaps naive view of librarians. Yes, many librarians are like this - but not all of them. Librarians are the ones who often think they can't possibly take back the means of production from major publishers, and drive their ever-increasing profits. Being shoehorned into journal publisher bundles and acquiescing with budgets is what got us into a related variety of messes. Yes, some folks are doing it right, but how do you find just these right people for these positions? The job of "librarian" doesn't automatically endow the person with a good socialist sense of morals.

Data can provide some insight into solutions if used appropriately and put into the hands of people. Don't just collect data to collect it; collect it for a reason.

"The information commons is messy" Yes indeed.

what does this even mean?

"When I say “help,” I mean: less Clippy, more séance."

I love this phrasing here, pulling on knowledge of bad attempts at this ("Clippy") while invoking something that would otherwise seem completely unrelated.

Hundreds of thousands of Twitter trolls crafting random strings of abuse for women? That's what every single one of those tweets and comments feels like - a random insult, a random threat, predicated on nothing. Is this technology facilitating that?

Quoted speech, a la Tannen 2007 "when speech uttered in one context is repeated in another, it is fundamentally changed even if 'reported' accurately" (Found in our paper: https://olh.openlibhums.org/articles/10.16995/olh.21/)

What other cool data sets could there be? Librarians' responses in LibAnswers? Hundreds of thousands of lines of texts from libguides?

Somehow both of these cities have been misspelled - this should be the University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg!

Connection between insult and poetry - does adhering to poetics make for a good insult? c.f. -fucking infixation in English (absofuckinglutely not abfuckingsolutely) follows similar metrical patterns.

A whole blog post with step-by-step instructions on how to make more insults: http://www.languagejones.com/blog-1/2017/2/9/linguists-have-been-discussing-shit-gibbon-i-argue-its-not-entirely-about-gibbons