Abstract: Much has been made in recent years of the transformative potential of digital resources and historical data for historical research. Historians seem to be flooded with retro-digitized and born-digital materials and tend to take these for granted, grateful for the opportunities they afford. In a research environment that increasingly privileges what is available online, the questions of why, where, and how we can access what we can access, and how it affects historical research have become ever more urgent. This article proposes a framework through which to contextualize the politics of (digital) heritage preservation, and a model to analyse its most important political dimensions, drawing upon literature from the digital humanities and history as well as archival, library, and information science. The first part will outline the global dimensions of the politics of digital cultural heritage, focusing on developments between and within the Global North and South, framed within the broader context of the politics of heritage and its preservation. The second part surveys the history and current state of digitization and offers a structured analysis of the process of digitization and its political dimensions. Choices and decisions about selection for digitization, how to catalogue, classify, and what metadata to add are all political in nature and have political consequences, and the same is true for access. The article concludes with several recommendations and a plea to acknowledge the importance of digital cataloguing in enabling access to the global human record.
“Projects are expected to contribute to the following expected outcomes:
Improved understanding of the current landscape of institutional scientific publishing activities across Europe.
Coordination amongst institutional publishing services and initiatives across Europe at the non-technological level and improve their overall service efficiency, in particular in a multilingual environment.
Actionable recommendations for strategies regarding institutional publishing in research performing organisations across the European Research Area.
These targeted outcomes in turn contribute to medium and long-term impacts:
Increased equity, diversity and inclusivity of open science practices in the European Research Area.
Increased capacity in the EU R&I system to conduct open science and set it as a modus operandi of modern science.
Recent years have witnessed a sharp increase in open access publishing activities. Commercial scientific publishers and other service providers have turned their attention to open access publishing, responding to increased demand for open access by funders and research performing organisations. Research institutions have also developed their own open access publishing activities and services. These are either new and based on open access publishing, or are existing publishing activities transitioning into the new digital and open access environment. Libraries are often involved, while new types of mission-driven open access university presses are also emerging in Europe and beyond. Such initiatives do not require article fees for publishing, and are often supported by their institutions. They enable open access publishing of journals and other types of outcomes in various languages and are important in supporting multilingualism in Europe. At the same time, they often have not gained the prestige bestowed on established publishing venues, usually produced in collaboration with well-known commercial scientific publishers. Moreover, institutional publishing in the social sciences and the humanities is often in languages other than English, which is both an asset and a limitation….”
Khanna , S., Ball, J., Alperin, J. P., & Willinsky, J. (2022). Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process. In SciELO Preprints. https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.4729
Abstract: By analyzing 25,671 journals largely absent from journal counts and indexes, this study demonstrates that scholarly communication is more of a global endeavor than is commonly credited. These journals, employing the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS), have published 5.8 million items and represent 136 countries, with 79.9 percent publishing in the Global South and 84.2 percent following the OA diamond model (charging neither reader nor author). More than half (54.6 percent) of the journals operate in more than one language, while publishing research in 60 languages (led by English, Indonesian, Spanish, and Portuguese). The journals are distributed across the social sciences (45.9 percent), STEM (40.3 percent), and the humanities (13.8 percent). For all their geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, the Web of Science indexes 1.2 percent of the journals and Scopus 5.7 percent. On the other hand, Cabells Predatory Reports includes 1.0 percent of the journals, while Beall lists 1.4 percent of them as predatory. A recognition of the expanded scope and scale of scholarly publishing will help ensure that humankind takes full advantage of what is increasingly a global research enterprise.
“The American Anthropological Association (AAA) supports the basic objective of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP’s) recent decision to make federally funded research freely available without embargo. AAA has been publishing scholarly content since 1889 and has always advocated for equitable access to research and data while maintaining an inclusive and sustainable publishing program….
AAA also has a flexible reuse policy as part of its author agreement. Authors can use the published article of record for educational or other scholarly purposes at the author’s own institution or company and/or place the accepted, post peer-review manuscript on a personal, institutional, or company website or on a non-commercial, discipline-specific public server….”
Despite increasing awareness and support for open access (OA) publishing, and the advantages of doing so, there is still a low uptake of OA in some disciplines. We surveyed 228 early and mid-career researchers from 15 public universities in Canada. The Social Exchange Theory provided a theoretical foundation that informed factors investigated in this study. Correlation and regression analyses were used to test research hypotheses, while one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test level of effect sizes within subjects. Findings show that altruism (r =.352, ? = .331) influenced researchers’ OA publishing practices whereas visibility and prestige do not, even though they are positively correlated. Furthermore, ANOVA results showed that researchers’ career stages have significant effect on their OA publishing practices as mid-career researchers published more in OA outlets. Therefore, building structures and policies that spur researchers’ altruism towards publishing OA should be a continuous and future approach to achieving the ideals of OA in Canada.
Abstract: On 1 September 2022, professor of linguistics and director of cOAlition S Johan Rooryck was created a doctor honoris causa at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. In this in-depth interview, Rooryck reflects on his career so far and shares his vision of a future where scholar-led, fair and equitable open access prevails over commercial publishing structures.
Johan Rooryck starts out by explaining how he became the editor-in-chief of the high-ranking journal Lingua in 1999, how his relations with the publisher Elsevier became increasingly strained, and how he succeeded in bringing all his co-editors along in a sensational break with Elsevier. Instead, they launched the fully open access journal Glossa (now a high-ranking journal of general linguistics) at the platform Open Library of Humanities, in 2015. Rooryck in particular dwells on the non-commercial model known as Diamond Open Access, with no charges facing either readers or authors. Speaking on behalf of Plan S and the cOAlition S, whose executive director he became in 2019, Rooryck also broadens the view to all forms of open access, including open access to books and research data. At the end, he looks ahead to the future, when faced with the final, fundamental question: are you an optimist?
Abstract: Objective: The open science movement seeks to make research more transparent, and to that end, researchers are increasingly expected or required to archive their data in national repositories. In qualitative trauma research, data sharing could compromise participants’ safety, privacy, and confidentiality because narrative data can be more difficult to de-identify fully. There is little guidance in the traumatology literature regarding how to discuss data-sharing requirements with participants during the informed consent process. Within a larger research project in which we interviewed assault survivors, we developed and evaluated a protocol for informed consent for qualitative data sharing and engaging participants in data de-identification. Method: We conducted qualitative interviews with N = 32 adult sexual assault survivors regarding (a) how to conduct informed consent for data sharing, (b) whether participants should have input on sharing their data, and (c) whether they wanted to redact information from their transcripts prior to archiving. Results: No potential participants declined participation after learning about the archiving mandate. Survivors indicated that they wanted input on archiving because the interview is their story of trauma and abuse and it would be disempowering not to have control over how this information was shared and disseminated. Survivors also wanted input on this process to help guard their privacy, confidentiality, and safety. None of the participants elected to redact substantive data prior to archiving. Conclusions: Engaging participants in the archiving process is a feasible practice that is important and empowering for trauma survivors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
Abstract: Opening data promises to improve research rigour and democratize knowledge production. But it also presents practical, theoretical, and ethical considerations for qualitative researchers in particular. Discussion about open data in qualitative social psychology predates the replication crisis. However, the nuances of this ongoing discussion have not been translated into current journal guidelines on open data. In this article, we summarize ongoing debates about open data from qualitative perspectives, and through a content analysis of 261 journals we establish the state of current journal policies for open data in the domain of social psychology. We critically discuss how current common expectations for open data may not be adequate for establishing qualitative rigour, can introduce ethical challenges, and may place those who wish to use qualitative approaches at a disadvantage in peer review and publication processes. We advise that future open data guidelines should aim to reflect the nuance of arguments surrounding data sharing in qualitative research, and move away from a universal “one-size-fits-all” approach to data sharing. This article outlines the past, present, and the potential future of open data guidelines in social-psychological journals. We conclude by offering recommendations for how journals might more inclusively consider the use of open data in qualitative methods, whilst recognizing and allowing space for the diverse perspectives, needs, and contexts of all forms of social-psychological research.
Abstract: Qualitative data sharing practices in psychology have not developed as rapidly as those in parallel quantitative domains. This is often explained by numerous epistemological, ethical and pragmatic issues concerning qualitative data types. In this article, I provide an alternative to the frequently expressed, often reasonable, concerns regarding the sharing of qualitative human data by highlighting three advantages of qualitative data sharing. I argue that sharing qualitative human data is not by default ‘less ethical’, ‘riskier’ and ‘impractical’ compared with quantitative data sharing, but in some cases more ethical, less risky and easier to manage for sharing because (1) informed consent can be discussed, negotiated and validated; (2) the shared data can be curated by special means; and (3) the privacy risks are mainly local instead of global. I hope this alternative perspective further encourages qualitative psychologists to share their data when it is epistemologically, ethically and pragmatically possible.
Abstract: Leading open access publishing advocate and pioneer Professor Martin Paul Eve considers several topics in an interview with WPCC special issue editor Andrew Lockett. These include the merits of considering publishing in the context of commons theory and communing, digital platforms as creative and homogenous spaces, cosmolocalism, the work of intermediaries or boundary organisations and the differing needs of library communities. Eve is also asked to reflect on research culture, the academic prestige economy, the challenges facing the humanities, digital models in trade literature markets and current influences in terms of work in scholarly communications and recent academic literature. Central concerns that arise in the discussion are the importance of values and value for money in an environment shaped by increasing demands for policies determined by crude data monitoring that are less than fully thought through in terms of their impact and their implications for academics and their careers.
«[M]ight it not be helpful to think of open access less as a project and model to be implemented, and more as a process of continuous struggle and critical Resistance?» (Adema and Hall, 2013)
«[I]f we are theorists, if we are radical, critical theorists, then our critique should aim at a transformation of the actual systems within which we work.» (Joy, 2017)
In the first part of this blog series, scholar-led publishing was classified and situated in the context of Open Access. In the second part, I worked diachronically – with a focus on journals – how scholar-led initiatives from the field of cultural and media studies created their own spaces in the digital realm at an early stage and, through these, realized their respective individual interpretations of the basic motivation that also underlies Open Access: enabling free access to knowledge. In the third part, I will present a selection of scholar-led book publishers relevant to cultural and media studies, as well as collaborations, networks, and infrastructure initiatives.
«Apparently, there are academics, and reputable ones at that, for whom the cost/benefit of the Mercedes Benz — the smart cover, prestigious logo, beautiful paper, and added-value galore — is less important than the means of quick and effective conveyance, even if it be merely a rusty old heap that runs. Academic aspirations are, in many cases, being modified by the financial realities of the day. I believe this is leading us to a more differentiated array of publications. I imagine the Internet full of curiously painted VW beetles and vans, an engaging mixture of information vehicles. If this speculation becomes reality, and if our academics and their institutions become aware that the current style of single-minded high-value publishing can lead to perishing, then we are headed for some value shifts over time.»
Anna Shumelda Okerson: Oh Lord, Won’t You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz Or, There is a There There, in: Surfaces, Bd. IV, Nr. 102, 1994, Folio 1.
For the humanities and social sciences, early scholar-led publishing projects and initiatives that emerged and experimented with the new digital medium, especially before the widespread history of OA cited in the first part, still play a role that is too little noticed in the broad sense. As Moore, for example, points out with reference to early digital journal initiatives, numerous scholar-led initiatives from the humanities and social sciences existed well before the early 2000s, which are generally regarded as the start of the OA movement. These initiatives – also as a reaction to the strong commercialization of the journal market in the 1970s and 1980s2 – had set themselves the goal of organizing the production and circulation of scholarly communication in the digital realm themselves and making it freely accessible to the public.
Publikationskulturen sind im Wissenschaftsbetrieb ähnlich vielfältig wie die ihnen zugrundeliegenden Forschungskulturen. Im heutzutage oftmals normativ geführten Diskurs um Open Access besteht die Gefahr, dass diese Vielfalt zugunsten techno-solutionistischer Implementationen ins Hintertreffen gerät oder gar mittelfristig verloren geht. Im Folgenden möchte ich daher näher auf den Ansatz des scholar-led publishing eingehen und aufzeigen, welche Zusammenhänge zwischen scholar-led Initiativen und der ‹klassischen› Open Access-Bewegung bestehen.
Dazu beginne ich mit einer kurzen Diskurseinordnung und leite dann diachron ab, wie scholar-led Initiativen aus den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften – und mit ihnen aus den Kultur-, Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaften – schon früh und parallel zu den weithin rezipierten Entwicklungen aus dem medizinisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Bereich der 1990er Jahre auf eigene Weise wichtige Impulse zur Öffnung von Publikationskulturen setzten. Im zweiten Teil stelle ich dazu ein Spektrum von scholar-led Journal-Initiativen vor, während der dritte Teil sich scholar-led Buchverlagen sowie scholar-led Netzwerken im weiteren Sinn zuwendet.
“Adopting data sharing policies in humanities and arts fields will be a significant challenge as they have little cultural tradition of data sharing or even a consensus about what constitutes “data.” Will it only include quantitative materials or also interview transcripts? Will it include archival records? What about text corpora used for analysis? The federal government seems to share this confusion: though the data sharing policies clearly apply to NEH and NEA, the Nelson Memo consistently refers to “scientific data,” defined as the “recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as of sufficient quality to validate and replicate research findings.” It does not seem that very many humanists were involved in thinking through the OSTP policy guidance.
But the changes to data sharing policies will by no means be limited to humanists. The Nelson Memo includes language that will likely affect STEM researchers funded by the NSF, NIH, and other agencies subject to the Holdren Memo. Current policy applies only to research data “used to support scholarly publications,” and only asked agencies for plans to “maximize” public access, rather than absolutely requiring public access. In contrast, the Nelson Memo calls for immediate public access to data supporting publications, and asks agencies to develop “approaches and timelines for sharing other federally funded scientific data that are not associated with peer-reviewed scholarly publications.” The timeline for sharing these data seems further in the future than the overall timeline outlined in the Memo (which requires implementation of new policies by 2026). However, it clearly points to the likelihood that all data resulting from federal funding will someday be subject to preservation requirements. If implemented, these changes will massively expand the quantity of data subject to federal data sharing requirements. This would be a very expensive proposition given the amount of data that researchers in data-intensive fields create. It also has the potential to exacerbate the resentments that we have previously documented among researchers about the amount of data they feel compelled to curate and preserve to FAIR compliant standards.
Finally, there is a subtle but potentially significant tonal shift about the costs associated with data sharing. The Holdren Memo calls for improving the accessibility of federally funded data and allows researchers to include the costs of doing so in their funding requests. However, it also directed agencies to balance financial and administrative costs of long-term preservation against the relative value of public access. Agencies have adopted different approaches to finding this balance. The NSF has taken a somewhat conservative approach. Its policy on data sharing emphasizes the expectation that researchers share their data but “at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time.” In contrast, the NIH’s new data sharing policy places emphasis on “maximizing” data sharing (though still not requiring it). The Nelson Memo adopts the latter phrase, moving the Overton window towards a larger commitment to prioritizing sharing over minimizing costs. However, it does not provide for additional funds to support that commitment, a decision that may end up limiting compliance by researchers and blunting the effects of the new policies.
A third key difference between current and new federal policies is the timeframe in which data should be shared. The Holdren Memo does not specify when data should be shared. As we have seen, the NSF currently allows for a leisurely “reasonable” time frame for making data available. The Nelson Memo includes much more specific language that data should, in most cases, be publicly and freely available at the time of publication. This will place a substantial burden on researchers, particularly in fields which require quick and frequent publication of results….”
“Psychology journals are not immune to targeting by paper mills. Difficulties in obtaining peer reviewers have led many journals, such as this one, to ask authors to recommend peer reviewers. This creates a crack in the defences of a journal against fraud, if it is combined with lack of editorial oversight. This case illustrates the benefits of open peer review in detecting fraud….”