Open Peer Review: Part 2.4 Open Science and Infrastructure

In September, we announced that we would be releasing portions of our forthcoming book, Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing, for open review as they were ready. The first of those portions was the Open Data section, led by section editor Brianna Marshall. Contributors and editors are presently refining based on the feedback received, with gratitude to everyone who participated. Perhaps a little later than we planned (we’re still learning how to live and work through a pandemic, social, political, and institutional crises, etc.), we’re now happy to release the next portion and invite your input. Reviewers will benefit from taking a look at information about Part 1 and other sections of Part 2 to understand how this section relates to the others, and the whole.

The Open Science and Infrastructure section is edited by Micah Vandegrift, Open Knowledge Librarian at North Carolina State University. Micah’s perspectives are shaped by long experience in scholarly communication, including a Fulbright Fellowship in the EU that happened to coincide with the release of Plan S. He’s also brought on some great contributors that we’re excited to have. We hope you’ll consider reading their drafts and providing your feedback to help us get the most accurate snapshot possible of this volatile area of scholcomm work. Micah introduces the section and guiding questions below, along with links to the drafts and info for reviewers. The big guidance we want to reinforce is to be the reviewer you wish you had by providing thoughtful critical feedback without berating or belittling. NOTE: the first of three essays that comprise the section is was available for review until March 8; remaining essays will be linked here as they are ready. Each will be available for review for a period of four weeks. – Josh, Maria, and Will

Here’s Micah:

Open science is gaining steam, as evidenced by the recent multinational statement from UNESCO and lots more usage of the phrase in and around library corners. I am excited to have the opportunity to take a pass at beginning to put some shape on it for our field by writing this chapter and editing this section. I am obviously standing on the shoulders of giants, who have already done lots of important work to problematize open science, for whom, by whom, for what purpose, etc. I am deeply in debt to my Dutch colleagues, especially Henk van den Hoogen, Bianca Kramer, and Jeroen Bosman, who continue to analyze and promote open science as a bright future for libraries to engage and collaborate in.

As you read, I’d especially invite comments on the following:

  • Is this written clearly to appeal to and welcome a library school student perspective?
  • What voices, resources, ideas, threads are overlooked in this piece so far?
  • Is the scope too big, too small, or just right?

I keep thinking that I can capture all that is open science in this document. In speaking with a new colleague the other day, I was reminded that, like many things in life, open science and our collective work to shape/share it is a nuanced tension between what has been, what is, and what might be. I invite you to join that tension in this chapter, point out where I miss the mark, encourage where I am close to something correct, and add your own voice. By far my biggest challenge was attempting to synthesize others’ great work and write my big ideas clearly into words that make sense strung together. This chapter and this book will capture a moment in time — my hope is that open science and its principles will outlast these humble efforts.

  1. Defining Open Science by Micah Vandegrift (comment period closed March 8)
    1. A pre-print of this chapter is also available in Zenodo
  2. Generation Open (working title) by Sam Teplitzsky (forthcoming, to be shared when ready)
  3. How Open Became Infrastructure by Kaitlin Thaney (forthcoming, to be shared when ready)

*links deactivated after review period closed

Instructions for Reviewers

We’re using Google Docs, set to allow comments via the link above. When you open the documents, you may see comments in the drafts that indicate areas where the authors would like particular feedback, or noting that they will be making future additions. Some formatting and citation adjustments still need to be made, along with the addition of discussion questions and other supporting materials; however, these drafts represent a close-to-final version of the content as we envision it being published. The book will receive professional copyediting from ACRL, so your time may be better spent focusing on content and substantive feedback rather than grammar and punctuation (but if that’s your thing, knock yourself out).

Anonymous review is permitted (log yourself out of Google!). Reviewers who wish to have their review acknowledged should sign their review with their preferred spelling. Critical feedback is welcome and appreciated; abusive or combative comments will be deleted and/or ignored. Be the reviewer you wish you had; help make this work the best it can be. For more information, please see this process overview and conduct expectations doc.

Thank you in advance to everyone who will take the time to share constructive ideas with us. We appreciate it!