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.

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

October 5, 2020November 2, 2020

Open Peer Review: Part 2.2 Open Data

The lead editorial team for Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing (ACRL, forthcoming 2021) is happy to launch the open peer review process for Parts 1 and 2 of the book with the Open Data section, edited by Brianna Marshall. We’re rolling these sections out as they’re ready rather than sequentially, so 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. As with all the Part 2 section editors, Brianna has assembled a stellar group of contributors, and we’re deeply grateful to all of them for sharing their knowledge and time to help the book be the best resource it can be. Now you have the opportunity to contribute to that goal by providing feedback on their draft. Brianna 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. -Josh, Maria, and Will

Here’s Brianna:

I am thrilled to be opening up the Open Data section for peer review by the LIS community. This content will be available for comment from October 5 – 25, 2020, and represents the first section of the LISOER textbook to undergo open peer review. In preparation, I was re-reading the April 2019 blog post where Josh, Maria, and Will first invited me to introduce myself and my ideas for the section. I was struck by how the apt the questions I had asked still are, this time as a framework for anyone willing to share comments and suggestions:

If you are a current student, what are you most interested in learning about in relation to open data (or open research more broadly)?
If you are an instructor, what do you want to make sure your students learn about as they head into the field?
And if you are a practitioner, what do you wish you had learned about when you were in graduate school? What do you want to pass along to new librarians and information professionals?

I invite you to keep these same questions in mind as you review the Open Data section. I commend the authors, listed below alongside the chapters they wrote, for finishing this work while juggling competing responsibilities and the myriad stresses of a global pandemic. We hope our section will be a helpful resource for LIS learners new to open data topics.

Introduction to Open Data by Cameron Cook
Managing, Sharing, and Publishing Data by Susan Ivey, Sophia Lafferty-Hess, Peace Ossom-Williamson, & Katie Wilson
Supporting Reproducible Research by Gabriele Hayden, Tisha Mentnech, Franklin Sayre, & Vicky Steeves
Ethics of Open Data by Brandon Locke & Nic Weber

*links deactivated after review period closed

Instructions for Reviewers

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

September 25, 2020

Announcement: Open Review for Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture (book)

The editors and authors of Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing are seeking critical feedback on portions of the book to ensure accuracy, clarity, and in order to reflect a multiplicity of perspectives and practices regarding scholarly communication work in academic libraries. To that end we are making portions of the book available for open review. Specifically, Parts 1 and 2 (of three parts that comprise the book) will be shared as they’re available, each for a period of 3-4 weeks, for comments, questions, suggestions, and feedback. We expect to start with the Open Data section, edited by Brianna Marshall, in the coming weeks (Oct. 5 – 25), with other portions to follow as they’re ready. More information about the book and our plan for the process is below.

Overview of Book

This project was conceived as an open textbook of scholarly communication librarianship, which we hope may be a vehicle to increase instruction on scholarly communication topics in LIS programs, as well as serve as a resource for continuing education. We anticipate publication in 2021, and are very happy to have ACRL as publisher. The book, licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC) license, will consist of three Parts.

Part 1: “What is Scholarly Communication?” by lead editors Maria Bonn, Will Cross, and Josh Bolick, introduces scholarly communication and scholarly communication library work, and outlines the issues that most directly shape and drive scholarly communication work in academic libraries. Part 1 consists of five chapters:

1.1 Basics and Definitions

1.2 Economic Issues

1.3 Social Issues

1.4 Legal and Political Issues

1.5 Technological Issues

Part 2: “Scholarly Communication and Open Culture” builds on the foundation laid in Part 1 by introducing openness and presenting sections on the four major opens most relevant to the academy and scholarly communication library work. Each of these four sections is guest edited by a widely known expert in that space, working with authors of their choosing.

2.1 What is “Open”? The 5 Rs and Open Culture (by Maria, Will, and Josh)

2.2 Open Access Section (edited by Amy Buckland)

2.3 Open Data Section (edited by Brianna Marshall)

2.4 Open Education Section (edited by Lillian Hogendoorn)

2.5 Open Science and Infrastructure (edited by Micah Vandegrift)

Part 3: “Voices from the Field: Perspectives, Intersections, and Case Studies” is out of scope for open review. This part consists of 26 short pieces that reflect the ideas and practices of a wide range of practitioners. An overview of each of these subsections, with authors, institutions, and contribution title, is available on the News (blog) section of our project site:

3.1 Perspectives

3.2 Intersections

3.3 Case Studies

How will open review work?

Each unit of Parts 1 and 2 will be shared via Google Docs (set to allow comments) as they’re ready for feedback, which is to say they will not be presented in the order outlined above. Comments will be accepted for a period of 3 to 4 weeks, at which point comments will be closed and considered by authors and editors as we move towards publication. As units are made available for open review, we will share them via News posts on our website, promote on Twitter with #LISOER and other relevant hashtags, and posted to relevant discussion lists as appropriate. Anonymous review will be permitted. 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. Some sections may be available for review concurrently.

Each section post inviting review will feature a brief overview by lead editors of where that piece fits in the larger work and what that means for context, an intro to the section by the lead editors and/or authors of that section, links to the relevant documents, and end date of comment period.

We are deeply grateful to the many supporters of this work, which we hope represents the ideas and practices of a community (and communities within that community) to the extent possible. Feedback and suggestions on this process and how we might improve it to better support reviewer generosity are welcome at any point. Look for the first section, Open Data, edited by Brianna Marshall, on October 5th through the 25th.

Take care – Josh, Maria, Will

September 18, 2020September 20, 2021

CFP: Contributions to the Scholarly Communication Notebook

We are pleased to announce a call for proposals for materials to be included in the Scholarly Communication Notebook. Successful proposals will contribute openly-licensed educational materials (OER) about scholarly communication that reflect the broad range of people, institution types, and service models in scholarly communication and specifically fill gaps of representation in the current body of materials. With generous support from IMLS, we are able to offer $2,500 financial awards in recognition of the expertise and labor required to develop these resources. You can see the full application as a Google doc, read more below, and submit here (form deactivated).

Call for Proposals

The Scholarly Communication Notebook (SCN) team is excited to invite proposals for the development of open educational resources (OER) that reflect and encourage diversity in scholarly communication. The SCN is an online community/repository that is explicitly intended to support and educate a diversifying workforce of LIS professionals and to extend social justice values to all participants by intentionally and thoughtfully reflecting the broad range of people, institution types, and service models in scholarly communication.

With generous support from IMLS, we are able to offer $2,500 financial awards in recognition of the expertise and labor required to develop these resources.

We are particularly interested in proposals from authors from a broad range of institutions and intersectional identities, particularly emphasizing marginalized and underrepresented perspectives.

The Materials

The OER should be a learning object or collection of objects that is ready to be used in both a formal classroom setting and as a resource for self-guided learning. For the first of three rounds, we are leaving space for a variety of approaches to the design of the core resource and pedagogical apparatus. We are also committed to working with contributors to develop proposals before they are submitted and continuing to support development and refinement throughout creation.

Example Projects

Because this is a new project we invite proposals that reflect a variety of approaches to building open resources and supporting open practices. These examples reflect a small set of gaps in the literature that a proposal might help fill:

A lesson introducing a model open education program being run at an HBCU
An exercise exploring strategies for supporting open and public access at a community college
Narratives and discussion questions that highlight unique work being done on archiving and supporting engagement with local materials at a regional college or university
A podcast or videos describing a tribal college’s work developing tools that support digital scholarship that engages the college’s history and the communities it serves

Selection Criteria

Proposals are open-ended but should address the following areas:

An overview of the topic being presented (copyright, OER, digital scholarship, etc.)
The need for this resource and the gaps that it fills. Why is it important? Are you building on existing openly licensed content or creating something new?
Your approach to presenting this material. What methods are you using? How are you addressing the need you identified above?
The format of the learning object? Is it a selection of readings? A video? A podcast?
What sort of pedagogical apparatus will be included? Will you include discussion questions? A structured assignment? What will you add to make this an educational resource, not just a document? If you have concerns about this area we are happy to work with you to refine these through discussion.
What are the learning outcomes/objectives for these materials?
Suggested (foundational/canonical) further reading? What are the most important readings, either necessary or optional for a learner to engage with these materials?

Submission Process

Review of proposals will begin on October 20, 2020 and continue throughout the fall until awarded proposals are selected. Work on selected proposals will be conducted in the late fall and early winter, with specific deliverable due dates determined among SCN leads and awarded proposal authors according to needs of project.

Please direct questions to Josh Bolick (jbolick@ku.edu), Maria Bonn (mbonn@illinois.edu), and/or Will Cross (wmcross@ncsu.edu).

Note: this CFP is also available as a Google Doc with comments enabled. Feedback on the CFP itself (including suggestions for improving it) is welcome and appreciated.

August 24, 2020

Voices from the Field: Intersections

We’re excited to share a series of updates on the development of our forthcoming book, Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing (ACRL). More specifically, on the third and final unit, “Voices from the Field,” which consists of short practical pieces by practitioners engaged in scholcomm and related work, intended to provoke reflection and discussion. “Voices” is further divided into Perspectives, Intersections, and Case Studies. This is the (3rd and final) update, on the Intersections contributions. Similar posts for Perspectives were shared on 7/20/20, and for Case Studies on 7/29/20.

When we issued the CFP in November, we really had no idea what the response might be. We ended up with more great ideas than we had room for, which was both wonderful and heartbreaking. In the end, we did our best to balance various considerations and selected 26 proposals to move forward. Honestly, all of the proposals were great and deserve development. Now that we’re seeing all those selected wrapping up towards final drafts, we couldn’t be happier with them! It’s so exciting to see all these excellent ideas come together, and to be able to provide a platform for them!

From the CFP:

Intersections invites examples of and reflections on the intersection of scholarly communication with other areas of academic librarianship, obvious or otherwise. Almost all work in academic libraries is arguably and ultimately in service of scholarly communication. While libraries increasingly designate scholarly communications specialists, those specialists often collaborate with colleagues throughout their organizations to provide their expertise in addressing scholarly communication opportunities and challenges. Conversely, any area of library work might turn to a scholarly communications specialist for an informed perspective and expertise.

Examples of Intersections might include exploration of library-press partnerships for sharing nontraditional research, open pedagogy work done as a collaboration between the library and a center for academic support, or a scholarly project that connects with the knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local communities.

The Intersections selected reflect a broad set of perspectives and reports on how scholarly communication work can or should interface with other areas of academic librarianship, such as undergraduate engagement, public services, tech services, and DEI work. Sarah Moczygemba and Perry Collins enter into a dialogue, exploring the working relationship between copyright expertise and social media activity, and Thea Atwood and Erin Jerome look at building bridges between scholarly communication and data services. Both Emma Molls and Lindsay Cronk, writing from different academic libraries (Minnesota and Rocheser, respectively) talk about the intersections of collection development and scholarly communications, particularly publishing. Annie Johnson has another take on publishing, with her vision of the relationship between university presses and academic libraries, at our present moment and in the past and future. Kristin Landsown argues for another powerful intersection, as she looks at the way that giving voice to underrepresented students through the creation of OER benefits students of color. Anali Perry and Eric Prosser bring us an intersection that steps outside the academy as they discusses partnership with public libraries, while Natalie Hill, Carrie Gits and Colleen Lyon look at an even wider ranging partnership, this one between a community college, a public library and university, with the goal of increasing OER usage in Texas.

Here’s the full list of Intersections:

Perry Collins and Sarah Moczygemba from the University of Florida: “Amplifying the Message: Partnerships Across Social Media”
Lindsay Cronk, University of Rochester: “Defining Collection Development as Operational Scholarly Communications in Academic Libraries”
Natalie Hill (University of New England), Carrie Gits (Austin Community College), and Colleen Lyon (UT Austin): “Librarians Open Up Open Education: A University, Community College, and Public Library Partnership to Increase OER Usage in Texas”
Kristin Lansdown, UW Madison: “Positioning Voices of Underrepresented Students as Authoritative: Developing Open Educational Resources that Benefit Students of Color”
Annie Johnson Temple University: “The Relationship Between University Presses and Academic Libraries: Past, Present, and Future”
Emma Molls, University of Minnesota: “Library Publishing and Collection Development: Eliminating Information Asymmetry”
Anali Perry and Eric Prosser, Arizona State University: “Putting Community in Scholarly Communications: Partnerships with Public Libraries”
Erin Jerome and Thea Atwood, UMass Amherst: “Bridging Scholarly Communication and Data Services: Intersections in Openness and Sharing”

Like the forthcoming companion Scholarly Communication Notebook, these intersections demonstrate that scholarly communication is not a gated community of library work. There is a constant exchange of expertise, labor and support across work areas of libraries, campuses and larger communities, in support of access to, dissemination and preservation of the scholarly record. We’re very excited about how these contributions demonstrate the value of building bridges and invite us both to cross them and to build some of our own.

-Maria (on behalf of Maria, Will and Josh)