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!

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.

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

*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.

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!

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)

Voices from the Field: Case Studies

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 an update on the Case Studies contributions. A similar post for Perspectives was shared on 7/20/20, and another on Intersections will be posted soon.

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:

Case Studies present stories and lessons learned drawn from experience. Case Studies should provide specific, contextualized examples of the kinds of tasks and questions librarians working in scholarly communication encounter and strategies for response. A case study will describe and evaluate a case, reflecting upon the issues involved and their implications for scholars and scholarship. It will suggest possible responses to the case and evaluate the effectiveness and possible challenges of those strategies. A case study grounded in actual experience might also describe the actions that were taken and reflect upon subsequent outcomes.

Examples of Case Studies might include a specific course marking project done at an institution working to support OER and textbook affordability, a digital humanities project that used interdisciplinary expertise in the libraries, or a library research data management initiative that helps researchers meet funder mandates for open data.

The Case Studies reflect a broad set of issues and practices grounded in the diverse environments where scholarly communication is practiced. From established scholcomm voices like Harvard and Simon Frasier to regional and emerging leaders, scholarly communication practitioners share successful models, first-of-a-kind projects, and strategies for building community.

While these case studies share important lessons about policies and formal structures, a core theme that appears centers around community-building. From Billings and Roh’s guide to successful mentoring, to Piper’s discussion of professionalization, to Keralis and Martin’s call for “A Journal of One’s Own”, these case studies offer models for building community at every stage of the scholarly communication life cycle and beyond.

Here’s the full list of Case Studies:

  • Marilyn Billings from UMass Amherst and Charlotte Roh from the University of San Francisco write about strategies for successful mentoring and professional development in “Development of a Scholarly Communication Librarian Residency Program.”
  • Kyle Courtney and Emily Kilcer introduce a model for distributing expertise at Harvard in “Copyright First Responders: Decentralized Expertise, Cultural Institutions, and Risk.”
  • Josh Cromwell from the University of Southern Mississippi explores the challenges posed by promotions and tenure systems in “Mind Your Ps and Ts: Promotion, Tenure, and the Challenge for Open Access.”
  • Spencer Keralis from Illinois and John Martin from the University of North Texas offer a successful model for open publishing in “A Journal of One’s Own: Developing an Innovative, Values-Driven Open Journal.”
  • Gemmicka Piper at IUPUI provides a firsthand overview of skilling up in a new position in “Professionalizing for New Performance Duties.”
  • Kerry Sewell and Jeanne Hoover from East Carolina University share their successes and challenges with “Navigating Open Access Initiatives in a Sea of Mixed Support.”
  • Jennifer Zerkee and Alison Moore from Simon Fraser offer insight into supporting open access in “So You Have an Open Access Policy – Now What? Evaluating Simon Fraser University’s Open Access Policy.”

Like the forthcoming companion Scholarly Communication Notebook, these case studies demonstrate that there is no one “correct” way to do this work. Instead, our understanding of scholarly communication must reflect the multiplicity of approaches and perspectives in the field as well as centering the dynamic and ongoing work being done at all sizes and types of institutions. We’re so grateful that each of the contributors has shared their experiences and we hope these case studies can offer some promising models to borrow and build on.

-Will (on behalf of Maria and Josh)

Voices from the Field: Perspectives

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 an update on the Perspectives contributions. Similar posts for Intersections and Case Studies will follow in the coming weeks.

When we issued the CFP late last fall (Nov.), 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!

Perspectives is the largest of the three “Voices” subsections at 11 pieces. From the CFP:

Perspectives are intended to offer situated and self-reflexive discussions of topics of importance in scholarly communication and the ways in which libraries or librarians respond to those topics. Scholarly communications work inevitably leads to engagement with issues upon which opinions vary, as do the courses of action that address those issues. Personal and professional experience, as well as institutional context, and personal and community identity inform and shape the opinions and approaches of scholarly communication professionals.

Examples of Perspectives might include reflections from a solo scholarly communication librarian asked to spin up a new program, a community college librarian working to support open access with faculty that do not prioritize publishing in scientific journals, or a scholar working on politically contested topics balancing a commitment to openness with safeguarding themselves from hostile alt-right trolls and doxxing.

Concepts that loom large across these pieces include vocational awe, adaptability, collaboration, learning from experience (including so-called “failures”), and self-care.

  • Jennifer Patiño from UW-Madison looks to community archives as a model for considering inclusivity in the OA movement.
  • Jennie Rose Halperin from Harvard critically examines the imperative for openness in the humanities.
  • Elisabeth Shook from Boise State interrogates duality in scholcomm work.
  • Ian Harmon from WVU asks if vocational awe and service-oriented neutrality bring bullshit work into scholcomm librarianship.
  • Julia Rodriguez at Oakland State considers outreach and collaboration in the establishment and growth of a program.
  • A.J. Boston at Murray State examines the costs and benefits of “other duties as assigned.”
  • Brian Quinn and Innocent Awasom from Texas Tech discuss doing scholcomm work outside of a dedicated scholcomm position.
  • Teresa Schultz and Elena Azadbakht from University of Nevada Reno remind us that openness alone isn’t magically accessible and that we have a responsibility to consider and implement accessible practices.
  • Emily Kilcer from SUNY Albany, Julia Lovett of University of Rhode Island, and Mark Clemente from Case Western reflect on their transitions from first jobs to new positions.
  • Dick Kawooya from the School of Information Science at University of South Carolina discusses the importance of teaching scholcomm topics to LIS students interested in academic librarianship.
  • Carla Myers from Miami University looks to “failure” as an opportunity for assessment and improvement.

As we hope you’ll agree, this is an excellent collection of work by esteemed peers, who are sharing insights practical, theoretical, challenging, caring, and provocative. We’re thrilled they’ve been so generous with their time and knowledge and have stuck with us through the challenges of the last few months. We’re proud to be in a position to promote their excellence, and look forward to seeing these ideas discussed in LIS programs and beyond.

Look for similar posts for the Intersections and Case Studies soon.

High Five,

Josh, on behalf of Maria and Will