I really want to say more about this, but am not sure how to. I appreciate that there is an acknowledgement that code switching should be approached carefully and carefully use our privilege.

I think this is another important point, though I may just be throwing repeat statements. As people putting out knowledge to the public, we should aim to write in a way that makes our work approachable without compromising its arguments. Michelle's recommendation for training graduate students in different methods of scholarly communication below is a great idea.

Definitely. Such a good connection between the value of somebody's work by who gets to see it - considering the incentives that come with a publication that has a higher influence. The idea of a giving knowledge system is what allows more knowledge to grow, and it is so important.

Interesting, and so unfortunate.

Great passage - I like the idea of engaging the readers where they are, rather than forcing them to come to the writers.

Important.

That is so awful, and an all too common tale.

This is true, I wonder how we can ease this issue. The nature of Twitter and Facebook makes it a lot easier to just break off into smaller, shorter conversations amongst smaller groups rather than build a community as a whole. I feel like websites like reddit are a bit better for fostering an author-reader community.

I just think this is a lovely statement.

It is hard to remember that less than ten years ago, the internet community as a whole was more generally focused on sharing than it ever was about being protective about one's own work. This connection that the author speaks of makes me feel a bit fond.

That does make sense. The less potential for international visibility, the less the profit turn out, I suppose..

This makes sense considering how much visibility the big publishers are getting..

This reminds me of Hebe Vessuri's lecture, particularly when thinking about the proportion of papers released by the top five publishers compared to other publishers. This contributes to a lack of visibility of other voices in the scholarly community.

That definitely makes it a little more difficult to properly identify. I wonder if there is something more to why it doesn't change immediately, or if it was just impossible to change the information that fast.

I know we've discussed this before, but should we adapt it more to suit this medium? Do we deviate from the print format and create a form online that is more suited for an online community to discuss?

I wonder if this has to do with the diffusion and interest in "popular science" in the public? But, I suppose money talks.

Haha! Oh dear.

I really like how this seems to enhance communal agency, which is the primary goal.

This is a key point. Again, this helps home in the availability of data as a community resource.

So valid. I'm just wondering how they might achieve this. It is definitely a good step for sustainability.

Great!

I might be reading into this weirdly, but is this an acknowledgement? An apology? Either way, I think it is great that they next move to address the strengths of private enterprise but push for more community control and resources. As Anastasia notes below, I think they outline their plan quite concisely.

https://muslimology.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/the-epistemicide-of-islam/

"a war on knowledge, destruction of existing knowledge, and thereby aborting the possibility of new knowledge coming about from the exercise of the intellect on existing knowledge."

So what kind of solutions can we implement?

I have something to say here, but I'm not sure what - annotating it for now to look at later.

I think that makes sense, and appreciate the clarification that natural sciences also suffer.

Problematic.

I know that I am basically regurgitating what I've said, but this is such an interesting (though perhaps understandable) statistic. If competition is the underlying factor behind research - and it should not - then it makes sense that this is the result. I am interested in how this article might tackle how to improve a system that might be entrenched in competitive regimes.

This is true in my academic life, but I have not considered its impact in the quality of work in the scholarly field.

Unfortunate, so I suppose this manifests as a potentially harmful competitive regime.

Wow!

This makes sense. In an era where we have the most information to be health-conscious, it's proved quite important to get some credible research to ascertain that a fad diet, is indeed a fad diet.

..I'm sure that other people have better reasons for their research that isn't grounded in personal health, but the amount of health related research that is available for public access is very exciting. At the very least, it drives more sustained public interest to further explore some deeper questions.

This paragraph in general is quite striking, and while we've been interacting with these themes the entire semester, it definitely has me considering how to be a relevant, public academic.

By who? I would think that it would be expected that the pedagogical impact would be high - I might not be reading into this correctly, though.

Annotating this just to have a consistent(ish) definition for the rest of my read.

(https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/08/more-institutions-consider-ending-their-big-deals-publishers) Indeed, it does seem that universities are looking for a more budget-friendly option here, to overly generalize it. I

Generalizing from my personal experience, having never heard of this website or have it recommended by a colleague or instructor, I can't say that I use it. However, now that I know about it, I'd be glad to try it alongside the SFU library.

This is quite impressive - I've never heard of it, though I suppose my professors would not promote this.

Of course, but by who and how?

I wonder if it is helpful here to understand to what degree they might understand this.

Wow!

Great, I was interested in how the data process would look like. An analysis of the relationship between science and society would be interesting as well, but it sounds like that's not the main goal here - understandable, I suppose.

In the Dosemagen, S. and Parker report, I really liked sensing how approachable these projects are on an individual level. This really would encourage more people to participate in citizen science, and that's wonderful.

I like the continual involvement between community and the EPA to engage in different ideas about programs here. But even for a small community, is one internal/external speaker enough to communicate this?

Looking forward to learning more about how they create and support these conditions.

Very nice, I like the direct acknowledgement that values storytelling here.

The EPA, in other words, provides a framework for citizen science in terms of goals and objectives.

Is this feasible on this scale?

I wonder if this article will touch on what kind of cultural change it is referring to here. Is this a matter of the social differences that affect the data that citizens can contribute? Interested in seeing how data acceptance will work.

So far sounds great all around. In involving governments, organizations, and especially the individual to assess on every level how they contribute is definitely an approach that I appreciate.

Tackling data quality is a particularly difficult question: the lack of a common definition or guideline for what altmetrics is throws bias into deciding what can be considered quality data. This likely has to do with the difficulties of integrating altmetrics into scholarly research because of its changing nature. Echoing an earlier sentiment in this paper, I think that altmetrics should not be integrated completely, but complementary to other research methods that we have. This might allow for a better integration for the potential of data that we have, as well as a way to better understand and define what good quality looks like.

Oh dear. I suppose it is easy when discussing social media as an academic source to get stuck in whether it is a valid one.

What is the difference between a mention in a microblog like Twitter, if it's professionally focused? As mentioned later, engagement with Twitter is much higher, although that might be attributed to a larger user base. Is it the nature of the platform?

Interesting, and perhaps sensible considering the amount of data (e.g. the difference between the blog post mention and the tweet in this paragraph) there is to sort and define commonly. It must be frustrating for the scholarly community to integrate altmetrics, because of its changing nature.

"the study of web-based content with primarily quantitative methods for social science research goals using techniques that are not specific to one field of study" (Thelwall, 2009)

referring to the development of altmetrics.

I had a sense of how articles would be a virtually identical adaptation online.I didn't realize how much the advent of social media would challenge and engage the scholarly community with how fast information diffuses through social media communities.

altmetrics: "data that can explain both the volume and nature of attention that research receives online."

Again, I failed to consider spiritual significance in reinforcing harmful gender roles here.

meaning: "relating to, based on, or tracing ancestral descent through the paternal line".

meaning: "relating to, based on, or tracing ancestral descent through the maternal line"

As a person with limited knowledge, I think it is crucial to reassert that colonial/European ideas of gender roles further compounded the difficulties Indigenous women may have experienced in their communities.

I think back to our reading last week and the criticism of the author's idealistic voice when I read this. I interpreted that instance as serving a pat on the back for the author more than it did for the communities that the author helps.Then again, an overly pessimistic voice would not serve these issues correctly for its readers and may not encourage change. It is important for the authors to communicate their criticisms about an idealistic rhetoric simply because they may trap themselves into romanticizing the past.

I know this must be the fifth time I have commented this, but I truly appreciate this acknowledgement. I find that the authors are generally consistent in acknowledging the limitations of their work, and appreciate that they explained why their work does not focus too much on exploring violence outside of the gender binary as it could and should.

The internal marginalization is a point that I know of, but is a little difficult for me to actually grasp as a cultural blockade that perpetuates violence against women. As anastasiask says below, "societal norms penetrate the law". Acknowledging that this communally perpetuated patriarchy affects women first is a great base to start with.

I am excited to see the authors unpack this.

An adaptation of Western law method analysis to Indigenous law method analysis?

I am intrigued by this suggestion. From what I understand, this draws on Indigenous oral tradition and general storytelling. I am interested in how law will be drawn from these stories, but my current limited scope of understanding prevents me from defining what that looks like.

I am still a bit unclear whether this refers to a Western rhetoric of gender or an Indigenous rhetoric of gender.

It is important to acknowledge that it isn't restorative justice in the context of an article that is meant to acknowledge a victim's hurt. While there is value in restorative justice, it is far less than ideal in handling situations where a victim must participate in peacemaking situations with the culprit.

Excellent general point for analyzing the past.

Again, I appreciate the authors' digression that in approaching gendered violence, they should be careful to parse through Indigenous history and be clear about how they present it. The emphasis on law (though not exclusively law, as mentioned earlier) to analyze and generate discussion as to shaping a better community is thoughtfully articulated. The frankness and detail that the authors' employs about how their work should be perceived is a big help for setting a realistic goal and scope for the readers.

I like that so far, the authors have been very upfront about the assumptions they are making and the reason for framing their action plan this way. Their acknowledgement that this work parses through potentially inaccurate generalizations makes me feel more at ease.

An appreciated sentiment, but I'm not sure I like this statement too much. It seems a little fantastical at best, and presumptuous at worst.

I like this statement. It retraces back to the idea that universities and communities should not be segmented, but that efforts made within the university should be directed toward a more collaborative approach with people outside of it.

I feel that as a society, bullshit continually shapes itself around the news we receive from day to day. Yesterday's bullshit is today's normal, and so, it is safe to say that we can not be confident in our ability to recognize bullshit.