163 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2020
    1. Micah Vandergrift

      just a quick note that my last name is Vandegrift, without an "R" in the middle there. Excited to see Ann so well-documented and keeping up progress!

  2. Apr 2020
  3. Nov 2019
  4. May 2019
    1. asylum seeker

      Are all refugees asylum seekers? Or is that just one way that you are investigating this topic?

    2. This project aims to investigate how an increased collaboration between state actors and the Muslim community may benefit public perception and the labor and societal integration of this religious group, increasing visibility of their commitment to integration while maintaining their own religious identities without fear of ostracization

      This is a really interesting thread of the project for me, and I would be interested to see how you think it might apply across different religious groups in different socio/national contexts. For example, if the Pope established a work program in Texas with the Department of Agriculture for Central American refugees, would American Texan Baptists approach them differently?

    3. local governments and organizations

      Would you say that local governments have more power in defining integration to the employment market than national government?

    4. bonding and bridging

      is this a particular type of social capital that would be familiar to sociologists?

    5. disaggregated for gender(females are at a greater disadvantage) for Bosnians as compared to Austria’s native population

      so, less female Bosnians in Austria are employed than female Austrians?

    6. Data Analysis

      This whole section sounds really social sciency and exciting and I'm not sure what all the techniques will do. I know these sections, the "how", are necessary and common in academic literature... do we know if readers outside higher ed are concerned with the "how" or just want to hear the "what we discovered through this study was..." part?

    7. The primary sourcesfor interviews are experts who work within organizations in Vienna that provide services to refugees

      I know this is a convenience sample for you, but wondering... if you had the time and money to do this at scale, who would be the exact perfect subject group? Are they in Vienna, or elsewhere?

    8. manipulated variables

      I don't know this term.

    9. recommendations for policies that initiate the rapid integration of asylum seekers into host societies

      I'd like to know, if you were to make these recommendations today, at the beginning of the study, what would they be?

    10. An eagerness to integrate into the labor market would provide numerous benefits to the host country

      This immediately made me think of this New Yorker article I'm reading. Growing up in Florida migrant workers were part of my social fabric, though on the outskirts.

    11. This debate will be addressed during the field investigation component of this research project

      brilliant. Really looking forward to what you discover here.

    12. co-ethnic contacts

      I've never seen this term, but assume it means finding work by associating with the same/similar ethnic communities already in Austria?

    13. Through this scheme, displaced Bosnians could register with Austrian officials in exchange for food, health care, and for those placed in public housing, cash payments, services which were often administered through partnering organizations

      Is this similar to what we Americans would call "welfare"?

    14. black labor market, the Schwarzarbeit

      I'd love to see a reference or citation for this. Had never heard of it.

    15. an individual and society actively and selectively control

      Fascinating. So integration an happen from both sides simultaneously. I'd always assumed the burden of labor was on the individual looking to integrate, but it makes sense that society would ease that process and adapt it over time.

    16. migrants

      sidenote - i'm not sure I could state the difference between a migrant, an immigrant, a refugee, an asylum-seeker, and a "foreign national" if that's a term we even use anymore. These are thrown around a lot in the media, but not sure there's consensus on them? Might be worth some clarification somewhere in here.

    17. In this definition, social networks are integral to the understanding of integration

      just trying a summary; so, integration is a two-way process between host society and migrant group adapting to one another, with assimilation as the goal. But assimilation doesn't just mean THEY become like US, but that a new stasis is defined through social connections. Right?

    18. Are there aspects of these integration policies that could be replicated to current day refugee populations in order to phase out of crisis-mode policies and enact more sustainable, long-term solutions to migratory influxes

      I assume you have an opinion on this! Would love to see it stated plainly near the front, activating your experience and expertise in this research from the get-go.

    19. has emerged as a trademark population when studying the long-term effects of integration

      emerged in scholarly literature or in popular/policy consensus?

    20. civil society networks

      This sounds like a really helpful thing. Are these established national programs, or the concept of a "civil society"?

    21. services that will benefit the longer-termgoals

      This is a loaded sentence. Are you talking about social services, or some other kind? Also, wondering if the longer term goals of the host society and refugees are often different, or similar?

    22. underemployment and stagnation in the asylum process as deterrents to positive relationship formation between host societies and refugee populations

      Are you saying that if its difficult for some to get a job, and/or they get stuck in the political red tape that it negatively affects the host societies view of that entire group?

    23. extensive literature review and field consultations

      So these are the two ways you are conducting this research - are there any others that might be useful or that someone else might follow or contribute?

    24. Bosnian War.

      I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I know very little about this conflict. If this piece were to be adapted for a broader audience, it might be helpful to either offer an explanatory sentence or two, or link out to the wikipedia page.

    25. systems of reception and integration

      I'd love to know more about what these systems are, in your estimation. The close of this paragraph seems to imply that employment is a key factor in integration. Would you argue that employment also indicates reception?

  5. Jan 2019
    1. systematized and the overall quality of metadata improved

      From the library world, these kinds of activites have often been in Acquisitions or Technical Services departments, which haven't been included often in conversations about open. This seems like a real opportunity, if library directors are willing to begin transferring more human resources to the open agenda.

    2. coordination and sharing the burden of developing technology and best practice

      echoing also in the "community-owned infrastructure' discussions.

    3. Adoption of good practice to generate high quality data will depend on sharing the burden of capacity building in some way. That in turn, can-not happen until there is a framework that provides sufficient trust to allow the sharing and compar-ison of data and its management.

      harkening to the 'data trust' concept being discussed from U.S. Mellon-funded projects, also co-authored by the authors of this paper.

    4. it is not sufficient that open access monographs be available, they must also be visible and also accessible to these diverse audience

      I'd argue that this is the next challenge for the open community to figure out.

    5. eveloping a well-groundedtaxonomy of visibility is beyond the scope of this report

      I wonder if this challenge has been taken up anywhere yet...

    6. very difficult to track and may not involve a visible trace of usage that we can measure

      Unless, for example, annotation was baked into the platforms, and offered any reader the opportunity to collaboratively discuss.

    7. hese are not focusedon the usageof books but on distributionthrough intermediaries -traditionally measured in terms of sales (which also as-sumes that all publishers make the same effort to sell their books equally)

      So academic libraries are part of the problem. Could our particular position in this workflow be modified to provide better analytics? How would we balance that with ethical imperatives?

    8. Identifying opportunities for the more effective integration of information relating to the use of OA monographs into metrics and altmetrics ecosystems

      Eric Hellman has just written a short blog post about this from the U.S. context.

    9. OPERAS-D project
    10. Specialist scholarly books

      Are there other kinds of scholarly books?

    11. an be seen

      This underlines a concept I've been saying for a little while now... discovery is the future of open.

  6. Oct 2018
    1. However, repositories are not mentioned specifically as valuable vehicles for OA deposit/publishing. And yet when Open Access platforms are specified as publishing venues, it is unclear if the reference is to repositories or funder open research platforms, for example. Providing greater clarity about the importance and breadth of the role of repositories in the implementation process will be important.  

      I think this underlines the need for re-imagining what repositories are and do. Reminds me ever always of the COAR Report on Future of Repositories.

    2. the need to fund Open Access infrastructure to support the implementation of OA policy

      which comes first - the infrastructure or the policy? Is it always policy first?

    3. This critique of publishing costs is consistent with efforts that libraries are undertaking to negotiate fair prices for access to read, and publish, OA

      The continued conflation of OA to read/access and publish is interesting. I don't know yet if that alignment is happening in the US consciously.

    4. Funder, research organisation and library OA policies and strategies will become more aligned

      alignment is the future of open policy.

    5. a number of challenges remain if we are to see the 2020 goal met, primarily the multiple, varied details related to implementation

      is there anyway to advance an agenda with the implementation details already addressed? does this ever happen in policy?

    6. smart and fair use of public funds

      I think this is the reason that open science gets bound up in public policy - b/c its about efficient use of public funding.

    7. duty of care to the academic research system as a whole

      this is a powerful phrasing that I hope is true.

    8. Research funding organisation are the life-blood of research and innovation

      question I return to in my research - who holds what position in the future of research?

    9. A funder-driven mandate of this scope and scale is a first; and is very good news for OA.

      I wonder how it compares with the OSTP mandate from a few years back, although that lost some teeth after the administration changed over.

    1. we should expect to find evidence of it in these documents

      or we should advocate for it to be adopted and enshrined therein!

    2. defining the publicnessof an organization has been a politically charged process and a conceptually difficult goal to achieve

      yes, but why? money? prestige? what created or enforces the distance between people and the university? Collar color? Sense of valuable (practical) labor vs. invaluable (theoretical) labor? The Renaissance? High vs. Low Culture? Industry vs. Enlightenment?

    3. he publicdemands for access and support were considered a matter of publicpolicy that required a publicresponse

      I'm asking a similar question in my current research - why are we assuming or why has policy historically been the domain through which academic work is shared/valued? what is the ideal osmosis mechanism for the university as an "open knowledge institution"?

    4. s aimed at serving the public good,

      i want to wholeheartedly agree with this, and i think we pay lipservice to it often, but wonder how true it really is. many researchers I know do their work because they are good at it, and enjoy it, and the 'public good' can be a useful byproduct of that.

    1. NPOS is 100% open-access publication by 2020, i.e. all scientific publications (articles, books, book excerpts, reports) funded with public money must be freely available for viewing or reuse by anyone in the world as from 2020.

      need to look up the incentive/punishment details for this...

    1. It is vital to scientists around the globe as it allows them to see and use each other's results much sooner. It is vital to the business sector as it boosts innovation. And it is vital to anyone interested in hearing the latest developments in science, such as teachers, patients or engineers.

      speed of science, entrepreneurial/innovation, and community engagement. Wondering if there are other things we should be arguing that open is good for. And, I'd still like to see a solid model for community engagement around open scholarship.

    2. in 2016, nearly 42% of peer-reviewed articles published by Dutch research universities were open-access publications

      I'd be interested to see the data behind this. Wondering what disciplines are represented and how they compare to common OA in disciplines in the US.

  7. Jul 2018
    1. Open-access scholarship has the potential to reach a broad spectrum of potentially interested publics. We in the humanities often resist opening our work to these publics, fearing the consequences of such openness – and not without reason. The world at times fails to understand what we do, and, because our subject matter seems as though it ought to be comprehensible (you’re just writing about books, or movies, or art, after all!), isn’t inclined to wrestle with the difficulties that our work presents; their dismissive responses give us the clear sense that the public doesn’t take our work as seriously as, say, papers in high-energy physics, which few lay readers would assume their ability to comprehend without some background or training. As a result of these doubled misunderstandings, we close our work off from the public, arguing that we’re only writing for a small group of specialists anyhow. In which case, why would open access matter? The problem, of course, is that the more we close our work away from the public, and the more we refuse to engage in dialogue across the boundaries of the academy, the more we undermine that public’s willingness to fund our research and our institutions.

      1000 times yes!

    1. the role of the humanities disciplines is ‘to preserve, to monitor, to investigate, and to augment our cultural life and inheritance’ and, in straightforward parlance, it is clear that those employed in universities’ humanities departments conduct ‘research’ in the service of these goals.

      How do we agree or contest this assertion of what the humanities does?

    2. How has the popular reputation of the humanities – a frequent topic of lament – suffered from an inability of the public easily to read research work (in both the sense of impeded access and the sense of the unreadable complexity of the language of research)?

      Kathleen Fitzpatrick echoes this sentiment and opines that is is necessary for the humanities to make a first change here.

    3. value-adding functions are ‘filtering’, ‘framing’ and ‘amplification’

      This is a useful distillation of some activities that publishers carry out for academic work.

    4. why should academics retain the economic protections of copyright if they are not dependent upon the system of remuneration that this is supposed to uphold?


    5. Broadly speaking though, there are also supply-side and demand-side ‘crises’ in the monograph world.

      I wonder if this is echoed in/of/from the job market in the humanities also?

    6. whether the profit motive stands in fundamental opposition to the goal of academic research

      Does it? DOES IT?!?!

    7. while many different factions now agree that open access is a good idea in principle, there are a number of remaining real-world challenges to be overcome if it is to become the norm

      I strongly believe that in the humanities some of these challenges can be overcome by simple means of awareness-raising and contradicting falsely-held opinions about how things work.

    8. open licensing

      licensing is an under-explored mechanism for exerting control on the scholcomm system. my experience is that in the humanities folks get burned out on copyright/fair use by being forced through the ringer for permissions in classrooms or thesis/dissertations.

    9. unpacks the economics of scholarly publishing in the two interlinked senses of an ‘economy’ of academic prestige and of finance

      The economy of prestige is a topic of great concern across academia, especially as we move into the brave new world of digital scholarship.

    10. majority of costs lie in the labour to reach the point of dissemination rather than in the transmission of each copy

      This point of where labour sits in the scholarly communication system is inextricably tied to economics, both of which are often obscured for the author and reader. How does a thing go from your computer to a publication? Actually, thinking it through now, some of those steps might actually be more visible in the humanities than the sciences.

    11. The removal of these two ‘barriers’ alters the current model of scholarly communications because, at present, access to research is only allowed when content has been purchased from a publisher and because, at the moment, one may only redistribute and use works in accordance with the fair dealings provisions of copyright.

      What we are seeing is that the removal of these barriers is uncovering new barriers - like access to technological tools necessary to get to this research. And we're also seeing new barriers erected - like the major publishing companies investing in acquiring more pieces of the pipeline between the author and the reader.

    12. The term ‘open access’ refers to the removal of price and permission barriers to scholarly research

      Agreed. However, in practice it has mostly been applied to scholarly research published in journals.

    1. But the word “public” instead of “applied” or “practical” also has, I would argue, the happy outcome of having named people as the purpose of the work, rather than alternative methods of working.

      This cross-references nicely with Shiela Brennen's Public, First piece.

    2. de-centering the exclusive and hierarchical modes of humanistic knowledge production the university is seen by many practitioners as favoring–but also, as Mary Mullen has recently pointed out, to valorizing the new class of intellectuals who maintain the university’s status precisely by valorizing non-academic knowledges within academic frameworks

      Is this the character of a public humanities that we still sense?

    3. In essence, the idea of “the public humanities” had first been leveraged against academic humanists, in an effort to induce them to engage broader publics–and then by academic humanists, in order to build space for alternative methods of engagement against reigning paradigms of humanistic inquiry.

      are we in a third epoch now? how might it be characterized?

    4. infused with its longing for relevance and, unfragmented, universal conversations and understandings, and for closing the allegedly growing linguistic and social barriers between academics and publics

      knowing this complicated history of moralizing that produced an early public humanities, how can we be socially engaged, embrace openness, but resist the potential prying of eyes that would seek to diminish or upset the goals of a modern open humanities?

    5. “public” and “academic” were intuitively understood by most people as binarily opposite phrases

      Do we agree? What cultural or societal indicators can we point out that show otherwise, or affirm this claim? I think part of what I am interested in is making this seem less true.

    6. see in it the frustration of the new class of professionals in the state humanities councils with academic humanists whom they saw as disengaged with non-academic publics.

      ooof. Seems to me like this divide has continued and deepened over time, with the exception of the digital humanities which is purposeful about translation of academic humanities work to/across an open internet to whomever is on the other side of the tube.

    7. There was, after all, public humanities before there (quite recently) was the phrase “public humanities”, and those of us for whom the term has meaning know that there are still many more public humanists than the very small proportion who now claim the name explicitly.

      And I think we still have a common conception of a "public intellectual" that may be a humanist, or someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Is it useful to claim and apply a term that has baggage to describe working with the public in mind as an audience?

    8. organizations that engage the public in conversations

      For me this sounds more like a definition of cultural heritage, which often present humanistic work to the public, but what do we lose when PH is owned by organizations?

    1. relevant, useful, and productive

      Are these the goals of all public humanities work? If not, what would we like to claim that the goals should be?

    2. Projects must be accessible to those identified as potential audiences in a number of important ways.

      Broadly defined accessibility, and as mentioned above, discoverability, are other key characteristics. Again, as a librarian, I know that both of those things are accomplished through well-structured data, extensive project pre-planning and development, descriptive metadata, and some level of technical knowledge and/or infrastructure. Does that mean that a future-oriented public humanities must include enriched data with an information scientist co-constructing the layers underneath the "scholarship"?

    3. Before customizing an Omeka site, the team tested the site architecture, content, functionality, and terminology with different users using paper mock-ups. Once the site was prototyped in Omeka, the team spent time on the National Mall with friends and family members to test different iterations of the site before the beta launch.

      This and next paragraph sound a lot like the design thinking user experience buzz that is present in tech culture these days. Empathy as a core principle in humanistic scholarship. Would it be too strong to claim empathy as another key characteristic of a new public/open humanities?

    4. This means working with those groups to identify the needs of a potential platform, assess its functionality, and then measure its effectiveness for communicating ideas.

      Would it be too backwards to work with our communities/audiences to define our research agendas and projects? What are the needs of your neighborhood, apartment complex, or city commission district and how can your scholarship connect and inform? That seems like an impossible task for a university to be that local/outward facing. But what if?

    5. must begin by identifying audiences outside of the academy

      Yes, good! So, we must teach our colleagues to do specialized work for a dissertation committee, and then a tenure committee in a specific department, and then a small group of co-specialists, and all the while identifying an audience outside the academy. Of course we couldn't explore this topic very deeply without questioning the systems that disallow this very thing to be possible. I am cautiously optimistic... but wholly appreciate Brennan putting this in writing so we can hearken to it as a precept.

    6. This meant historians could, and should, build digital projects and platforms that would be used, and useful, and never isolated from the larger networks of libraries, archives, and museums.

      This raises a really hard question for me, a librarian: what does it mean that libraries, archives and museums are often the playplaces of academics, and how does that nullify the possibility of a true public orientation? I think its possible to argue that humanities projects can often become isolated within the network of libraries, archives, and museums. What other cultural or social organizations could be the emergent vehicle for humanities scholarship to flow into the world?

    7. many scholars did not rethink the structures and relationships involved in that communication flow

      interesting. So, the field adapted to new forms of public engagement, but didn't take the opportunity to evolve/transform the "scholarly communication" processes and methods of the time. What opportunity do we have now then, to respond to labor movements, socio-political chances, AND challenge the scholarly communication system as we know it?

    8. These practitioners often did not identify their work as “public history”; rather, some referred to this work as “applied history” (National Council on Public History). Their work was, and still is, service-driven, carrying with it a significant amount of intellectual labor and institution building.

      The applied, service-driven nature of this kind of labor, in my opinion, is perhaps why it has been devalued in the academy. In the Research Enterprise University, this work looks like the gray category of "Service" that is hard to quantify, and thus hard to count in a matrix of prestige. Is this taught into, or out of graduate programs?

    9. by not seeing “the public” as real people they have sometimes viewed “the public” as an unidentified “other.”

      How do we avoid othering "the public" in a more open humanities scholarship? Attaching the work directly to a community seems to be part of the solution. Personalizing and humanizing the subjects of our work... I wonder if much of this impulse happens in classrooms, and so is not readily 'public', but is part of a core value for many humanists.

    10. intentional decision from the beginning of the project that identifies, invites in, and addresses audience needs in the design, as well as the approach and content

      Ok, so, Brennan is arguing that an essential characteristic of public humanities is invitating in, rather than promoting to a particular community. I like that as a core value.

    11. “cracking open history as a democratic project, and doing it transparently, in public.

      I appreciate how public fits and works well in history, due to the connection with museums, historical societies, etc. How would one practice Public American Literature, or Public Asian Religions? The connection is a little less clear in non-history disciplines.

    12. Public history and humanities practices—in either digital or analog forms—place communities, or other public audiences, at their core.

      Having a website for your research does not a public humanist make. What I read here is that the academic and applied discipline of public history is focused on community engagement (think museum education program for example.) Whats the opposite of that? Are regular historians not necessarily focused on the community/public audience?

    13. Skeptics ask why academics have lost their publics, while proponents point to popular digital humanities projects (Bender).

      I'd be interested to ask this question again these days... have ALL academics lost their publics, or is this more of a humanities issue? I think the sciences in recent years have done lots to regain/create a public audience for their work. I think we could even say that the data-focused social sciences are having a heyday.

  8. Dec 2017
    1. we have prepared ourselves for the chance that our efforts to build a data repository may be a short-term, stopgap solution

      or, a solutuon that could fold into others over time? How do we produce that kind of system?

    2. How do we support the needs that researchers have today, yet plan for an unpredictable future?

      yes, how?

    3. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR; https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/), GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/), and the Protein Data Bank (PDB; http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/home/home.do).

      good examples of long-standing disciplinary data repositories

    4. to enable greater research transparency, increase the return on investment of government-funded research through data reuse, and demonstrate by a number of long-standing, discipline-specific data archives where data can have significant long-term value within and beyond their domain interests

      are these the same reasons we are interested in taking this on?

    5. persistent and reliable access to Illinois research data

      I like this as a goal.

    6. After a year of development

      Is this a reasonable time frame to expect?

  9. Feb 2017
    1. Libraries, if thought of at all, are seen as facilitators for access and not for discoverability.

      does this mean we should shift away from discovery and toward access? what would that look like?

    2. Google is the new reference point for searching for scholarly information, and the other players are increasingly dependent on its algorithm to put them in a good position on its hits page. Visibility is everything in today's scholarly environment, especially with regards to reputation, and that is what is powering Google. What is also helping Google is the increase in the amount of scholarly information appearing freely and in OA form; it is closer than ever to the one-stop information shop

      So we need to feed the machine. right?

    3. Nobody, anywhere, mentioned IR, but they might have arrived at an IR unknowingly via a Google search, just as the French researchers unknowingly found the resources of HAL.

      so the true value of an IR is its feed outward to google scholar

    4. Thus, questions about the role of the library in discovery are complicated and confused by the fact that, although ECRs use its services, they are often unaware the library is involved in anything but in a minor capacity. Library platforms largely go unnoticed and unmentioned, with ECRs passing through them blindly – more focussed on the branded services to which the library gives them access. It follows, of course, that they are unable to distinguish between library catalogues, library portals, and hosted databases.

      the invisible library realized...

    5. For most ECRs, university libraries are largely seen as study spaces for undergraduates and not places to go to for discovering research information.

      Libraries are for undergrads to study in.

    6. It is of interest to note the lack of interest in TOC alerts, previously one of the mainstays of discoverability

      TOC alerts are on the outs?

    7. Google and GS are found to be universally popular with all the 116 ECRs, irrespective of country, language, and discipline. In most countries, they are the one ECRs go to first. GS is especially rated highly in the USA, where two-thirds of ECRs say it is their top source.

      Google scholar is a top source in the US.

    8. it would not be an exaggeration to say that they do not care less who/what enables their access to full-text papers as long as they have it

      so the focus on library resources/databases is constricting...?

    9. there are more men in the sample (mainly because there are just more of them, especially in the sciences), and it is generally skewed towards the sciences

      as trying to be a representative study, I get this. But I think the methodology might be more interesting if they researchers worked for balance.

    10. How do you find the scholarly information you need? Google, library catalogues, online networks, and so on?Do you search for and read scholarly papers on your smartphone?Do you use social media in your scholarly activities to find out information and (if so) from what media?

      key questions that we could be asking our faculty too.

    11. Also, importantly, searching is such a common event in the virtual space, for everything from holidays, clothes to journals, that it is not the conscious event it once was, to the point that we can now equate it with digital ‘breathing

      searching is digital breathing. interesting to think about how that might change information work that focuses on search.

    12. junior scientists

      there are ECRs that are non-scientists too...

    13. open, borderless, and social scholarly information world

      i like this characterization. Feels like we should have this posted on the front of the library.

    14. 116 international early career researchers (ECRs)

      Small sample size

    1. more could be done to shut down these scam journals — by helping to transform academic culture so that university libraries become the principal publishers of scholarly work

      Go Lonnie! Making the case for Library Publishing!

    2. Nor, it should be stressed, are question marks around quality restricted to open access publishing alone


    3. International charity INASP is doing valuable work to provide support and guidance for researchers in the Global South which include running a mentoring system, as well as offering training and hosting a wealth of resources on their AuthorAID portal related to writing and publishing research.

      Never heard of this, but looks like a great resource. Could probably be integrated into many scholcomm outreach programs, especially to international grad students.

    4. the suitable size of an author fee

      This is an interesting point from my perspective as a librarian that managed an open access fund for a while. There may be no one-size-fits-all fee, but organizations like OASPA COULD help solidify a best practice, or reasonable standard. Maybe?

    5. While you can refer to our list of members for the organisations and journals we have approved, it is worth assessing publications yourself, particularly if you are choosing or advising on where to publish the outputs of scholarly research

      So does OASPA consider itself a whitelisting body?

    6. high standards in open access publishing

      and high standards in publishing in general, I assume. What I'm wondering is, will it continue to be helpful to focus standards and principles on OA journals/publishers, which makes it seem like there's a problem in just that sector of publishing that needs addressing.

    7. we consider all evidence that suggests a member might be falling short of our requirements

      How can folks report such failings, if discovered?

    8. Between 2013 and 2015 we accepted fewer than 25% of the total number of applications we received

      I'd love to see some stats on what the most common reasons for rejection are. Show me the data!

    9. the membership committee

      Would be interesting to see someone from the Library Publishing/Library ScholComm universe on this committee, or the larger OASPA board. Would Springer Nature still meet the criteria if a librarian were arguing our fields interests in the room? hmmmm...

    10. organisations

      sp. organizations? Kidding, again. One of those mornings.

    11. to keep standards high

      Is there a list of standards for non-OA journals? Perhaps SSP has a publishing ethics checklist or somesuch?

    12. the merits of blacklisting or whitelisting publishers are being widely discussed

      Rick Anderson, a regular voice in scholcomm, has some thoughts on this on the Scholarly Kitchen.

    13. behaviour

      sp. behavior? Kidding.

  10. Jan 2017
    1. Participants were asked to rate specific service areas they were providing as “no service”, “basic”, “developing” or “well developed” service, providing an insight into service maturity levels.

      scale of the survey here

    2. Maturity in this context is tied in with the notion that as knowledge about, and services in, a particular area reach a full or complete level of development, they are ‘mature’.

      Definition of how they are using the term/concept maturity

    3. the extent to which libraries may carry out a leadership role, the types of services that need to be provided, and the level of infrastructure that should be in place

      These three points feel like key points to address in our maturity model

    4. policy changes amongst research funders

      I think this is the thread that we'd be picking up on for our article.

    5. advocacy and policy development

      Definitely true of FSU

  11. Jul 2016
  12. www.clir.org www.clir.org
    1. AIR principle—Find, Access, Interoperate, Re-use
    2. laboratory notebooks (unless the information in the notebooks facilitates data re-use)

      This is something to pay attention to.

    3. One path is to increase support for residencies, fellowships, and post-doctoral programs, including the National Digital Stewardship Residency (NDSR) program, that incorporate continuing educa-tion and project-based practical experience

      And I'd argue to make those fellowships more readily available to post-MLIS grads.

    4. Data sustainability needs more attention and discussion. Ful-filling the goals of the public access mandate requires ongoing investment in infrastructure.

      Will be interesting, and hope the report susses out, how and where this infrastructure should be built. I'd argue that Publishers are already assuming it'll be their role.

    5. collaborate on joint, shared, or cooperative programs that address common educa-tional and training needs.

      are they asking for grant proposals on training for data curation for cultural heritage?

    6. Research Data Common

      hmmm... first time I've seen that mentioned. Is that a thing?

    7. Open Access vs. Public Access

      very glad to see this here. defining open vs. public is important.

    8. support the re-use of data over time and across generations of technology (digital curation)

      is this how they're defining digital curation?

    9. Training is similarly key

      which fits with what we've already been heading toward with DH training institutes, Science Librarian bootcamps, and DIY data management courses. The question we're grappling with: how do we formalize training from the library that is valuable outside the library, that will be credited by departments and disciplines to make it actually useful for people to attend?

    10. The report articulates a number of recommendations aimed at the behavioral.

      I wonder how this hearkens back to the report I can't recall the name of... something about shared cyberinfrastrcture in the humanities? Is that something we should update, or actually try to enact now for the "technical capacity" side of this need?

    11. unprecedented accumulation of contemporary data

      this is the storage question everyone always goes to 1st when we use the word "data" in libraries. Is there possibly another question we should ask first?

    12. able summarizing the federal public access policies
    13. digital data

      are there non-digital data?

    14. vAbout the Authors

      how do they chose these folks?

  13. Apr 2016
    1. And some transitional investment is justified by the great social benefits that will follow from open access and competitive rather than monopolistic prices for scholarly communications.

      This will sting for most folks. For some time we might be paying both subscriptions and APCs until the boat rights itself.

    2. because they generally publish less per employee than better-resourced institutions

      I heard a story about SCOAP3 that seems to contradict this. Where productivity increased with a developing country after SCOAP3 was initiated, the following year their bill for SCOAP3 was tripled because APC costs are based on research production. So, if there is more open research, productivity worldwide increases, so depending on the model of how APCs are calculated developing countries may even out, but may not.

    3. The research funders can and will redirect funds to where the costs are paid

      Is there a possible world where Funding for publication does not come through the library at all? That funders pay publishers directly? I proposed an idea like this in our OSI2016 group, and folks thought I was crazy. What would the library be if not a money funnel? Well... ANYTHING ELSE!

    4. The costs of scholarly communications (primarily subscriptions) are generally paid (mostly indirectly) by research funders today

      I need some more clarity on this. To my understanding, and in my specific institutional context, research funding $$ do not play any part in our subscriptions. Unless you mean in the greater "funding feeds the whole university system" thing. Our research office does not kick any overhead to the library, which I know is different at many places.

    5. By engaging authors in the economic decision about where to publish

      I wonder if this is the first step toward engaging authors in understanding and valuing their intellectual property.

    6. reducing or eliminating their market power

      This, explored below, makes so much sense.

    7. promising effort to radically transform the scholarly publishing ecosystem much sooner and more effectively than other efforts (notably the “green” OA movement)

      First time I've ever heard this sentiment expressed, that Gold OA might actually prove to be the catalyst for change in the system. From the ScholComm Librarian world, Green OA is like our bread and butter. I think we're in the middle of a significant shift where we can and should start talking about spending the money differently rather than trying to change researchers behavior.

    8. A number of my colleagues in US academic research libraries have expressed skepticism or downright opposition

      I wonder if some of this comes from inherent misconceptions about how Gold OA would work here in the States. I had a twitter conversation with Cameron Neylon about The Programming Historian being considered a "gold OA journal" that helped clear up some of my misperceptions.

  14. Mar 2016
    1. While the attrition rates of librarians is a more generalized problem in the profession, it would be well worth examining whether and why staff from underrepresented groups are leaving the profession at even higher rates than others.

      This might matter less then the issue at hand, but I'd be very interested to know where credentialed librarians, especially underrepresented groups, are going to. What professional space is more open or more engaged with diversity?

    2. the need for both intensified recruitment and retention strategies is evident

      I'd love to see how Library Schools are targeting recruitment and how that could be an avenue for change.

    3. These poor numbers are not unique to libraries; the statistics are similar in most institutions of higher education across the United States

      How can we in the library world assume responsibility to be a catalyst for change in higher ed? I tend to hope or think that we represent a broader spectrum of ideas and opinions than higher ed as a whole, but looks here like the data says that's not so.

    4. library leadership

      I was hoping that this discussion would come around to leadership too. It looks to me (white, hetero, male) that a lot of discussion is happening at the working librarian level, but I'm not seeing much at the Administration and Director level, other than Chris Bourg.

    1. I settled on a static site hosted with GitHub Pages because I'm cheap as hell, and I settled on Sculpin as my tool of choice because not only is it written in PHP, but it also uses Symfony components and the Twig templating library, both of which are major parts of Drupal 8.

      This is about where I stop comprehending what Bryan is talking about. But it looks really great/smart!

    2. you are efficient with is more valuable than a "better" tool that you don't understand

      hear, hear!

    3. At the time I thought the best strategy was to build a basic competency at all of them, but in hindsight that was a pretty bad idea

      I think this takes a lot of guts to say, and I think lots of LIS/DH-curious students should take heed.

    4. Islandora

      see more at DigiNole.lib.fsu.edu

    5. Jekyll

      We tried to spring Jekyll on Bryan a month of so ago. Realized that wasnt a great idea. ;)

    6. your choice of tool should include how easy it is to learn and if it fits with skillsets of the other people on your team

      This has been a difficult reality for us (me) to come to terms with, but I totally understand it now. Maybe it isnt good for us to jump at every new shiny DH thing if it doesnt make sense for our folks and our strengths.

    7. maintainabilty,

      different than sustainability, which is where my mind always goes. But maintaining a spectrum of different sites is something I'd never considered when we started to get into this work.

    8. they all need their own standalone website

      We tend to think this way, because what good DH project doesnt have its own site? Wondering if maybe there is a different way to think about how we present the labor of DH to the world. Is there still value in spinning up new sites for every "project"?

    9. projects

      We have a list of about 9 active projects that will be on our website in the near future. Each of these is in various stages of completion.

    10. infrastructure

      When we talk about infrastructure, we mean the whole, broad view; technologies, tools, people, monies, space, etc.