lovehistory.net

Okay, class is over! Thanks for reading along.

9:49pm: “You probably don’t want to wear a t-shirt that says open access.”

9:37pm: “Before you can do interdisciplinary work you have to understand the disciplines.” – Sharon

9:25pm: Now discussing the ways to circumvent pay walls.

9:16pm: Open access is not only for content, it can be for software too. The idea with open source software is the same as open access content – the community will work together to make the content or program better.

9:06pm: Time to take a break! Stay tuned loyal reader(s?).

9:04pm: If peer review is open and you have to sign your name, you can’t blow it off. It may erase the incidents of flippant comments, and you won’t be allowed to trash someone else in your field without explaining your reasons.

8:56pm: Andi raises the question of how we will funnel scholarship and information on the internet (in the same way that presses and journals do now). Sharon says the scholarly societies need to step into those spaces, and wonders if the university presses will follow suit.

8:53pm: Megan notes that comments can become part of the object, just like notes in books that people leave behind. They are another layer of historical information (very close paraphrasing of her own eloquent words).

8:51pm: What is our work is out there any anyone can comment on it?

8:48pm: Open peer review allows you to respond directly to your reviewer.

8:44pm: If you’re going to argue with someone through an academic press, it’s going to take another three years for things to come to a point, says Sharon.

8:39pm: Sharon asks – where did we get the idea that we have to hide from each other when reviewing for each other? Megan asks if it has something to do with history’s tendency to attempt positioning itself as an objective science? Sheri suggests that it is a protective measure to allow junior scholars to freely critique junior scholars.

8:32pm: What happens to other parts of the apparatus, like the editors? What happens to our system? This may have to do with the difference between blind and public peer review. The standard argument is that when you have blind peer review you receive more honest feedback because ostensibly neither the writer or reviewer know each other, however, this is not necessarily true.

8:26pm: hackingtheacademy.org. A Creative Commons collection of quickly assembled essays. They argued that they could compile a decent essay collection compiled within only a week, though it took them much longer to edit than initially estimated. It is readily available, free, and can be printed at any time. Apparently a hard copy is in the works. This is an experiment in scholarly publishing. Was it peer reviewed?

Some argue that there was a comment and review period. It was not blind peer reviewed, but most edited collections aren’t anyway. So, there is the open access question. If it is available for free than the apparatus for peer review supported by the publisher crumbles. Where do we go next.

Sheri says one proffered solution was to have those wishing to be reviewed (their scholars) pay their peers to review them. The reason to do it is because it can be seen as a contribution to the community because it aids in the dissemination of the scholarship.

8:23pm: How do we expand the knowledge base in this environment? Open access is meant to address this problem by allowing easier dissemination of information.

8:21pm: Now discussing how the internet is regimenting the lives and education of K-12 students so that many undergraduates are uncomfortable with the more self-directed college environment.

8:13pm: Sharon points out that eventually everyone will have some methodological training in digital history. To what degree we include it in a scholarship and teaching will be varied. She believes it will have a greater impact on pedagogy than production for a long time, as it has been since the infiltration of the internet into academia. I think its role in production will largely increase in the field of research before it becomes prominent or noticeable in end product presentation (i.e. a digital dissertation).

8:12pm: I will add, as I chronicle the discussion I’m not being too thorough in checking for typos. If my meaning is obscured, please let me know!

8:11pm: Geoff points out that we still have to figure out what’s equal between the traditional system and the new, emerging system of academic production, credentialing, and recognition.

8:10pm: As we young scholars watch the traditional academic system, including tenure, break down, does this effect our willingness to explore new systems and technologies?

8:08pm: The system of scholarly credentialing is starting to break down. How do we feel about losing these traditional markers of excellence? What does a new system of credentialing looking like? How do we maintain academic integrity?

8:04pm: Is changing your name after marriage just as archaic an institution as copyright law? Apparently it does play into the way intellectual ideas and identities are disseminated. Sharon points out that we are gaining new online identities in the forms of screen names and domain names.

7:59pm: Willinsky discusses scholar ego at its relation to open access.

7:56pm: When signing a contract with a publisher, you can negotiate the terms of ownership.

7:53pm: Every time someone takes something on the internet it makes another copy. This is distribution/reproduction, not lending/sharing. Once it crosses this threshold, rights holders can come after us.

7:52pm: Creative Commons is a much more explicit way of determining rights than copyright.

7:46pm: As scholars, are job is to educate our audience, which means making our knowledge accessible. Jeri suggests Creative Commons is one way to mediate this dispute.

7:44pm: David points out that while copyright is moving toward more restrictions, technology is moving toward open accessibility. The conflicts we see emerge from the divergence of those two processes.

7:39pm: Lessig argues that up until this point culture has built upon culture. It was more homage, and now intellectual property laws are making this harder to do. Sharon points out the DJ Girl Talk.

7:37pm: Just realized WordPress greets me with the word “Howdy.” Not sure how I feel about this. Very distracting.

7:36pm: Megan – there’s a difference between people creating the content and people controlling the rights.

7:33pm: Megan points out that some entities or people try to extend copyright over things they have no right to claim copyright over, and will then try to charge people for their use. People will then pay for these sources without knowing any better (I tried to put it a little bit less cuss-wordy then Sharon). Fear, therefore, stifles creativity.

7:30pm: Megan says it may not be doomsday yet, but there are two problems with the issue of rights since the advent of the internet. She points out these are things we’ve been doing all along, but the internet makes these activities more visible, making it easier for commercial entities to sue them. She points out that people without intellectual or legal savvy or resources will therefore be disinclined to use sources to avoid legal action. This stifles scholarship and creativity.

7:27pm: Problems with Lessig – Scott raises the question, do you have to buy his doomsday scenario for American intellectual creativity?

7:26pm Initial consensus: the class seems open to the idea of open access.

7:12pm: Step 1) Plug in your laptops, ladies and gentlemen.