Author Archives: Paolo Mangiafico

Building a contextual alternative to scholarly journal un/safelists

Posted on by

This is the first in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2022 and their projects. This one was submitted by Matt Ruen.

orange sheets of paper lie on a green school board and form a chat bubble with three crumpled papers.

Concerns about “predatory” or questionable journals have led many academics to seek out simple checklists of safe or unsafe journals, which reflect a real need among researchers to quickly make sense of an ever-increasing range of publication options. But the “safe/unsafe” approach obscures the contextual and constructed nature of authority in information, instead valuing the prestige of a small group of commercial entities. Existing lists tend to hold open access journals to different standards than subscription based journals, and view new or smaller publications more critically than large commercial publishers. In turn, these lists and discussions often overlook exploitative or problematic aspects of traditional subscription publishing. They also replicate biases against certain forms of research, such as those from non-anglophone countries who have been historically and intentionally excluded from the prestige economy of scholarly conversation. We want to reckon with these issues through a transparent evaluation process that seeks to address both the labor of evaluation and the bias inherent in the existing system.

Our group came together to try to address this problem with Reviews: the Journal of Journal Reviews (RJJR), a scholarly publication that will invite peer-reviewed evaluations of journals, both open and paywalled, from across the world. Our vision is to create a place for authors to find and share useful information about unfamiliar journals in a format that emphasizes the subjective, nuanced nature of this challenge. Our goal is to not create another set of “safe” or “unsafe” journals, but to provide authors with enough information in an easily digestible format to allow them to make their own decisions based on their needs. As RJJR publishes reviews, authors interested in a potential journal could look to RJJR for evaluations already completed. Even when a particular journal has not been reviewed, the collection of reviews can demonstrate ways to carry out a thoughtful, nuanced, subjective analysis. We conceive of this as an iterative process which allows for open feedback and updates. At the same time, it gives librarians and others who regularly perform this often unseen work a peer-reviewed means of recognition of their labor and creates efficiencies for other librarians who need to investigate the same journal.

Biases are not eliminated in this style of review, but instead we ask each reviewer to provide justifications and context for their judgments. We anticipate that there will be room for a conversation, an evolution of journal practices, and the reporting of those practices as they are critically evaluated in a transparent way. Academic publishing is not a stagnant activity, nor should our evaluation mechanisms be.

RJJR rests on a rubric or a model of processes and tools for authors to use when evaluating a journal. A rubric offers a method of evaluation, rather than a checklist of binaries or a simple watchlist of outlets to avoid, and we are providing careful guidance to point at critical questions, rather than expected answers. In line with some of the facets of an ethics of care, we want evaluations to be relational and situated, and to reflect a sense of collective responsibility for our scholarly landscape. The rubric is supported by our values, including: taking a critical approach to prestige, supporting labor not traditionally seen as scholarly work, ensuring an environment inclusive of diverse voices, being transparent about the process, acknowledging nuance in journal evaluation, and accepting that change happens. RJJR represents a much-needed reckoning: with the above values, with the longstanding problem of good/bad lists in scholarly journal evaluation, and with the uncredited intellectual labor of scholarly communication professionals.

Outcomes

During Triangle SCI, we aim to refine and finalize the core processes and documentation for RJJR.

We anticipate the following specific outcomes:

  • a finalized rubric and guide for authors to submit reviews to RJJR
  • instructions for peer evaluation of submitted reviews
  • finalized editorial and publication workflows
  • learn from and collaborate with the institute’s other participants to improve equity across the project

Our stretch goals include:

  • a ready-for-submissions RJJR journal site
  • a process for targeted recruitment of potential peer evaluators and contributors
  • strategies to diversify representation in our team/process

Our team

Joshua Neds-Fox is Coordinator for Digital Publishing at the Wayne State University Libraries in Detroit, Michigan. Joshua’s work at Wayne State over the past 15 years has encompassed digital open access publishing, copyright and scholarly communications, and consultation with the Wayne State community on the very questions that RJJR seeks to address. He serves on the editorial board of the Library Publishing Curriculum and is leading the team developing a revision of the Library Publishing Coalition’s Ethical Framework for Library Publishing. His deep background with open access publishing gives him a familiar perspective on debates about actual and alleged “predatory” publishing and the mechanisms for evaluating appropriate outlets for scholarship. Joshua identifies as a white cisgendered man.

Matt Ruen is the Scholarly Communications Outreach Coordinator for the Grand Valley State University Libraries. As a scholarly communication librarian, his responsibilities include advocacy and education on open access publishing as well as evaluating journals for the library’s open access publishing fund. Matt supports this project with his advocacy experience as well as a strong drive to understand the context of problems. He has long been irritated (and intrigued) by the way scholarly conversations about journal watchlists and “predatory publishing” omit or ignore the way that quality – authority – is constructed and contextual. This frustration, in the form of a Twitter thread, kicked off the group’s collaboration on Reviews: the Journal of Journal Reviews. Matt identifies as a white cisgendered man.

Teresa Schultz is the Social Sciences Librarian at the University of Nevada, Reno, where she leads scholarly communications efforts. This includes educating faculty and students about the complexities of scholarly journals and deciding where to publish, experience which she brings to her role in the project. She is researching how science journalists view and think about the concept of “predatory” publishers. She identifies as a white cisgendered woman.

Brianne Selman is the Scholarly Communications and Copyright Librarian at the University of Winnipeg, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, where she leads Research Support for faculty and students interested in publishing. She also does frequent scholarly journal landscape evaluations, and advises faculty on the intricacies of the scholarly publishing ecosystem, as well as author’s rights in copyright and other arenas. She does research on research, particularly looking at the cultural economics behind concentration in ogopolistic markets, and public infrastructure projects that look for transparent alternatives based in communities of care. The research she does on scholarly publishing and the profit motives behind it, as well as her practical experience in conducting thoughtful, needs-based scholarly journal evaluations, will help to shape the parameters of this project. Brianne is a white settler-Canadian, and is cisgender.

Leila Sterman is an Associate Professor and Scholarly Communication project lead at Montana State University where she runs an institutional repository, hosts multiple journals on OJS, and advises authors at her institution on journal selection. Her previous work on prestige in publishing and communication across disciplines inform her practical work developing this platform and her desire to create a journal that encourages the critical evaluation of resources. She identifies as a white cisgendered woman.

Stephanie Towery is the Copyright Officer at the University Libraries at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. She adds expertise on copyright, plagiarism, and related topics to this team. Stephanie also teaches Legal Information Resources at the Graduate School of Information at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas. Stephanie has a BFA in Acting, a JD, and an MLIS all from the University of Texas at Austin. She is a member of the State Bar of Texas but is not currently practicing. Stephanie identifies as a white cisgendered woman.

[ Featured image by Volodymyr Hryshchenko used under Unsplash Free License ]

Plant growing from an egg shell

SCI 2022 Project Teams

Posted on by

We’re pleased to be able to announce the teams that will be participating in this year’s Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute, on the theme of Reckoning, Care, and Repair – a diverse and international cohort working on important topics:

More detailed information about each team and their project is linked above, and highlights of their work at TriangleSCI will be posted once the program gets underway in the fall.

Congratulations to all of these teams, and we look forward to seeing you in Durham in October!

Matches on purple background

Submit your proposal to join SCI 2022 in October – this year’s theme is Reckoning, Care, and Repair

Posted on by

The Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute invites you to participate in SCI 2022, its seventh year in North Carolina’s Research Triangle region. This year’s theme will be Reckoning, Care, and Repair, and the program will take place from October 9 to 13, in Durham, North Carolina, USA. Sadly, we had to cancel SCI 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID pandemic, but we are hoping to be able to resume this October – see below and our pandemic FAQ page for information about COVID safety protocols and contingency planning.

TriangleSCI is not your typical academic conference – it’s four days of concentrated but relaxed time with a diverse cohort of individuals who have come to start new projects they have proposed, in teams they have built and with advice and contributions from participants on other teams and a set of interlocutors and experts who work across teams.

You set the agenda, and you define the deliverables – TriangleSCI provides the scaffolding for your team to develop its project. If your team’s proposal is selected, SCI will cover all the costs for team members to participate, including travel, meals, and accommodations, including for international participants. For more information about how TriangleSCI works, see the FAQ and links from previous years of SCI.

Probably the best way to get a sense of what it’s like is through the words of participants from past years, for example: “One of the best scholarly experiences I’ve had.”; “an amazing incubator of ideas, innovation and collaboration. Grateful to be a part of this incredible experience!”; “participating in #TriangleSCI was a highlight of my 2019“; “I can’t recommend this opportunity strongly enough. Run, don’t walk!“; “It was a privilege to participate to this fantastic gathering last year… It’s a unique opportunity for international teams to get together & work on a project.“;  “My 2016 @TriangleSCI experience gave me the space and time to collaborate deeply with new colleagues & incubate a project … that has become foundational to all my work. What a gift.“. Learn more about TriangleSCI from the perspective of participants, for example from this podcast (with transcript) and other highlights from SCI 2019 and previous years.

This year’s theme is Reckoning, Care, and Repair, described in part this way in the page about the theme:

Plant growing out of an eggshellThe past few years have challenged us all, broken things we took for granted, and forced us to regroup and rebuild in a hurry. The pandemic and growing political and cultural tensions further exacerbated and made more visible problems and injustices that had been present for a long time. They have further exposed structural racism and economic and social inequality as more prevalent and insidious than many realized, or wanted to admit.

At the same time, we’ve become more acutely aware of the people who we rely on to make everything work — many who suddenly found themselves in the “essential workers” category, keeping infrastructure and systems going for others while struggling to ensure they and the people they cared for were safe.

Scholarly communication also relies on infrastructure — the technological kind and the organizational kind, and the human kind too. We tend to focus on the first two, often without enough attention to the last one. How can we move forward with a more deliberate focus on an ethic of care, recognizing the people who build and support and make up the infrastructure and organizations? How do we ensure that hidden labor doesn’t remain hidden, but instead is appropriately recognized and rewarded? How can we ensure more equitable access for global participants in a scholarly communications ecosystem that currently privileges wealthier countries and institutions? We’re past due for a reckoning.

SCI 2022 provides a platform where you can call attention to the fragile scholarly communication systems that need to be better understood, addressed, and maybe broken further before we’re ready to rebuild. We hope that your projects will focus on how we repair while we rebuild, and how we give attention and care to those people and organizations who are integral to this scholarly system and who were previously overlooked, or cast aside, or taken advantage of. We hope you will bring your own perspective and address the needs of your community or communities you work with, and that you will be creative in engaging with others who have different perspectives that could complement or enrich your own.

Please see the theme page for more information, including some ideas of who you might bring together to form a team, and questions you might address – we’re looking for a broad and diverse set of perspectives, and teams that will address both specific and general problems and opportunities. This is a great opportunity to launch a new project, have some concentrated time to further develop an existing project with a broader set of collaborators, or just to begin to explore and experiment with ideas that are difficult to pursue in your usual work context. Remember that if your proposal is selected, your expenses to participate will be covered by SCI, so this is a great opportunity for potential participants who might normally find traveling to such a program cost-prohibitive.

Between 2014 and 2019 TriangleSCI was held at the Rizzo Center, a conference center affiliated with UNC-Chapel Hill, that featured a retreat-like atmosphere. For 2022 we’ll be moving to the center of Durham, where, in keeping with this year’s theme, we expect TriangleSCI programming to be more integrated into the community. The main venue will be The Rickhouse, a historic tobacco building in Durham’s Central Park neighborhood that was recently renovated to an event space, with a large deck overlooking the historic Durham Athletic Park (setting for the film Bull Durham). SCI 2022 participants will have lodging at The Durham Hotel, in a renovated mid-century modern bank building on Durham’s central square, a short walk from the Rickhouse. Meals will be in nearby restaurants such as the Durham Food Hall or catered in to the meeting venue. More details will be posted on our Venue and Logistics page as they become available.

Durham Central Park mural

To participate, form a team of 4 to 6 people, and submit a proposal along the lines of what’s described in the Request for Proposals (RFP). Proposals are due by the end of the day on May 2, 2022.

The pandemic is still with us, and as of this writing in January 2022 it’s difficult to predict what conditions will be like in October. Our aim is to plan for being able to gather in person as we have in past institutes, even if it must be done with masks and mostly in outside spaces. The program will require participants to follow pandemic safety policies that are in place at the time of your arrival in Durham. We will be following pandemic safety best practices required by local authorities (i.e., wearing masks in all indoor spaces) and by the host institution, Duke University (i.e., proof of COVID vaccination and/or negative COVID test required to participate in in-person activities) and may put in place other practices or requirements in order to keep all participants safe. We will continue to monitor conditions, and make a decision around the time teams are being invited (in June/July) about whether and how the program will proceed in October, and what pandemic safety practices will be required at that time. If invited participants are unable to travel to Durham, or if we can’t safely gather in person, we will plan for online participation, or perhaps postpone until conditions allow an in-person program.

If you have questions that aren’t already answered in the FAQ, please contact scholcomm-institute@duke.edu and we’d be glad to help. You might also find some people you know in TriangleSCI cohorts from past years, and you can ask them about their experience and get tips from them about what made their proposal and project successful.

Thanks as always to the Mellon Foundation for continuing to provide funding for the Triangle SCI and making all of this possible!

[ Matchstick illustration by Tangerine Newt used under Unsplash license / Eggshell illustration by Stoica Ionela used under Unsplash license. / Durham Central Park photo by Paolo Mangiafico used under CC-BY license. ]