Runners on a track, seen from above, with shadows beside them

SCI 2019 project teams

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 Equity in Scholarly Communications.

The selection process was difficult, as we received a very strong set of proposals and diverse team participants again this year – from 29 different countries and 78 different organizations, many different backgrounds and disciplines, and different stages in people’s careers.

Here are the projects and teams that will be coming together at SCI 2019 in October:

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

[ Photo by Steven Lelham used under Unsplash free license. ]

[ Edited 15 July, 5 August, and 5 and 12 and 19 September to reflect changes in members of several teams, and to add links to blog posts about each team. ]

Feminist-Centered Collaborative Scholarly Communication Living Toolkit / Caja Viva de Herramientas para la Comunicación Académica, Colaborativa, y Feminista

This is the fifth and final in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2019, and their projects. This one was submitted by Sandra Aya Enimil.

Photo of protest march with sign reading "The Future is Still Female"

The scholarly communication ecosystem reflects in large part the prevailing modes of thought, knowledge creation, and knowledge sharing of the time. Building a scholarly communication project that is truly inclusive of existing voices, thoughts, and perspectives takes time, critical reflection, and iterative thinking. Building a feminist-centered framework for collaborative scholarly communication projects requires enacting an ethic of care to ensure that marginalized voices and perspectives are given the space they deserve and that invisible emotional labor is recognized and valued. This team of six women, who stand at the forefront of the scholarly communication work in their respective regions, institutions, and fields, comes together to explore what it means to build a truly inclusive, feminist-centered scholarly communication agenda, rooted in a foundation of equity.

Given the focus of our individual work and our collective proposal for this project, we are delighted by this year’s theme of “Equity in Scholarly Communications.” Each of us has experienced the inequities inherent in the scholarly communication landscape on a number of fronts. We know what it means to operate in a scholarly communication system rooted in inequity and oppression, and we are committed to bringing an intersectional—taking account of multiple levels of oppression (Kimberle Crenshaw, 1991)—feminist approach to bear in our work.

We recognize the need for a framework of practical tools to help fellow colleagues build scholarly communication projects, at all stages of the process that focus on true equity, inclusiveness, and shared value of labor. We seek to begin building an iterative, living, multi-lingual, crowd-sourced toolkit that focuses on best practices for the conceptualization, creation, and completion of inclusive scholarly communication projects. Whether the project involves interacting with marginalized communities to curate and manage collections of materials, developing decolonized and anti-oppressive descriptions and methods for discovery, or creating culturally sensitive publication and dissemination strategies for these materials and resulting research output, our goal is to begin the process of creating a living document that will address best practices for any of these scenarios across cultural and disciplinary contexts.

Our goal is to create and disseminate the first ever multilingual feminist centered living (read iterative living document) toolkit to address challenges and opportunities regarding Scholarly Communications that has practical use in local contexts

Challenges:

  • The Team will discuss, identify and frame the misconceptions of what feminism is and what feminisms exist around the world.
  • The Team will discuss and identify definitions of diversity and equity, that can be very different based on perspective, place, culture, politics, and context.
  • The Team will discuss definitions of global – attempting to make this an honest project and sitting with the reality that “global” often used as a term without meaning.
  • Importance of living document that solicits ongoing work from scholars in different areas and at different times.
  • Cómo construir algo global cuando hay diferencias locales → necesitamos una caja de herramientas que pueda ser transculturado, no sólo traducido.
  • The Feminist Toolkit is designed and intended to be transculturated and not just translated.
  • El objetivo es crear algo muy práctico.

Graphic of feminist toolkit

How we plan to share our work:

The members of the Team represent North, Central and Latin American and are eager to solicit contributions from other areas of the world that are not represented on our Team. Toolkit content will be open to be reused and remixed and customized for use in local contexts.

The Toolkit would utilize Open Source and ethical technologies, software, tools, and dissemination plan. In keeping with the requirement and spirit of structural and sustainable Openness, our Team’s deliverable of the Feminist Toolkit living document will be designed and built utilizing open
software such as etherpad. Following ethical educational technology practices: https://ethicaledtech.info/wiki/Meta:Welcome_to_Ethical_EdTech

We will:

  • Promote the Toolkit via social media, international conferences and other venues
  • Solicit and recruit additional contributions to the Toolkit from areas of the world that have not received the attention and that require languages beyond English
  • Present, draft and share the results of the Team’s research broadly
  • Continue monthly calls to discuss the project proposal and next steps

Project Member Bios:

Gimena del Rio Riande is an Associate Researcher at IIBICRIT-CONICET and Professor at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. She is interested in building an Open Digital Humanities community in Argentina. During the last five years she created the first DH Lab in her country, HD CAICYT Lab, and she worked on the publishing of the first Spanish Digital Humanities OA journal, the Revista de Humanidades Digitales, the organization of the Asociación Argentina de Humanidades Digitales, and the Argentinian OA Repository Project, Acta Académica. She also collaborates with many DH projects and consortia around the world (Force11, TEI, Pelagios Commons, DARIAH). Gimena brings her experience working with different academic communities (Anglophone, Spanish), where she has explored transculturation and decolonization approaches in the Humanities. She also brings her experience in OA policies and the DH and digital humanities scene in Latin America, this will help the team in expanding this framework to the Spanish-speaking community and to Global South perspectives.

Sandra Aya Enimil is the Copyright Services Librarian and Head of Copyright Services at The Ohio State University Libraries. At Ohio State, Sandra provides information and resources on using copyrighted materials and assists creators in protecting their own copyright. Sandra works with individuals and departments within the Libraries and across campus. She works closely with colleagues in various academic units, Legal Affairs, and the Libraries’ Special Collections and Digitization & Reformatting departments to name a few. She has also given numerous presentations on various aspects of copyright for faculty and staff at Ohio State and several other institutions. Sandra will contribute her knowledge and work regarding collections and the way libraries and archives interact with marginalized communities.

Sharon E. Farb is the Associate University Librarian for special collections and international collaborations and the chief policy strategist for the UCLA Library. She leads the units that enhance and unlock the Library’s rare and unique materials and guides the Library’s government relations and public policy efforts. Farb is a national leader on the role of the public research library in organizing and preserving knowledge and spearheaded the Library’s development of its Open Scholarship and Collections Policy and an active member of IFLA’s Copyright and Legal Matters Committee.

April Hathcock is the Scholarly Communication Librarian at New York University, a large research institution with a global footprint. Hathcock educates her campus community on issues relating to rights, access, and ownership of scholarly material across the research lifecycle. She spent her previous career as a practicing lawyer and interrogates her current work through the lens of legal infrastructure and how it relates to knowledge creation and sharing. Her scholarly research focuses on the feminist intersectionality, information justice, scholarly (neo)colonialism, and global inclusivity and representation. She is an active member of the Force11 Scholarly Commons Self-Critique Working Group and can bring her work on building a globally inclusive scholarly infrastructure to this Triangle SCI project.

Charlotte Roh is the Scholarly Communications Librarian at the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit university with a social justice mission. She received her master’s in library and information science from the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign School of Information Sciences, and completed a scholarly communications residency with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her background is in academic publishing with companies such as Taylor & Francis and Oxford University Press, and she continues to edit freelance. Charlotte works at the intersection of scholarly communication and social justice, specifically in library publishing, open education resources, copyright and fair use, author rights, and institutional repositories. She has published on diversity and representation in scholarly publishing. Charlotte brings her experience in publishing and open access, as well as her critique of how the academic community (librarians, publishers, scholars, and activists) sometimes uses open access to replicate the existing colonial structures that disadvantage certain communities.

[ Photo by Miawicks9 from Pixabay. Image accessed July 25, 2019 and has been altered from the original. Used under Pixabay free license.]

[ Edited August 5 to remove one team member who is no longer able to attend. ]

Bringing Equity and Diversity to Peer Review

This is the fourth in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2019, and their projects. This one was submitted by Daniela Saderi.

Illustration of peer review

The current system of scientific peer review is flawed. Research is evaluated by a handful of unpaid reviewers selected by journal editors as “experts” in the field. Two or sometimes three reviewers are chosen opaquely, often through personal connections. Behind closed doors, they decide the fate of a research article, largely basing their evaluation on subjective criteria. Paradoxically, while peer review is a key component for scientific dissemination, very few scientists receive any formal training in it.

This arcane process is not only slow and inefficient – with waiting periods from submission to publication of six months or more – but also disadvantages researchers from under-represented groups or under-resourced institutions. When they submit their research for peer review, their work is evaluated using standards developed for research groups with vastly more resources and connections. The gatekeepers of scholarly publication are disproportionately male (Helmer et al. 2017; Lerback, American Geophysical Union, and Brooks Hanson 2016; “Nature’s Sexism” 2012; Fox, Sean Burns, and Meyer 2016) and from North America or European countries (Chawla 2018; Murray et al. 2018). Rarely is research evaluated by a diverse pool of reviewers who can provide a comprehensive and context-appropriate evaluation of the science. Thus, we need better ways to find, train, and engage researchers in peer review, and, importantly, we need to be intentional about including researchers from groups sunder-represented in scholarship in the design and leadership on any potential solutions.

Preprints are early, yet complete, versions of scientific manuscripts made freely available online before journal-organized peer review. They offer multiple opportunities to both train and diversify the pool of peer reviewers: 1) research is available immediately, instead of being delayed for months; 2) community peer review allows for the feedback of a larger and more diverse pool of experts; 3) writing and sharing reviews helps train early-career researchers in the norms of constructive peer review; and 4) as citable objects, preprints and their reviews can be used as proof of productivity and engagement for career advancement.

Our team is working to support PREreview, a grassroots initiative aimed to facilitate the uptake of preprints and community discussion around them. The idea is that all researchers should be able to engage in constructive conversations around new scientific output and be recognized for that contribution. However, in order to ensure this effort succeeds at its mission of diversifying peer review and meaningfully engage all research communities, we need to better understand the assumptions made, current workflows, and reward systems in the context of scientific publishing en large.

The 2019 Scholarly Communication Institute will allow our team to come together and discuss ways to reach a more equitable and inclusive peer-review process by fostering open practices and building infrastructures explicitly designed to fit or be adapted to different cultural contexts.

Our team aims to achieve the following goals:

1. Understand publication workflows and cultural contexts that may influence the involvement of under-represented groups and countries in the peer-review process in general and in the review of preprints in particular.

We will begin by reviewing the workflows related to scientific peer review and the publishing systems familiar to our team members. We will highlight known incentives and rewards, both overt and covert, associated with engaging in peer review and with the posting of preprints in these different contexts.

We will challenge the assumption that preprints are a valuable and safe method of sharing research for researchers from under-resourced institutions and under-represented countries in the elite landscape of scholarly communication.

We will discuss rewards and incentives that can be set in place to encourage researchers to engage with preprints, share feedback, and participate to journal-organized peer review.

In addition to our personal experiences and professional knowledge, to inform these discussions we will review anonymized results from open surveys run by groups such as ASAPbio, bioRxiv, and the Center for Open Science.

2. Challenge/test existing strategies, and brainstorm new ones to grow and nurture a diverse community of preprint reviewers.

We will focus this part of the discussion on providing contextual feedback to the following initiatives:

    • A new PREreview open-source platform is almost ready to be launched and will be ready for wide user testing during the TriangleSCI event. Some key features designed to address the concerns and needs of vulnerable research communities include: optional pseudonymity with trackable contributions that can be shared with selected parties; a strong and visible code of conduct with anonymous reporting and clear community expectations and consequences for its violation; constructive peer-review templates; specific feedback solicitations (e.g., help with language, statistics, etc.); contribution recognition badges linked to ORCID IDs. What features/resources could help make this or similar tools useful and safe for communities from under-represented groups? What unexpected consequences might emerge? How can we best monitor community interactions to minimize intended or unintended harm?
    • The PREreview team is developing a cohort-based peer-review mentorship program based on the successful Mozilla Open Leaders. Researchers with little to no experience in peer review will be paired with more experienced reviewers and invited to engage in community calls, webinars, and one-on-one calls. The curriculum includes critical evaluation of preprints, strategies to help researchers provide constructive feedback, and training in unconscious bias, licensing, and leadership. How can this program support researchers from groups under-represented in scholarship? What additional topics and resources should be included in the program? How should the mentors be selected?
    • The team is implementing live-streamed preprint journal clubs, topic-centered, interactive preprint journal clubs that are live-streamed via video conference. These events are designed to be inclusive of all researchers by allowing structured and constructive discussions around preprints and encouraging diverse methods of participation. Researchers from all over the world can join to build their network, meet globally-renowned experts, and collaborate on improving a preprint. What unseen cultural contexts may prevent global participation? How can we ensure everyone is included? How can we design these events such that they are easily adapted to fit language- and discipline-specific needs?

Output plan

The output of this work – including methods, process, and resources for user research with under-represented communities – will be published and openly shared in multiple forms:

  • As a detailed report shared with the team’s associated organizations: the African Science Initiative (ASI) executive board, eLIFE Ambassadors and early-career advisory committee, the Mozilla Foundation and related Open Science groups, the steering committee of INArXiv, and the PREreview advisory committee.
  • As a chapter in the Open Source Alliance for Open Scholarship Handbook, a project led by the PREreview fiscal sponsor organization Code for Science & Society (CS&S) and aimed at sharing knowledge across communities active in the global open scholarship movement.
  • As a presentation at regional and international conferences including possibly OpenCon 2020 (international and satellite meetings), Force11 2020, and WACCBIP Research Conference 2020.
  • As a series of blog posts published across platforms including but not limited to ASI, PREreview, Mozilla Pulse, Medium, and shared with our networks through social media.

Photo of colored pencils

Team Members

  • Richard Abdill
    Rich is a PhD student from the United States studying computational biology at the University of Minnesota, where his research is focused on host–microbe interactions in the human gut. Prior to graduate school, he worked as a software developer at Target, USA Today, and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute. In addition to his work on the microbiome, Rich is also interested in meta-research, especially bibliometrics and the growing use of preprints in biology. He helped build the Rxivist.org tool for searching and filtering bioRxiv preprints, and he advocates for open science practices as an ambassador for ASAPbio. He is particularly interested in understanding how different groups interact with the scientific publishing system and improving methods to quantify trends and patterns in the use of preprints. At TriangleSCI, Rich is excited to learn from different perspectives on open science and how people use scientific communication in their careers.
  • Yaw Bediako
    Yaw is a Ghanaian immunologist with a broad interest in investigating immune functions to better address immunopathology associated with infectious and non-infectious diseases among African populations. His post-doctoral research (most recently at the Francis Crick Institute) focused on understanding the immunological mechanisms by which naturally acquired immunity to Malaria is acquired and maintained. In April of this year, Yaw accepted an appointment as a research fellow at the West African Centre for Cell Biology of Infectious Pathogens (WACCBIP) at the University of Ghana. He is one of five African scientists to receive a Career Accelerator Award from the Crick African Network. Yaw is passionate about developing sustainable research infrastructure and human capacity on the African continent, especially leveraging indigenous expertise in the diaspora to strengthen local academic institutions. As part of this effort, he co-founded the African Science Initiative, an online platform aimed at facilitating networking and collaboration between African scientists all over the world.
  • Rohit Goswami
    Rohit is a Senior Project Associate working in computational photonics at the FemtoLab in the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. He also works on high-performance computational chemistry algorithms for graph theoretic approaches to molecular dynamics simulations. A chemical engineer by training, he has been passionate about open-science and the optimal dissemination of knowledge from his university days. He has over ten years of FOSS coding experience, and web-development. He has worked on large community projects, including the maintenance of LineageOS for the Xperia Z5 along with other ROMs. He is passionate about his interests and quantifies them by volunteering with traditional organizations, as well as seeking out new avenues to bring his visions to life. He is an ASSAPBio ambassador, a card carrying OSI supporter, an OSA traveling lecturer, and a Member of the Institute of Physics amongst others. At TriangleSCI he hopes to be able to influence the future of scientific publishing and forge international collaborative ties with peers.
  • Vinodh Ilangovan
    Vinodh is a postdoctoral researcher at the Max planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Goettingen, Germany. He is an early career advisor for the non-profit, open access journal eLife Sciences and an ASAPbio ambassador advocating for preprints among peers. As an early-career researcher in the biomedical sciences, he strongly advocates for responsible behavior in research through engagement with preprints and transparent practices in data sharing among peers and institutional leaders. His long-standing interests lie in changing the cultural practice around research evaluation using metrics. In order to create a community driven research output indexing system, as a Mozilla Open Leader he initiated integrated inclusive indexing, a project built on open principles. He has experience facilitating webinars and workshops on innovative forms of research outputs and creating incentives. Through TriangleSCI, Vinodh aims to bridge the dichotomy between early and late adopters of preprints and learn diverse disciplinary practices surrounding open and equitable scholarship.
  • Daniela Saderi
    Daniela is the co-founder of PREreview and a Mozilla Fellow for Science 2018/2019. At PREreview she leads the development of the new open source platform and works on the growth and sustainability of the project. She has recently earned a Ph.D. in neuroscience at Oregon Health and Science University, in Portland OR, USA. During her time as a student, she became increasingly interested in how open practices can be used to empower early-career researchers in taking ownership over their work, and to facilitate collaborations within and across teams. Engagement with global communities such as OpenCon and Mozilla Science, and her participation to international ambassador programs such as those at ASAPbio and eLIFE, helped Daniela to build advocacy and community engagement skills that she then applied to a number of projects. In addition to starting PREreview, she developed programs to grow the open research community in the Portland area, including OpenCon Cascadia, Science Hack Day PDX, and Python for Neuroscience Bootcamp. In the context of TriangleSCI, Daniela is excited to work together with such a talented and diverse group of scientists with whom she hopes to develop long-lasting partnerships.
  • Rizqy Amelia Zein
    Amelia is a Social Psychology instructor, working at the Department of Personality and Social Psychology Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia. She is also a researcher-in-training at the Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE) and a member of Tim Sains Terbuka (TST – Open Science Team) Indonesia, which consists of a number of researchers from diverse scientific backgrounds and institutions. She is actively involved in the advocacy of implementing Open Science policy in Indonesia by writing a number of op-ed articles and establishing Airlangga Open Science Community. Amelia is also interested in the issues of reproducibility of psychological science, and an enthusiastic member of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS). By participating in this project, Amelia hopes to learn from other participants, their experiences in engaging scientists to adopt open science practices, as well as developing networking to strengthen TST advocacy of implementing Open Science policy in Indonesia.

References

  • Chawla, Dalmeet Singh. 2018. “Huge Peer-Review Study Reveals Lack of Women and Non-Westerners.” Nature 561 (7723): 295.
  • Fox, Charles W., C. Sean Burns, and Jennifer A. Meyer. 2016. “Editor and Reviewer Gender Influence the Peer Review Process but Not Peer Review Outcomes at an Ecology Journal.” Functional Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12529.
  • Helmer, Markus, Manuel Schottdorf, Andreas Neef, and Demian Battaglia. 2017. “Gender Bias in Scholarly Peer Review.” eLife 6 (March). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.
  • Lerback, Jory C., American Geophysical Union, and R. Brooks Hanson. 2016. “GENDER BIAS IN PEER REVIEW AND SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING.” https://doi.org/10.1130/abs/2016am-281633.
  • Murray, Dakota, Kyle Siler, Vincent Larivière, Wei Mun Chan, Andrew M. Collings, Jennifer Raymond, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. 2018. “Gender and International Diversity Improves Equity in Peer Review.” Scientific Communication and Education. bioRxiv.
  • “Nature’s Sexism.” 2012. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/491495a.

[ Illustration by AJ Cann used under CC-BY-SA license. Photo by Plush Design Studio used under Unsplash free license. Post was edited on 5 and 12 and 19 September to adjust the team membership. ]

Communicating the TEI to a Multilingual User Community

This is the third in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2019, and their projects. This one was submitted by Hugh Cayless.

Text Encoding Initiative logo

The Text Encoding Initiative was, from its outset, very much a Western, English-language effort. Its remit, however, is global. Primary source documents written in languages as diverse as Chinese, Mayan, Coptic, Japanese, Arabic, Old Cam, and many others are published in TEI. The Guidelines “are addressed to anyone who works with any kind of textual resources in digital form” (TEI Consortium, About these Guidelines) and they represent a major and long-lived contribution to the infrastructure of digital scholarship.

Although the desire of the TEI community is to produce a globally open and accessible resource, we face many challenges in producing translations for the Guidelines and their specifications therein. The current processes used in producing translations are outdated for our purposes. The Guidelines are a living, continuously updated document, and translations may quickly become obsolete as the sources are edited. Additionally, integrating translated materials requires a high degree of technical expertise. Where ongoing translation efforts exist, there is no framework for publicizing their efforts. Our goal is to assemble a team with the technical and linguistic competency to conceive and implement workable solutions to these problems. We believe that tackling a large and difficult real-world global scholarly communication problem like this will provide examples to other projects wishing to improve their global outreach.

The editing of the Guidelines is the responsibility of an 11-member body elected by the TEI membership—known as the Technical Council. Although the membership of the Council is international, and between its members possesses competency in at least half a dozen languages, essentially all business is done in English. The TEI Guidelines documentation has three parts: 1) the prose Guidelines, 2) the technical specifications of TEI components (the actual elements, attributes, classes, etc.), and 3) the examples of usage, which appear in both #1 and #2. Translation efforts to date have tended to focus on #2, the technical specifications, which, since they consist of short definitions and notes, are easiest to translate. Each “spec page” contains documentation in various languages, in parallel.

The efforts to internationalize the TEI’s documentation date back at least to 2005. An initiative led by the late Sebastian Rahtz developed infrastructure to support translations and solicited community efforts to provide them. This effort resulted in partial translations in Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Italian, Spanish, French, and German. Over the years since that initial effort, periodic updates have been made to individual languages, most recently German, Japanese, and Spanish. The system in place for translating spec pages relies on converting them to a spreadsheet form, in which the actual translation is performed, and then integrating these changes back into the sources. There is, as yet, no workflow for automatically re-integrating translations back into the source documents. And there is no process at all to support translating the prose of the Guidelines. Some attempts have been made to produce French versions of parts of the Guidelines, but because of their complexity, translations are much more difficult to produce and maintain. Worse, from the point of view of non-English speakers, the prose Guidelines are considered to be the canonical set of instructions on TEI usage and syntax. Consequently, a full understanding of TEI is impossible without reading the English version.

We aim to address the following questions

Our group will consider technical approaches to improving the translation workflow for the Guidelines and specifications as well as ways in which we might de-center English as the core and canonical language of the TEI.

  1. Could we prioritize the spec pages as the authoritative documentation, around which documentation in multiple languages could orbit?
  2. How should we help foster pedagogical initiatives in many languages?
  3. How do we make it clear that non-English-speakers can and should raise issues on our GitHub repositories (https://github.com/TEIC) and ask questions in their own languages?
  4. What should we prioritize for internationalization?
  5. How should the TEI Consortium support and/or initiate translation efforts?
  6. Are there automated ways (Google Translate or Deep-L, for example) in which we can give translation efforts a head start?

Photo of a map and other items on a table

Project Goals

  1. Preliminary work will include the evaluation of existing translation toolkits, such as https://translatewiki.net/, and the analysis of lessons learned from previous translation initiatives, such as the recent German and Japanese translations, and from ongoing efforts, like the Spanish Text Technologies Hub.
  2. The team will produce a set of recommendations for the TEI Consortium, which will be submitted to the Board of Directors and posted on the TEI mailing list.
  3. We will deliver a follow-up report at the 2020 TEI Annual Meeting and potentially hold a workshop as well.
  4. Any translation toolkits or workflows we produce will be disseminated under an open license at the TEIC’s GitHub organization, https://github.com/TEIC.
  5. In addition, we consider it crucial that a well-documented set of procedures for creating translations will be developed and shared with the community.

The team we have assembled for Triangle SCI combines linguistic and technical expertise with practical experience teaching TEI in a variety of environments. We have experience working on German, Japanese, and Spanish translations of the TEI specifications, and so have direct knowledge of the limitations and shortcomings of the current system. We have taught TEI in Spanish, Japanese, German, and English. We also possess deep technical knowledge of the TEI itself and its infrastructure. Our group has representatives from both the TEI Technical Council and the Board. We are well-placed, therefore, both to conceive solutions to the TEI’s internationalization problems, and to implement them.

Team Members

Gimena del Rio Riande is an Associate Researcher at IIBICRIT-CONICET and teaches at the University of Buenos Aires. She interested in building an Open Digital Humanities community in Argentina. During the last five years she created the first DH Lab in her country, HD CAICYT Lab, and she worked on the publishing of the first Spanish Digital Humanities OA journal, the Revista de Humanidades Digitales, the organization of the Asociación Argentina de Humanidades Digitales, and the Argentinian OA Repository Project, Acta Académica.  She also collaborates with many DH projects and consortia around the world (Force11, TEI, Pelagios Commons, DARIAH). Gimena brings her experience working with different academic communities (Anglophone, Spanish), where she has explored transculturation and decolonization approaches in the Humanities. She brings her experience in OA policies and the DH and digital humanities scene in Latin America, that will help the team in expanding this framework to the Spanish-speaking community to Global South perspectives.

Martina Scholger is a senior scientist and researcher at the Centre for Information Modelling – Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities at the University of Graz. She recently received her PhD in Digital Humanities, is teaching data and text modelling with a focus on X-technologies, and is involved in numerous cooperation projects in the field of digital scholarly editing. She has been a member of the Institute for Documentology and Scholarly Editing (IDE) since 2014 and a member of the TEI Technical Council since 2016, where she is currently serving as Chair. In 2016, she was one of the co-organizers of the “TEI2German translatathon” at the annual TEI conference and members meeting in Vienna. She is therefore familiar with the current translation workflow of the TEI specifications and with the challenges and pitfalls regarding the preparation and implementation of translations into the TEI Guidelines, as well as the TEI infrastructure.

Helena Bermúdez Sabel is a postdoctoral researcher at the Université de Lausanne (Switzerland). Her current position involves the development of annotation schemes for the study of modality in Latin from a diachronic perspective. In addition, she supervises the technical aspects of the annotation process as well as data managing and dissemination of results. Before this position, Helena Bermúdez Sabel worked at the Laboratorio de Innovación en Humanidades Digitales (Madrid, Spain), an institution particularly concerned with the dissemination and training in Digital Humanities methods within the Spanish-speaking community. Besides being an instructor at different DH courses, many of them focused on TEI and XML technologies, she was one of the researchers of a project focused on enabling the interoperability of poetic resources from all European traditions. Her training as a Romance Philologist has provided her with a working knowledge of multiple romance languages: this background is not only relevant for the topic of this proposal but for SCI overall goals as well due to her understanding of the cultural heritage of different linguistic communities.

Kiyonori Nagasaki is a Senior Fellow in the International Institute for Digital Humanities in Tokyo and a lecturer of digital humanities including a TEI class in the University of Tokyo. He studied Buddhist philosophy and information technology in the graduate school in the Tsukuba University (Japan). While he has built many databases for the humanities, he has addressed to disseminate TEI among Japanese DH and Humanities researchers since over a decade ago. In 2016, a special interest group East Asian / Japanese (SIG-EAJ) was established under the auspices of the TEI consortium by his proposal in order to accelerate the activities which internationalize the TEI guidelines and its ecosystem. He has also addressed other standardization such as Unicode and IIIF and system developments in order to build a model of integrated research environments for the humanities.

Luis Meneses is a Postdoctoral Fellow and Assistant Director for Technical Development at the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab in the University of Victoria. He is a Fulbright scholar, and currently serves on the Board of the TEI Consortium and on the IEEE Technical Committee on Digital Libraries. His research interests include digital humanities, digital libraries, information retrieval and human-computer interaction. His current research focuses on the development of tools that facilitate open social scholarship.

Hugh Cayless is a Senior Digital Humanities Research Developer at the Duke Collaboratory for Classics Computing (DC3). Hugh has two decades of TEI experience, having first encountered the Guidelines as a Ph.D. student in Classics. He was a founding member of the EpiDoc Collaborative, which develops a TEI-derived schema, documentation, and tooling for representing ancient documents. He has served on the TEI Technical Council since 2012, and as Chair of that body from 2015–2018. He currently serves as the Treasurer of the TEI Consortium. Hugh has experience supporting TEI projects in many languages, including Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and English.

[ Photo by Nicola Nuttall used under Unsplash free license. ]

Toolkits for Equity in Scholarly Communications

This is the second in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2019, and their projects. This one was submitted by Niccole Leilanionapae‘aina Coggins.

Powerful testimonies in The Scholarly Kitchen (TSK post 1; TSK post 2) and surveys (Lee and Low; Greco, Wharton, Brand; Publishers Association; Global Voices for Workplace Equity), document how deeply imbedded bias is in our workplaces. This growing awareness has fueled increased efforts within our industry to advance inclusivity in the scholarly communications community. Despite a recent groundswell of support for these efforts, there is growing frustration with the paucity of effective programs and solutions in place within our companies.

Illustration of equity and equality

We believe that this work would get a kick start if our professional associations could provide training materials to help transform our workplaces and organizational cultures. Building off of the American Alliance for Museums’ guides for transgender inclusion, ALA’s Diversity Standards: Cultural Competency for Academic Libraries, and other resources, our team will create three toolkits to provide a common framework for analysis, a shared vocabulary, and best practices to address systemic inequities specific to the scholarly communications community. Highlighting specific actions to accelerate progress, the toolkits will assist organizations in establishing best practices, help bias-affected individuals break down barriers, and encourage colleagues to advocate for others. The toolkits will introduce foundational equity concepts based on a racial equity model and applicable to inequities related to gender, ability, ethnicity, race, age, and sexual orientation.

  • The organizational guide will provide tools for understanding institutionalized racism and other systemic problems, broadening hiring and recruiting, working to correct bias, including historically marginalized perspectives in decision-making, developing retention plans, pipeline development, creating affinity groups and mentorship programs, broadening accessibility through best practices, and supporting trans and gender non-conforming people.
  • The guide for underrepresented groups will provide an analysis of power and advantage as well as tools for handling microaggressions, advocating for policy changes, filing a complaint, building mentorship relationships, and expanding career paths.
  • The allies’ guide will provide analyses of power, advantage, and unconscious bias; best practices for bystanders; and tools for advocating for policy changes, identifying microaggressions, and building mentorship relationships.

By applying racial equity principles to the development of our materials, we hope to provide organizations with tools that will help them to fundamentally reevaluate core elements of their structure. We have often heard frustration voiced by individuals involved in diversity work—it can be difficult to convince employers that diversity does not end at hiring, and efforts by committees and task forces can stall out if there is not broad awareness of how inequality pervades every part of our workplace culture.

In distilling key equity concepts into accessible language and proposing actionable changes and best practices specific to our industry, we hope to shift the conversation from diversity to inclusion and, in doing so, help create workplaces where all individuals are valued, are set up for success, and where they will see themselves reflected.

Diagram depicting the "problem" of women of color in scholarly communications

Our Team

Niccole Leilanionapae‘aina Coggins is the editorial, design and production coordinator and assistant project editor for the University of Virginia Press. Niccole was a Mellon University Press Diversity Fellow at the University of Washington Press, where she was able to combine her lifelong interests in racial identity and indigenous sovereignty by working on books in Asian American and Indigenous studies, and American and environmental history.

Jocelyn Dawson is journals marketing manager at Duke University Press. Jocelyn serves on the AUPresses’s Annual Meeting Program Committee and is a previous member of the SSP’s Board of Directors. Passionate about equity and inclusion topics, she serves on SSP’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee, plays an active role in E&I efforts at Duke University Press, and has authored four pieces about diversity for The Scholarly Kitchen.

Melanie Dolechek is the Executive Director of SSP and previously served as the Director of Publishing and Marketing at Allen Press. She plays an active role in the Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communications (C4DISC), is an advisory board member of the Workplace Equity Project, and currently serves as treasurer of the Kansas City Society of Association Executives.

Gisela Concepción Fosado was a member of both AUPresses’ Diversity and Inclusion Task Force and AUPresses’ Gender, Equity, and Cultures of Respect Task Force. In 2016, she co-founded a grassroots staff group at Duke University Press focusing on equity and inclusion. As an Editor at Duke, Gisela publishes books across the humanities and social sciences, with an interest in books that foreground marginalized perspectives, adopt an intersectional approach, and contribute to our understanding of social movements and inequality.

As a co-founder of the Workplace Equity Project, a grassroots research, communication, and advocacy organization, Susan Spilka developed a marketing and communications strategy that yielded endorsements from major scholarly publishers, professional organizations, and UN Women UK, and participation from nearly 1,200 respondents. Having led Corporate Communications at Wiley for two decades, Susan now provides strategic communications, public relations, business development, and research services for scholarly publishers and technology services. She currently serves on SSP’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee.

Toolkit Dissemination

After the toolkits are finalized, we will

  • work with C4DISC member organizations to solicit feedback and encourage adoption.
  • seek endorsements from organizations across scholarly communications, starting with members of C4DISC and their boards.
  • increase awareness of and buy-in to our resources by preparing conference panel proposals for AUPresses (Association of University Presses), SSP (The Society for Scholarly Publishing), and other C4DISC member conferences, collaborating with members of these groups’ diversity and inclusion task forces and committees.

[ Equality/Equity illustration by Matt Kinshella, used here by permission. The “Problem” Woman of Color in Scholarly Communications illustration was adapted from a tool created by Emily Yee Clare and Kira Page at the Centre for Community Organizations (COCo), and is used here by permission. The graphic design was done by Sanjeevan Tharmaratnam. The original was adapted from a tool made by the Safehouse Progressive Alliance for NonViolence. Please contact the original creators if you wish to reproduce these images.]

The Labor of Open

This is the first in a series of posts about each of the teams that will be attending SCI 2019, and their projects. This one was submitted by Danielle Cooper.

Painting titled "The Harvesters" by Léon Augustin Lhermitte

This project, The Labor of Open, will examine the labor of scholar-led independent open access publishing as an equity issue in scholarly communications.

There is growing policy pressure on scholars from funders, governments, and academic institutions to disseminate their work through open access publications, including venues that are not associated with for-profit publishers.[1] These policies are being advanced under the auspices of increasing equity in higher education by alleviating the cost burdens associated with journal subscriptions for publicly funded institutions and readers who do not have access through institutional affiliations (e.g. non-academics, unaffiliated academics, academics at institutions with limited subscriptions, including those beyond the West). Some of these policies also target the article processing fees charged by some journals to authors to make their articles open access and seek to limit or regulate them.

Financial burdens for readers and authors, however, is just one component of the equity equation in open scholarly communications, as the onus for scholars to work with or on scholar-led independent open access venues constitutes considerable labor. This labor is often unacknowledged and neglected in emerging open access policies, particularly with respect to scholar-led open access journals and pre-print venues. Independent open access journals and pre-print platforms are intended to challenge the oligopoly of academic publishing wherein the majority of journals are in the hands of five commercial publishers with net profit margins parallel to automotive industries and big pharma.[2] Despite the important role of independent open access in knowledge creation, however, sufficient attention has not been paid to the labor involved in their creation and sustainability.

In this project, the team will interrogate the labor of scholar-led independent open access publishing as an equity issue in scholarly communications. Scholar-led independent open access publishing often constitutes a form of “hope labor” wherein work done for free is deemed “a good opportunity for exposure” and invoking the promise of employment and financial compensation that may or may not arrive in the future. The project will identify and critically examine the full range of labor responsibilities for scholars when publishing and/or working in an editorial capacity on scholar-led independent open access publishing paradigms. The project will focus especially on how such responsibilities relate to the evolving economic context of higher education, especially the increasingly precarious status of postdocs, graduate students, and faculty in the academic labor market. In doing so we will bring much needed attention to how the labor of open scholarly communications intersects with the politics of work in higher education more broadly and identify ways forward to ensure that the open access agenda is enacted equitably for contributors and consumers.

How equity issues of gender, class, race, and other marginalized positionalities intersect with the politics and labor of open scholarly communications paradigms will be a focus of the project. For example, often termed a “labor of love,” facilitating independent open access publishing venues is feminized work, expected to be undertaken for no pay and little recognition.[3] Further, while open access has been celebrated as a tool of increasing access to knowledge, Indigenous scholars have raised questions around whom this knowledge is open for and at what cost. As Kimberly Christen highlights, open access relies on Western colonial understandings of knowledge sharing that thieve Indigenous and traditional knowledge, while promoting “openness” to knowledge “at any and all costs.”[4] By examining questions of labor and inequality in the move to independent open access, our project will highlight the possibilities, limits, and labor of making open access equitable.

Our team is uniquely composed to undertake a project of this aim and scope. Members of this international team include individuals who study and research at the intersection scholarly communications, publishing, researcher information practices and equity issues; editors and authors of open access publications and platforms; librarians supporting scholar-led publishing; scholars at all stages of their careers in a variety of academic and applied settings; and, labor activists. The team’s strong expertise in the project’s subject areas is coupled with demonstrated ability to effectively communicate with stakeholders in higher education about social justice issues in scholarly publishing.

Team Members

Leslie Chan is an Associate Professor, teaching stream, and Associate Director of the Centre for Critical Development Studies at the University of Toronto Scarborough. His teaching and professional practice centers on the role of “openness” in the design of inclusive knowledge infrastructure, and the implications for the production and flow of knowledge and impact on local and international development. An original signatory of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, Leslie is active in the implementation of scholarly communication initiatives around the world, serving as Director of Bioline International and principal investigator for the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network and for the Knowledge G.A.P project. He is a member of the advisory board of the Directory of Open Access Journals, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, and the Investing in Open Infrastructure working group.

Danielle Cooper is the Senior Researcher of Libraries, Scholarly Communications and Museums at Ithaka S+R, a not-for-profit research organization working on issues at the intersection of information, technology, and education. She is an applied qualitative social scientist with expertise in studying the information needs of researchers in higher education contexts and working with stakeholders, including librarians, publishers and scholarly societies, towards meeting those needs. Her work focuses on information practices and needs in underrepresented and under-resourced academic communities, including recent and ongoing projects on Indigenous studies scholars, community colleges, and post-secondary correctional education. Examples of recent publications for Ithaka S+R include: Scholars ARE Collectors: A Proposal for Re-Thinking Research Support and When Research is Relational: Supporting the Research Practices of Indigenous Studies Scholars.

Emily Drabinski is Associate Professor and Critical Pedagogy Librarian at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is on the board of Radical Teacher, a journal she flipped to diamond open access in 2013 with the University of Pittsburgh’s library publishing program. She is also a union activist who has written and presented widely on organized labor in libraries and archives. Emily’s research interests include the politics of knowledge organization, power and library infrastructures, and gender and sexuality issues in information studies.

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe is Professor/Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction in the University Library and Affiliate Professor in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. During her term as President, the Association of College and Research Libraries flipped its flagship journal, College & Research Libraries, to diamond open access. She is also the current editor of Library Trends, an embargoed gold open access journal, and writes for The Scholarly Kitchen.

Jojo Karlin is a PhD student in English at the Graduate Center, CUNY, and adjunct at Brooklyn College. A member of the editorial collective of the open access Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, she co-edited Issue 14: Teaching and Research with Archives. She has contributed to MLA’s Literary Studies in the Digital Age. As the Graduate Fellow to Manifold Scholarship, an open source publishing platform built by the Graduate Center, University of Minnesota Press, and Cast Iron Coding, she is researching open educational resources.

Ela Przybylo is presently a Ruth Wynn Woodward postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University. Starting in August 2019 she will be Assistant Professor of Publishing Studies in the Department of English at Illinois State University. Ela is also a founding co-editor of the peer-reviewed, open access, independent journal Feral Feminisms. Her teaching and research examines questions of digital publishing as they relate to feminism, anti-racism, and decolonialism.

Painting titled "The Gleaners" by Léon-Augustin Lhermitte

Team Engagement and Output Plan

The team’s participation will result in a handbook that accounts for the different forms of labor, and their trade-offs, associated with scholar-led independent open access publishing. We anticipate developing the handbook in an accessible and entertaining digital zine format. The handbook will be designed with scholars as the main audience and will include a supplementary section for those involved in scholarly research support (e.g., academic librarians, policymakers and grants officers, and those involved with developing and supporting open access publishing platforms). The handbook will be distributed through social media, listservs, blogs and other high-impact channels for promoting scholarly communications issues to scholars and their stakeholders. A webinar and/or conference session about working with the handbook will also be developed for stakeholders to further promote using the tool.

The team will begin their work in advance to ensure maximum use of their time together at the institute. Prior to the institute the team will hold a remote introductory meeting to brainstorm the breadth of the thematic categories related to the labor of open access.  Following that meeting, the members will do independent research to further refine their understanding of those categories, building up a shared repository of resources that will be shared and finalized through consensus as the first collective activity at the institute. The remainder of the time at the institute will be devoted to designing and creating the handbook as well as identifying next steps for external review and feedback, a revision process, and the dissemination of the handbook.

 

[1] For examples of funder policies, see Wellcome Trust and  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. For examples of government policies, see Plan S in Europe, CIHR in Canada, NIH in the US .

[2] Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. “The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era.” PloS one 10, no. 6 (2015): e0127502.

[3] McLaughlin, Lisa. “Feminist Journal Editing: Does This Job Include Benefits?” Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 4 (2014): https://adanewmedia.org/2014/04/issue4-mclaughlin/

[4] Christen, Kimberly A.. “Does information really want to be free? Indigenous knowledge and the politics of open access.” The International Journal of Communication 6 (2011): 2870-2893.

[ Images: The Harvesters and The Gleaners, by Léon-Augustin Lhermitte, public domain. ]

Photo of colorful flags

Submit your proposal to join SCI 2019 in October – this year’s theme is Equity in Scholarly Communications

[Update on June 3, 2019: We received many excellent proposals again this year, with over 100 participants from 29 countries and 78 organizations. The TriangleSCI Advisory Board selected five teams from among these to participate in SCI 2019, and invitations were sent out earlier today. Once invited teams have confirmed they can participate, information about each of them will be posted here.]

The Scholarly Communication Institute invites you to participate in SCI 2019, its sixth year in North Carolina’s Research Triangle region. This year’s theme will be Equity in Scholarly Communications and the program will take place October 13 through 17, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Triangle SCI 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: they have described TriangleSCI as “One of the best scholarly experiences I’ve had.” and “an amazing incubator of ideas, innovation and collaboration. Grateful to be a part of this incredible experience!” Learn more about TriangleSCI from the perspective of participants via this podcast (with transcript), this summary blog post, and other highlights from SCI 2018 and previous years.

This year’s theme is Equity in Scholarly Communications, described this way in the page about the theme:

Discussions around scholarly communications, at this Institute and elsewhere in North America and Europe, tend not to account for the wide range of factors that influence whether and how different communities create and access scholarship: not all stakeholders are from well-resourced institutions or nations; not all of us speak, write, read, search, and think in the same language; not all of us enjoy robust support for scholarship, or reliable access to the Internet, or modern research tools, or easy access to libraries, or means of keeping in touch with colleagues and abreast with global developments in our disciplines. Too many platforms, standards, systems, publications, projects, and discussions move forward with only some of us in view.

For the 2019 Triangle Scholarly Communication Institute, we invite proposals from teams that aim to build a more inclusive and equitable global network of scholarship. SCI is an opportunity to spend a few days with a diverse set of people to investigate challenges, develop plans, test processes, come to agreements, and launch initiatives. SCI is an ideal place to bring together perspectives and expertise that may not normally intersect, and to build understandings and new models based on them. We encourage pragmatic, proactive optimism, and hope participants will use SCI as a platform to nurture positive change.

We especially encourage teams with participants from the “global south”, historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, community colleges, K-12 schools, independent scholars, and other institutions and backgrounds whose needs and perspectives are often overlooked in discussions about scholarly communications and the infrastructures and processes that support it.

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 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.

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 April 24, 2019.

If you have questions about any of this 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 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for continuing to provide funding for the Triangle SCI and making all of this possible!

[ Photo by Marco Bianchetti on Unsplash used under Unsplash free license. ]