|
A Study of Contexts and Practices

Notes

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 [1] Society for Cinema and Media Studies, “Fair Use Policies” <http://www.cmstudies.org/?page=fair_use>.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 [2] College Art Association, “Guidelines for Faculty Teaching in New-Media Arts” <http://www.collegeart.org/guidelines/newmedia07>.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 [3] Modern Language Association, “Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media” <http://www.mla.org/guidelines_evaluation_digital>.

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 [4] Conference on College Composition and Communication, “Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Work with Technology” <http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/promotionandtenure>.

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 [5] Diane Harley, et al., “Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future,” 2011, The Future of Scholarly Communication Project, University of California, Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education,<http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xv148c8#page-1>.

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 [6] Chris Anderson, “Wisdom of the crowds,” Nature Peer Review Debate <http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04992.html>.

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 [7] Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy (NYU Press, 2011), p. 32.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 [8] Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, pp. 25-26.

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 [9] See, for instance, Sandewall, “Opening up the process” <http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04994.html>; Koop and Pöschl, “An open, two-stage peer review journal” <http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html>; Koonin et al, “Can ‘open peer review’ work for biologists?” <http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05005.html>.

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 [10] See MediaCommons Press <http://mcpress.media-commons.org/mcpress>; Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence <http://mcpress.media-commons.org/plannedobsolescence>; and the Shakespeare Quarterly review processes conducted for SQ 61.3, “Shakespeare and New Media” <http://mcpress.media-commons.org/ShakespeareQuarterly_NewMedia> and SQ 62.3, “Shakespeare in Performance” <http://mcpress.media-commons.org/shakespearequarterlyperformance>.

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 [11] Institute for the Future of the Book, “CommentPress” <http://www.futureofthebook.org/commentpress>.

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 1 [12] Jack Doughterty and Kristen Nawrotzki, “Introduction,” Writing History in the Digital Age <http://writinghistory.trincoll.edu/introduction-2012-spring/>.

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 [13] postmedieval, “Crowd Review” <http://postmedievalcrowdreview.wordpress.com/>.

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 [14] Kairos, “The Kairos Editorial Review Process” <http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/board.html>.

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 [15] See Digital Humanities Now <http://digitalhumanitiesnow.org> and Journal of Digital Humanities <http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org>; see also PressForward <http://pressforward.org/>

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 [16] Nature’s peer review debate <http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html>.

17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 [17] Diane Harley, et al., “Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing.”

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 [18] Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence, pp. 15-49.

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 [19] Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Katherine Rowe, “Keywords for Open Review,” Logos 21.3-4 (2010): pp 133-41.

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 [20] Jennifer Howard, “Leading Humanities Journal Debuts ‘Open’ Peer Review, and Likes It,” Chronicle of Higher Education (26 July 2010) <http://chronicle.com/article/Leading-Humanities-Journal/123696/>; Patricia Cohen, “Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review,” New York Times (24 August 2010) <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html>; Rosanna Tamburri, “Opening up peer review,” University Affairs/Affaires universitaires (5 March 2012) <http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opening-up-peer-review.aspx>

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 [21] postmedieval Forum, “Forum II: The State(s) of Review” (March 2012) <http://postmedieval-forum.com/forums/forum-ii-states-of-review/>

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 [22] “Conclusions: What We Learned from Writing History in the Digital Age (Spring 2012),” Writing History in the Digital Age. <http://writinghistory.trincoll.edu/conclusions-2012-spring/>

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 [23] Open Annotation Collaboration <http://www.openannotation.org/>; Open Researcher and Contributor ID <http://about.orcid.org/>; altmetrics <http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/>.

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 [24] Hypothesis <http://hypothes.is/>.

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 [25] PressForward <http://pressforward.org/>.

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 [26] BookGlutton <http://www.bookglutton.com/>; SocialBook <http://livemargin.com>.

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 [27] Academia.edu <http://academia.edu>.

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 [28] See John Guillory, “Evaluating Scholarship in the Humanities: Principles and Procedures.” ADE Bulletin 137 (Spring 2005): 18–33.

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 [29] See Matthew K. Gold, “The CUNY Academic Commons Announces the Commons in a Box Project” <http://news.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2011/11/22/the-cuny-academic-commons-announces-the-commons-in-a-box-project/>.

Page 15

Source: http://mcpress.media-commons.org/open-review/notes/