February 2008 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Request for Proposals - Internet Research 10.0 (woo-hoo!) / 2009
by Charles Ess 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

Dear all, Please distribute the following as appropriate - and thanks! - charles and mia == Request for Proposals The Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) invites proposals from individuals and institutions interested in serving as the host site for Internet Research 10.0, the AoIR annual conference for 2009. The AoIR Internet Research conferences are among the most important venues for bringing together current research and reflection from a wide range of disciplines and perspectives - with a marked accent on interdisciplinary approaches - on the multiple social and technological practices that depend upon and shape the Internet. IR 10.0 will mark the 10th anniversary of AoIR. We look forward to an intellectually stimulating conference, and one that, in keeping with the distinctive spirit and hospitality of AoIR, will also be a heck of a good time ... (Previous conference cities: Lawrence, Kansas (2000); Minneapolis, Minnesota (2001); Maastricht, the Netherlands (2002); Toronto, Canada (2003); Brighton, U.K. (2004); Chicago, Illinois (2005); Brisbane, Australia (2006); Vancouver, Canada (2007) - and upcoming: Copenhagen, Denmark (2008)). We ask interested colleagues to review the following general proposal requirements. Colleagues and institutions who would like to pursue developing a proposal are encouraged to contact Mia Consalvo (consalvo(a)ohio.edu) and/or Charles Ess (cmess(a)drury.edu) to indicate your interest and raise any immediate questions, etc., that you may wish to discuss. We will also be happy to send you a far more detailed Conference Planning Guide for your review and use. We would ask that a proposal address the following elements: DATES. AoIR conferences typically take place in early-to-mid-October - but depending only local calendars and requirements, we can be somewhat flexible regarding conference timing (i.e., from late September to late October). The AoIR conference typically runs over four days, beginning with 1) an initial day for pre-conference workshops and possible excursions. 2) the program proper, which runs over 3 days. Each day has 6 programmed sessions which require space. Of the 6 each day, three are sessions for papers, panels and roundtables, which require 8 parallel rooms. The remaining three include times for keynote presentations, the AoIR general meeting, Birds of a Feather sessions, etc. (The IR 8.0 / 2007 Program may be downloaded for review: <http://www.sfu.ca/~smith/AOIR-Program-OCT16.pdf>) LOCATION / TRAVEL / VENUE. AoIR members and conference participants are a diverse, international community: conference venues should be easily accessible from international travel hubs. Travel possibilities from international arrival points to accommodations (see below) and conference venue should be convenient and inexpensive. AoIR conferences typically attract 250-400 participants. Hence, there is need for one large auditorium that can comfortably hold ca. 300 people (or more), plus at least 6 smaller rooms for parallel sessions - as well as for requisite infrastructure (AV, wireless, computers and data projectors,etc.) (These may be at a host University and/or in the area (e.g., conference centers, a hotel, etc.) for the conference itself.) ECOLOGY / SUSTAINABILITY We encourage proposals that take into account the ecological impacts of conference arrangements (e.g., preferences for sustainable choices re. conference materials, catering arrangements, distances and travel possibilities, etc.) BUDGET - a _rough_ estimate of local costs, using the outline provided in the planning document sent out upon request. An economically viable conference will also require some level of local / regional / national sponsorships. Suggestions regarding e.g., possible grants, in-kind contributions, potential corporate sponsors, etc. would be helpful. ACCOMMODATIONS and related infrastructure. This should include information about a proposed conference hotel, whether or not it will serve as a conference venue (e.g., in Vancouver, we did _not_ use a hotel as the venue) - as well as information about alternative possibilities, including modest to low-cost possibilities, so far as these are available. CATERING - coffee/tea breaks + conference banquet LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: the Committee and its Chair are responsible for these and other important details (e.g., local registration process, accounting and documenting expenses and credits in the conference budget, etc.) and ensuring that "everything is in place" prior to and through the conference itself. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - anything else that you think will enhance the conference experience. For example, host venues commonly organize one or more "getaways" that make local highlights easily accessible to conference participants. FOR OUR PART - AoIR will provide a great deal of assistance and direction, including registration and collection of conference fees through the AoIR website; recruiting a Program Chair who will take primary responsibility for soliciting papers and reviewers, oversee the reviewing and notification process, etc. (Organizationally, the Local Organizing Committee works with the Program Chair and AoIR Vice-President and President, who serve as liaisons with the AoIR Executive Committee.) We clearly recognize that hosting an AoIR IR conference is no small task. But as previous conference organizers and local committees will tell you - it is also a highly rewarding experience! Mia and I look forward to receiving your inquiries and proposals. - charles ess (cmess(a)drury.edu) - Mia Consalvo (consalvo(a)ohio.edu)

1 0

Online Communities / Online Social Communities / Virtual Communities of Practice?
by Gerry Mckiernan 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

***APOLOGIES FOR RECEIPT OF DUPLICATE POSTINGS*** Colleagues/ I Need To Tap The Wisdom-Of-The-Web ... I am interested in the Similarities / Differences of the following related Web-phenomena: =Online Communities =Online Social Networks =Virtual Communities of Practice I am also interested in Any and All Significant ***Examples*** And/Or ***Research*** about >>Virtual Communities of Practice<< >>Online Communities<< [I Have Online Social Networks More/Less Covered[:-)] BTW: I am aware of the Most Excellent Work of danah boyd [ http://www.danah.org/ ] ===NOTE: I am particularly interested in examples/research in Science / Technology 'Communities' [especially Chemistry / Physics ] === ---IF POSSIBLE, PLEASE COMMENT ON THE BLOG ENTRY AT--- [ http://onlinesocialnetworks.blogspot.com/2008/02/similaritiesdifferences-of… ] I Will Post A Summary Later This Month Thanks! /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Associate Professor Science and Technology Librarian Iowa State University Library Ames IA 50011 gerrymck(a)iastate.edu There is Nothing More Powerful Than An Idea Whose Time Has Come Victor Hugo [ http://www.blogger.com/profile/09093368136660604490 ] Iowa: Where the Tall Corn Flows and the (North)West Wind Blows ... [ http://www.alternativeenergyblogs.blogspot.com/ ]

2 1

open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals
by Barry Saunders 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

I've wanted to join in this debate for a while, but I've been busy going through the papers for an open-access journal I'm editing, called Media-Culture. I'm working on it with the evil defender of locked-down academic publishing, Jason Wilson, and let me tell you, it's hard. He's all like, let's lock this mofo down and charge access, because only the cool kids deserve to read our awesome articles. MOO HOO HA HAA HAA HA AND WE WILL BE EVIL SENIOR PROFESSORS MOO HOO HA HA HAHA. Ahem. I'm all for open-access. I got into academia via Indymedia. All my work is published on Eprints and/or my blogs, under a CC licence where possible. I do think open-access journals are the way of the future, but we aren't there yet. As Barry Wellman pointed out, running a journal costs money, and sometimes access fees are the only way to get that funding. The example of community media and citizen media is quite illustrative - many publications start out by charging for access to ensure their survival until they can move to a sustainable funding model. Boycotting them will only kill the publication - not a particularly good move for an emerging field. Community media is also illustrative for what happens when the commitment to open-access overtakes everything else - those people who work on the publication are no longer paid, and the people who take over are usually comfortable middle class people who can spare the time to help out. That can mean the difference between a hard hitting, class conscious publication and middle-class pabulum. I'm not so sure that open-editing, which appears to have been suggested here, will work for academic publishing. Wikipedia works, for the most part, because articles there take a neutral point of view. Using wikis for argument, by and large, doesn't work. Wikipedia is for documentation, not argumentation. Open-access argument is Indymedia or sometimes Metafilter. Sometimes interesting, sometimes garbage, rarely above pedestrian. It's also worth noting that doubleblind peer review WORKS. It is one of the few mechanisms available that redresses the gender bias in academic writing. Any open-editing system for academic publications would have to take that into account. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/01/doubleblind_peer_review_reveal… Lastly, if this is the level of academic discussion and argumentation that an open, internet-mediated journal would have.... Hoo boy. I've had more elucidating discussions on Digg. -- Barry Saunders ---- http://investigativeblog.net http://gatewatching.org http://d-notice.net ---- PhD Candidate // researcher http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saunders,_Barry.html skype: barry_saunders CRICOS No. 00213J On 10/2/08 2:14 PM, "Christian Nelson" <xianknelson(a)mac.com> wrote: On Feb 9, 2008, at 10:37 PM, Jason Wilson wrote: > a decision to immediately boycott all closed-source journals could > only be premised on a reductive analysis of how academic publishing > works, and by ignoring what the people within this system are > trying to achieve, and more importantly, what they've done already. Oh, how nobly they do strive for us! We should all be ashamed of having suggested otherwise.

6 7

grants in innovative literature and arts
by Jeremy Hunsinger 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

OPEN FOR SUBMISSION: FEBRUARY 4 – MARCH 4, 2008 Please forward widely! If you are working on an exciting emerging fields, literature, or performing arts project we encourage you to apply in our upcoming grant round. For general information and guidelines, please visit:http://creative-capital.org/application/ To apply for a Creative Capital grant, you must first submit an Inquiry Form regarding your project. Tell us about your project and how, in conjunction with a Creative Capital grant, it will be catalytic for your artistic and professional growth. In addition, you will need to describe the influences that inform your work and how your work takes an inventive and original approach to form and content. Be prepared to present a basic budget and to identify the audience(s) for your project and any possible presenting venues. The Guidelines and Inquiry Form for will be available on the Creative Capital website from February 4 to March 4, 2008. It will be available at http://creative-capital.org/application/ found @ http://newmediafix.net/daily/?p=1840 Jeremy Hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu ) Words are things; and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. --Byron

1 0

Re: [Air-L] open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals
by Jason Wilson 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

"I'm editor of a corporate-owned journal, but I also prefer a model of sustainable open access and independent media [mostly I'm just an academic schlepping through various challenges like everyone else]. I hope that some of us who are editors of journals owned by conglomerates might try to edge the decision-makers toward positioning journals so that access is more freely available and, perhaps eventually, toward changing business-as-usual." Thank you Lisa, for expressing succinctly what the vast majority of us in academe, and academic publishing, try to do. It's impossible to disagree with the claim (which is therefore actually a platitude) that it would be better for everyone if scholarly research were freely available to whomever wanted to use it. I've heard people who actually work in academic publishing say the same thing. But a decision to immediately boycott all closed-source journals could only be premised on a reductive analysis of how academic publishing works, and by ignoring what the people within this system are trying to achieve, and more importantly, what they've done already. It might play well to the crowd, but it also ignores the affordances of the apparatuses of academic publishing - including its capacity to facilitate considered responses to complex problems. The logical extension of a boycott, of course, is not publishing books with closed-source publishers, and indeed not making any appearance in any medium or forum that doesn't relay its content openly, right now. I wonder if people have thought this course of action through, or if they're actually prepared to take this as far as the underlying logic of their argument demands. Working with publishers might actually help to achieve concrete goals like having them open up their massive archives (under conditions of a boycott, where's their incentive to do this?) and crucially it would help to maintain the communities around existing journals. Do we really want a journal like Feminist Media Studies to disappear because of a submissions boycott? Putting it in concrete terms like this might help us actually think about the possible consequences of big ideas like this. Big publishers might be a lot less discomfited - at the level of the bottom line - by the disappearance of some fantastic humanities journals than we'd like to think, and it would mostly be scholars who'd suffer. Isn't it better, more effective, to simply do all you can to support emerging open access journals - including publishing your research there, acting as a peer reviewer, guest editing, like so many of us already do - and at the same time work at encouraging publishers towards open-access (they're heading that way - all they need is a business model - do we really think that they're not apprised of these issues too?). Isn't anything else just grandstanding, or fundamentalism? I'll declare my interest - I'm Reviews Editor of Convergence. That's the journal that danah decided to name in her original post, having just been published in the special issue on Convergence Culture. Jason Wilson Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail

2 1

SciTechNet(sm): Science and Technology Social Networking Services
by Gerry Mckiernan 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

***APOLOGIES FOR RECEIPT OF DUPLICATE POSTINGS*** Colleagues/ In addition to my _Scholarship 2.0_ blog [ http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/ ], I have a blog titled _SciTechNet(sm): Science and Technology Social Networking Services_. SciTechNet(sm) is devoted to "describing and documenting online social networking services in the Sciences and Technology" and is located at [ http://scitechnet.blogspot.com/ ] Postings include: >PLoS ONE: A Post-Publication-Peer-Reviewed-Open-Access-E-Journal PLoS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online journal." It "features reports of primary research from all disciplines within science and medicine. By not excluding papers on the basis of subject area, PLoS ONE facilitates the discovery of the connections between papers whether within or between disciplines." "Each submission will be assessed by a member of the PLoS ONE Editorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. >>If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating" << "PLoS ONE will publish all papers that are judged to be rigorous and technically sound. Papers published in PLoS ONE will be available for commenting and debate by the readers, making every paper the start of a scientific conversation." "Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication" [http://www.plosone.org/static/whypublish.action] [ http://scitechnet.blogspot.com/2007/12/plos-one-post-publication-peer-revie…] >> 2collab >>2collab Formally Launched >>2collab Video (Beta) >chemistry.org/exchange >Nature Network Nominations Of Other SciTech Networks For The SciTechNet(sm) Blog Are Most Welcome! Regards, /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Associate Professor Science and Technology Librarian Iowa State University Library Ames IA 50011 gerrymck(a)iastate.edu There is Nothing More Powerful Than An Idea Whose Time Has Come Victor Hugo [ http://www.blogger.com/profile/09093368136660604490 ] Iowa: Where the Tall Corn Flows and the (North)West Wind Blows ... [ http://www.alternativeenergyblogs.blogspot.com/ ]

1 0

open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals
by danah boyd 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

At AOIR this year, we heard a lot about open-access journals and the future of academic publishing. These talks were extremely well- received. At the same time, I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us came back home and continued to publish with the same respected journals that we've always published with. I've certainly seen a lot of CFPs from folks wanting to publish issues in locked-down journals. Today, an article of mine was finally published in Sage's Convergence series. I should be excited by this, but I'm actually quite depressed. While I'm lucky to be visible enough that some folks will find out about my article and ask me for a copy, most of the articles in that issue will barely get read because they are virtually inaccessible. Additionally, while scholars will ask me for my article, most policymakers and technologists will not, even though the article is probably more relevant to them than it is to you. I believe that the locked-down nature of this publishing regime silences academics while capitalizing off of our free labor at every turn. I think that this is unfair, unacceptable, and irresponsible. Thus, since I'm a blogger, I wrote a ranty blog entry about the topic: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/02/06/openaccess_is_t.html In said ranty blog entry, I laid out a set of steps for how to proceed to make change. For example, I think that all tenured faculty have a responsibility to stop publishing in locked-down journals and help build up the reputations of open-access ones. (I even believe that those who flout journal's restrictions by publishing their pieces on their websites are failing future generations by not pushing for change to happen.) I offer steps for scholars, libraries, universities, tenure committees, disciplinary associations, and scholars at all stages. In short, I'd like to see a boycott of locked-down academic journals. I think that it's particularly critical in our field since we are doing work that is relevant beyond the academy. I think that we need to stand in solidarity to stop this abuse of our labor and this silencing of our voices. Am I crazy? danah

20 35

powerful senior professors
by Jonathan Sterne, Dr. 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

Christian Nelson's understanding of the editorial process seems a bit naive. First, I'm not sure that open access journals ought to have open source reviewing. Knowledge is not necessarily democratic: there are people who know more about their fields than others, and frankly, I'd like THOSE people to review my work when I submit it to a journal. One of the great values of the humanities and social sciences (and indeed all basic research) is that learned people are allow to pursue lines of inquiry whose immediate payoff may not be immediately apparent to others. Academics should not be subject to popularity contests or ratings. CNET is very useful for what it is, but it is not a model for scholarship. More often than not, leading figures in a field don't do a lot of journal reviewing because they're too busy with other kinds of reviewing, like tenure dossiers (this has certainly happened to me, and I'm not even full yet). I also find that senior, leading figures are just as likely to be MORE open minded to new ideas and new approaches than younger scholars, who may have more invested in advancing or defending a particular paradigm as they establish themselves. Of course there are also tenured professors who appear to eat their own brains, so I guess we can't generalize too much in this regard. Open access, yes, but with a solid, blind peer review. In that respect, IJOC is a fine example. Best, --Jonathan

2 1

Disruptive Scholarship
by Gerry Mckiernan 10 Feb '08

10 Feb '08

Colleagues/ I am pleased to read the variety of recent posting about Open Access and Alternative Scholarship. On Thanksgiving Day, November 22, 2007, I launched a new blog titled _Scholarship 2.0: An Idea Whose Time Has Come_ _Scholarship 2.0_ is located at [ http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/ ]

1 1

Re: [Air-L] open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals
by Caroline Haythornthwaite 09 Feb '08

09 Feb '08

This one has prompted me to respond! ... This is such an odd view of "powerful academics". It is precisely the "powerful academics", aka tenured and/or full Professors, who can afford to go to these new venues. Moreover, if work is not getting full play in journals -- because of the invisibility and inaccessibilty of print journals or fee-based online journals -- then why wouldn't we all flock to online publishing to gain the 'power' of widespread access. So, why don't we? -- because, believe it or not, many of us actually have put time and energy into journals -- setting them up, reviewing papers, considering the standards of good research, argumentation and knowledge, and wanting to make it worth someone taking the time to open up a journal, and for those outside our discipline to take us seriously as a discipline. Yes, it is a gatekeeper role, and I'm proud to be part of it as should be all others who strive for quality in their work and *their* journals. /Caroline ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:37:15 -0500 >From: Christian Nelson <xianknelson(a)mac.com> >Subject: Re: [Air-L] open-access is the future: boycott locked-down academic journals >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >We're still talking about open-source journals that would utilize >some sort of reader rating system to make editorial decisions, right? >Why would powerful academics leave the current set of journals, over >which they have total editorial control, for journals over which they >would have considerably less control, considering that journal >article publication is the main source of academic capital for most >scholars? No one ever gives up power willingly. > >On Feb 8, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > >> So yes, I agree: luring big names is part of what has to be done. >> I just don't find that particularly daunting. >_______________________________________________ >The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: >http://www.aoir.org/ ---------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Associate Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820

4 4