View Template Here

Open Scholarship: We need to make peer review valuable

A discussion Dave Cormier had with Mita Williams. View audio transcript.

For my second discussion I reached out to Leddy Library librarian and long time open thinker Mita Williams to get a different perspective on open scholarship. Mita was kind enough to listen to the conversation I had with Lenandlar Singh so we continued that conversation right where we left off.

One of the key conversations that has come up in my exploration so far is that some of the things that I might call open scholarship is that all of it need not be called ‘research’ in order to be recognized by universities. A faculty member is credited for teaching, service and research. Could some of the actions we do in the open be credited as service? Can we think of open scholarship as moving towards research as it moves to artifact and peer review?

Other thoughts and comments from the podcast

1. I think of open scholarship I think of it as the whole eco-system around open access.
2. How does your public, open scholarship integrate into the longer term conversation in your field?
3. Zines!
4. What counts as ephemera?
5. Metrics – we don’t just want to ask for numbers
6. What I keep coming back to is ‘careful readership’. Whatever peer review system we use needs to be valuable.
7. Lots more!

Optional Resources:

• Open Scholarship: Twitter Autoethnography? A chat with Lenandlar Singh
• Open Scholarship: Bringing the Human to the Scholarship with Martin Weeler
• Open Scholarship: A discussion about Responsibility with Alec Couros