Preprint for the humanities – fiction or a real possibility?

Laporte, Steven

doi:10.4467/2543702xshs.17.014.7715

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, as a response to Sheldon (2018) who warned that preprints could promote confusion and distortion, all the journals of the Microbiology Society jointly published an editorial (Fry et al, 2019) Any transformation in the scholarly communication chain will depend on the engagement of different players, including authors, readers, publishers and reviewers. Given the differences between the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, disciplinary studies should be carried out to understand the opinions and behaviour of the actors involved (Laporte, 2017). Sarabipour et al (2019) focused on perceived opportunities and risks amongst early-career researchers.…”

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands‐on experience at EDICIC Iberian Meeting 2019

Urbano

Tafalla²,

Borrego

et al. 2021

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigated a novel method of disseminating conference proceedings via preprint servers. The EDICIC 2019 conference encouraged presenters to upload their research onto preprint servers before the conference and did not produce a conference proceedings. The objective of this was to facilitate pre‐conference dissemination of the research and use the conference for debate. Authors could then submit their articles to a journal. A survey of participating authors shows that they had little familiarity with preprints prior to the conference. Nevertheless, nearly three‐quarters of authors deposited their preprints before the conference. Most respondents were in favour or pre‐conference deposit and believed it would allow conferences to run more smoothly. However there was concern that Library and Information Science journals will not accept submissions that have been issued as preprints. Authors also expressed concerns about the lack of recognition for their research if conference proceedings are not published. They highlighted the effort required to pass a double evaluation by conference organizers and then by journal editors, emphasized that the culture of preprints and open science is not consolidated in the discipline yet, and noted that the aim of increasing interaction and debate in the conference was not fully reached.

show abstract

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands‐on experience at EDICIC Iberian Meeting 2019

Urbano

Tafalla²,

Borrego

et al. 2021

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lack of infrastructure for open networked knowledge institutions to connect with one another. Socio-cultural/equity barriers (Hammarfelt, 2017;Laporte, 2017;Koutras, 2019; Majority of open access journals and platforms are produced by prestigious universities or print companies, reinforcing primary languages (English, Mandarin, Spanish, and Arabic). Restricted approaches to physical spaces of academic libraries and limited openness of academic library practices to make information available to the public.…”

Section: Global Institutional Systemic Technological and Financial Ba...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Open scholarship in Australia: A review of needs, barriers, and opportunities

Arthur¹,

Hearn

Montgomery

et al. 2021

Digital Scholarship in the Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open scholarship encompasses open access, open data, open source software, open educational resources, and all other forms of openness in the scholarly and research environment, using digital or computational techniques, or both. It can change how knowledge is created, preserved, and shared, and can better connect academics with communities they serve. Yet, the movement toward open scholarship has encountered significant challenges. This article begins by examining the history of open scholarship in Australia. It then reviews the literature to examine key barriers hampering uptake of open scholarship, with emphasis on the humanities. This involves a review of global, institutional, systemic, and financial obstacles, followed by a synthesis of how these barriers are influenced at diverse stakeholder levels: policymakers and peak bodies, publishers, senior university administrators, researchers, librarians, and platform providers. The review illustrates how universities are increasingly hard-pressed to sustain access to publicly funded research as journal, monograph, and open scholarship costs continue to rise. Those in academia voice concerns about the lack of appropriate open scholarship infrastructure and recognition for the adoption of open practices. Limited access to credible research has led, in some cases, to public misunderstanding about legitimacy in online sources. This article, therefore, represents an urgent call for more empirical research around ‘missed opportunities’ to promote open scholarship. Only by better understanding barriers and needs across the university landscape can we address current challenges to open scholarship so research can be presented in usable and understandable ways, with data made more freely available for reuse by the broader public.

show abstract

“…Kleineberg and Kaden [37] discuss how there is no established culture for preprints in the humanities, though their publication processes are particularly long-termed. Laporte [59] identifies several challenges that arise for humanities scholars to have a more established preprint culture. One of these is that, other than in most discourses in the sciences, those of the humanities are still highly (geographically) regionally rooted and make use of a variety of languages and discursive norms instead of resorting to English as a lingua franca.…”

Section: Preprints In the Humanitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Knöchelmann

2019

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open science refers to both the practices and norms of more open and transparent communication and research in scientific disciplines and the discourse on these practices and norms. There is no such discourse dedicated to the humanities. Though the humanities appear to be less coherent as a cluster of scholarship than the sciences are, they do share unique characteristics which lead to distinct scholarly communication and research practices. A discourse on making these practices more open and transparent needs to take account of these characteristics. The prevalent scientific perspective in the discourse on more open practices does not do so, which confirms that the discourse’s name, open science, indeed excludes the humanities so that talking about open science in the humanities is incoherent. In this paper, I argue that there needs to be a dedicated discourse for more open research and communication practices in the humanities, one that integrates several elements currently fragmented into smaller, unconnected discourses (such as on open access, preprints, or peer review). I discuss three essential elements of open science—preprints, open peer review practices, and liberal open licences—in the realm of the humanities to demonstrate why a dedicated open humanities discourse is required.

show abstract

Preprint for the humanities – fiction or a real possibility?

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands‐on experience at EDICIC Iberian Meeting 2019

Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands‐on experience at EDICIC Iberian Meeting 2019

Open scholarship in Australia: A review of needs, barriers, and opportunities

Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About