Panel 819. The New Open-Access Environment: Innovation in Research, Editing, and Publishing Special Panel at the Modern Languages Association, Austin, TX, Sunday 10th January 2016: https://apps.mla.org/program_details?prog_id=819&year=2016 Subject: The Profession Sub-subject: General, Publishing & Editing Keywords: open access, editing, journals, technology, innovation Dr Caroline Edwards (presider) Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature, Birkbeck Editorial Director, Open Library of Humanities [email protected] @the_blochian Introduction to the Panel Discussion This special session will take the form of a roundtable discussion with four panelists and a presider. The roundtable will consider the ways in which open access (OA) publications are transforming the kind of research that is possible, as well as necessitating new editorial practices. Page 1 of 18 The case for making scholarship available open access is gathering pace. The combination of the open access movement and the crisis in library budgets to meet the soaring costs of commercially-published academic journals has led to the rise of national-level, institutional and funding-council mandates for open access in the UK (High Education Funding Council for England, Research Councils UK), the EU (Horizon 2020) and Australia (Australian Research Council), as well as throughout many US institutions. Over the past 5 years, debates concerning open access publishing have moved away from discussing whether or not this may be possible (or desirable) within the humanities. In 2016, we have reached a position in which various different stakeholders (including publishers, scholarly societies, editorial networks, and university libraries) are co-ordinating their efforts to transition towards publishing that removes permission and price barriers to accessing academic research. There is a pressing need, therefore, for scholars to reflect upon the wider implications that this shift will have for academic publishing in literatures and languages, as well as interdisciplinary research in the humanities. Open access is already having quite an impact on academic journal publishing within the humanities. As you may know, the open access (OA) movement has found substantial success for a number of years now in the natural sciences, particularly with the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals and arXiv’s pre-print repository. Although the humanities disciplines have lagged behind the sciences, we’ve now reached a tipping point in the open access movement, which had been aided by top-down OA mandates at national level, as well as scholar-led and grassroots academic publishing projects and presses. The number of platforms and presses is growing, and includes organizations and publishers such as the Open Library of Humanities, Knowledge Unlatched, Ubiquity Press, Open Book Publishers, Open Humanities Press, and the University of California’s newly launched megajournal, Collabra. Meanwhile, a large number of individual journal titles are run by academics through the Open Journals Systems (OJS) open-source software produced by the Public Knowledge Partnership (PKP). My own experience as a co-founder and director of the Open Library of Humanities has given me a fascinating insight into setting up a new open access publishing platform, as well as the editorial questions raised by publishing multi-disciplinary scholarship within a “megajournal” framework – that is, a journal which publishes across the humanities disciplines. With reference to the opportunities for literatures and languages scholarship, I think we are now ready to ask: What opportunities and challenges face the study of literature with such dissemination of research? How does literature sit within the broader humanities scholarly communities? We are therefore in a position to assess a number of open access publishing platforms and journals, and critically consider the way in which scholarly editorial labor can adapt to open access. More specifically, I would like to use today’s discussion to consider the following questions: • How are our current editorial practices affected by OA publishing? What kind of editorial measures should we be developing to maintain Page 2 of 18 academic quality and rigour in the scholarship we disseminate via OA publications? Do we continue using “traditional” double blind peer review? Do we allow peer reviewers to see one another’s reports, helping efficiencies and coherence in returning reports to authors? Do we trial/move towards post-publication peer review – as part of a broader shift towards openness throughout the research process (from inception of a scholarly idea, through to its public discussion, and final research)? • How does the journal article or scholarly monograph as a scholarly output or object sit within, or relate to, the broader research process? Can we make this more open in English? Should we? The recent launch of the MLA Commons similarly encourages us to reflect upon the ways in which we can foster not just open access but also open scholarship through more collaborative efforts and new platforms for scholarly dialogue. This raises the thorny question of whether humanities and literature scholars want their draft research to be open in the same way as STEM researchers (e.g. by publishing preprints as with the arXiv repository for physics, maths and computer science). As an editor of an open access journal, I’m particularly interested in the following questions that I think have some real benefits to literary scholarship in the 21st century: • What technological innovations are currently being trialled or soon-to- be launched, which could transform scholarly dialogue? E.g. Annotative functionality, social media buttons, customizable privacy settings etc. • How do questions of subject-specific focus and interdisciplinarity impact upon the shaping of appropriate OA venues and practices? And what are the editorial implications of such interdisciplinarity? • How can we maintain editorial rigor and quality, and respond to criticisms of online-only publishing as less prestigious than hard copy journals? • What are the multimodal possibilities and benefits of digital publishing? How might literary studies interact with other disciplines such as Film, TV & New Media Studies, Dance Studies, Musicology, Drama & Performance, and Art History? • What are the barriers to digital publishing and OA – how do we address perceived issues around quality, and the impact OA publishing might have on scholars’ careers (e.g. how can we ensure that OA publications contribute towards research assessment frameworks?) Page 3 of 18 Dr Alex Mueller (panelist) Associate Professor of English, University of Massachusetts [email protected] @muellerale Open Access, Digital Annotation, and Open Review As a medievalist, I have been continually struck by similarities between premodern and digital textualities. Among the many commonalities, the prevalence of commentary is the one I will address today because it reflects a particular disposition towards writing and reading that I believe is at the core of open access and public scholarship movements. This privileging of space and opportunity for annotation and commentary reflects a simple, yet seemingly radical, ideal: scholarly writing is for readers. Scholarly work is published so that it can be read and used by others. There is, however, an uncomfortable by-product of this ideal: if scholarly work is made more accessible to readers, the work is made more vulnerable and its vetting is made more transparent. When I think of textual vulnerability and transparency, I am reminded of end of Troilus and Criseyde when Chaucer bids the poem goodbye with the encouraging nudge, “Go litel book,” releasing it to the world for its scrutiny, and possible derision. It is this recognition that the work is no longer his, that it is now for his readers, that resonates strongly with digital texts, which are available to an expansive readership and vulnerable to reuse, remix, and critique. While there are multiple implications for this vulnerability within the context of open access, I will limit my remarks to the relevance of annotation practices for innovations in peer review. Social Annotation Online commentary and dialogue enhance the social nature of reading. Reading has almost always been a social act, but reading hasn’t been this social since the Middle Ages. That said, there is an important distinction to be made between these two very different contexts. Whereas now the social nature of reading is enhanced through ubiquity and accessibility, reading during the Middle Ages was social because of scarcity and inaccessibility. Digital texts thrive on speed, scale, and access, offering multiple opportunities for encounters with readers. Medieval texts and readers were relatively scarce, raising the value and utility of the single book, which might be used by generations of commentators for interpretations of Aesop’s fables in the classroom to legal glosses on canon law. From these two very different contexts emerge an emphasis on commentary and annotation, which establish a text’s value and use. Page 4 of 18 Open Peer Review Unfortunately, this social culture of commentary is often squandered, especially within traditional methods of double-blind peer review. I have therefore been persuaded, by Kathleeen Fitzpatrick, Martin Paul Eve, and others, that open peer review (even in hybridized forms) offers more benefits than double-blind peer review for the following