AO: The analysts note that consent is an ongoing process and changes over time. They therefore advocate for continuous check-in at moments such as when new information about plastic
AO: The analysts used varying technologies to advertise about the meetings for community peer review. These included: “advertised the meeting on posters in the area in general stores
AO: The analysts do not focus on broader non-organizational macro contexts but note that the organizational infrastructures matter heavily.Read more
AO: The analysts wonder what factors can be targeted to increase information sharing within organizations. They explicitly are writing this paper for those working within
“Community consent to disseminate knowledge and/or to decrease harm and increase benefit is more nuanced and subtle than academic publishing consent.” (4)
AO: The analysts stress that someone from the community should be hired to conduct this method noting: “Researchers from outside of these communities cannot obtain full or nuanced
AO: The analysts are also engaged in responding to the growing discourse of “openness” noting that “If “[s]cience’s peer review depends on openness [and] openness prevents science
AO: The analysts look at how computer-based collaborative systems (intranets, electronic mail, list serves) increase information activities such as accessing, searching, sharing,
AO: The analysts note a tension in that collaboration is becoming a demand for humanities scholars even as many types of research audits continue to predominantly consider individual
