AO: The analysts are very strong at the nano, meta, macro levels. They are largely missing an eco level of analysis (at least as expressed in this genre which was targeting natural...Read more
“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 are worried about risks and harms involved in research (1)
AO: “Community peer review is premised on the idea that research is not
AO: The analysts cite similarities with feminist methodological work from the 1980s and 1990s where questions of “what counts” (what knowledge, what skills, what experience etc.)
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: Analysts note that in crossdisciplinary collaborations, individuals experience their alterity and both sides’ work is defamiliarized and out of that emerges a need
AO: The analysts cite the interdependence notion in social exchange theory that implies that organizational context causes people to rise above their self-interest rational impulses
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
AO: The analysts note that information sharing embeds the notion of a “willingness to share”. They cite other literature that has found that “the more the person believes that
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: Kenner writes: “The need and desire for digital infrastructure—often seen as a format that can extend the reach of our work—creates opportunities for collaboration with experts...Read more
