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 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: iterative discussion; Kenner holds that “open participation in academic culture should be principles that guide the design of digital infrastructure” (284)Read more
AO: While the analysts look in interesting ways at collaboration across human - material; material - material ways, they do not talk about ecological ways that these collaborations
“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 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 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
AO: Motivation for the provider to be open and get involved is required for knowledge transfer. communication, which implies that one party is willing to give something or get...Read more
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 describe the process of community peer review as: “hiring a community member to the team; researching the social, cultural, and economic contexts of the community;
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
