AO: Little discussion of the actual data practices. This is a limitation of their data collection method. They also do not discuss their own data practices.Read more
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 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: The analysts wonder what factors can be targeted to increase information sharing within organizations. They explicitly are writing this paper for those working within
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: These analysts are worried that although Digital Humanities has collaboration built into its practice, the concept of collaboration is under theorized and also understood in
AO: she looks at collaboration between developers, designers and the editorial team of CA (281). “Designing and developing digital infrastructure is one place where we can cultivate...Read more
AO: The analysts look at how computer-based collaborative systems (intranets, electronic mail, list serves) increase information activities such as accessing, searching, sharing,
AO: Analysts hypothesize that “Open and organic information cultures are associated with the use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing.” Their results are in fact
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
