From Google’s English: “MIRABILE is a knowledge management system for the study and research on medieval culture promoted by the International Society for the Study of the Latin Middle Ages and the Ezio Franceschini Foundation of Florence, in collaboration with other bodies …”
Abstract: In this paper we examine how the process of collaboration works in science and literature. In the first part, we discuss the features of scientific collaboration and literary collaboration and the differences between them. In the second part, we analyze two processes of collaboration, each from a different field: the case of CERN and high-energy physics and the case of Scrittura Industriale Collettiva and its Great Open Novel. Lastly, we try to compare those two processes and deduce the common traits of a successful collaboration.
(translated via deepl.com)
Initiative for Open Access and Open Scholarly Communication in the Social Sciences and Humanities begins work The National Contact Point OPERAS-GER – a cooperation between OPERAS and the Max Weber Foundation – has started its work. The new service is intended to anchor the services and resources for science communication in the social sciences and humanities provided by OPERAS at the European level in the German science landscape and to create intensive networking between the research infrastructures of the EU and Germany. Further goals are to strengthen Open Science and promote the FAIR principles. As part of the OPERAS-GER project, the Max Weber Foundation, which has already been committed to Open Access in the social sciences and humanities since 2017, is planning a series of online seminars and lectures as well as application-oriented workshops for the new services starting in June 2021. The project is based at the Max Weber Institute’s office and will be funded by the Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) from October 2020, initially for three years. OPERAS (Open Scholarly Communication In The European Research Area For Social Sciences And Humanities) provides infrastructural services for research institutions, libraries and publishers that serve to better organise research activities and make research results more visible in the sense of Open Science. The Max Weber Foundation – German Humanities Institutes Abroad promotes research with a focus on the fields of history, cultural studies, economics and social sciences in selected countries with the aim of improving mutual understanding. It maintains ten institutes, other research groups and offices worldwide and provides infrastructures for research in the humanities and social sciences. Source: www.maxweberstiftung.de/presse/aktuelles-presse/einzelansicht-pressemeldungen/detail/News/start-der-nationalen-kontaktstelle.html
“The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about rapid innovations in distance learning and the wide adoption of digital tools. For many educators, however, having the capability to teach virtually is not the same as having digital-ready content.
“When the pandemic began, there was the realization that everyone was going to be on Zoom, but you shouldn’t teach online the same way you teach in person,” said Merle Eisenberg, a recent postgraduate research associate in history, who graduated from Princeton with a Ph.D. in 2018 and is now a postdoctoral fellow at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center at the University of Maryland.
To make these lessons come alive for students, Eisenberg, together with medieval scholars Sara McDougall, an associate professor of history at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the City University of New York Graduate Center, and Laura Morreale, chair of the digital humanities and multimedia committee of the Medieval Academy of America, decided to develop materials that high school and college educators could use in a virtual setting.
The resources they created became so popular so quickly that they needed a permanent home for them and greater technical support to meet the demand. The result is a new website, Middle Ages for Educators (MAFE), featuring short video lectures by world-renowned experts, translated primary sources, workshops on how to use digital tools to study the medieval past, and curated links to websites with medieval content….”
“Join us on 13 January 2021 for this free workshop on the future and the challenges of open access publishing in philosophy, organised by the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science and BSPS Open.
Publications that are Open Access are freely downloadable as a PDF, under a Creative Commons Licence, often with an option to pay for print copies on demand. Making a publication Open Access is well-known to increase its impact, accessibility, and citation numbers. The problem is, typical publishers will only allow Open Access for authors who can pay large fees, making Open Access inaccessible to many.
What are the best strategies to make Open Access options widely available in philosophy? This workshop brings together philosophers and experts involved in open access publishing to share and debate their experience. All are welcome, and publishers in particular should get in touch with the organisers if they would like to participate….”
[Undated] “Plan S has little to no regard for the Humanities and Social Sciences. The creators of Plan S have used the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) research ecosystem as their main model and have presented a “one size fits all” approach with a focus on journals – which are key for STEM – and have practically ignored monographs – which are of greater importance in HSS. A single, unified approach to delivering open access across the full spectrum of academic publishing is unfeasible.
A plan driven by payments from direct grants is incompatible with disciplines and sub-fields where there is no direct grant funding. Funding for the humanities, unlike funding for much of STEM, is not usually centralized, and often comes from educational institutions directly, rather than well-endowed foundations. Furthermore, unlike STEM, many disciplines also have a more national focus, and available funding is therefore even more difficult to identify and secure.
It is not possible for the vast majority of HSS (Humanities and Social Science) journals to simply ‘flip’ to APC-based open access. Many serve relatively small research communities and combine low publication volumes with high rejection rates. They will not be able to provide the same level of service to their communities on the basis of a small number of capped APCs….”
“When Marygrove College closed in 2019, the Board of Trustees donated the library to the Internet Archive for digitization and preservation. With more than 70,000 books and nearly 3,000 journal volumes, the Geschke Library is a well-curated, world class collection with strengths in the humanities, education, and social justice. Video about the reopening online. …”
Abstract: As the scholarly landscape evolves into a more “open” plain, so do the shapes of institutions, labs, centres, and other places and spaces of research, including those of the digital humanities (DH). The continuing success of such research largely depends on a commitment to open access and open source philosophies that broaden opportunities for a more efficient, productive, and universal design and use of knowledge. The Electronic Textual Cultures Laboratory (ETCL; etcl.uvic.ca) is a collaborative centre for digital and open scholarly practices at the University of Victoria, Canada, that engages with these transformations in knowledge creation through its umbrella organization, the Canadian Social Knowledge Institute (C-SKI), that coordinates and supports open social scholarship activities across three major initiatives: the ETCL itself, the Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI; dhsi.org), and the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE; inke.ca) Partnership, including sub-projects associated with each. Open social scholarship is the practice of creating and disseminating public-facing scholarship through accessible means. Working through C-SKI, we seek ways to engage communities more widely with publicly funded humanities scholarship, such as through research creation and dissemination, mentorship, and skills training.
Abstract: A key pitfall for knowledge-seekers, particularly in the political arena, is informed complacency, or an over-reliance on search engines at the cost of epistemic curiosity. Recent scholarship has documented significant problems with those sources of knowledge that the public relies on the most, including instances of ideological and algorithmic bias in Wikipedia and Google. Such observations raise the question of how deep one would actually need to dig into these platforms’ representations of factual (historical and biographical) knowledge before encountering similar epistemological issues. The present article addresses this question by ‘nitpicking’ knowledge representations of governments and governmental leadership in Wikipedia and Wikidata. Situated within the emerging framework of ‘data studies’, our micro-level analysis of the representations of Belgian prime ministers and their governments thereby reveals problems of classification, naming and linking of biographical items that go well beyond the affordances of the platforms under discussion. This article thus makes an evidence-based contribution to the study of the fundamental challenges that mark the formalisation of knowledge in the humanities.