As Open Access Week begins to come to a close, we’ve been heartened to see so many productive discussions engaging with this year’s theme of “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge.” From numerous panels, presentations, and events to the publication of an entire book exploring the intersection of equity and openness (Contextualizing Openness: Situating Open Science), the conversations from this week are an important step toward ensuring we reach a future where knowledge isn’t just open but where participation is open to all in a way that builds equity into the foundation of our systems for creating and sharing knowledge.
But, these conversations can’t be limited to just this week. They must be ongoing. These questions of equity and inclusion are ones we should be asking ourselves every day and about every facet of our work.
To encourage sustained conversations after Open Access Week, we are planning to build a simple tool that will cycle through prompts that ask individuals to consider and reflect on different aspects of what it means to prioritize equity in open knowledge. We plan to model this resource on Empathy Prompts by Eric W. Bailey.
We need your help! We originally planned to launch this tool ahead of Open Access Week, but ultimately decided that inviting the community to create these prompts collaboratively would be the best way to ensure this resource reflects the full diversity of issues our communities must address to become equitable by default.
We’ve created a form at openforwhom.org to collect your ideas for the text of prompts (or ideas for issues to cover, if you aren’t quite sure how to translate that into a prompt), and as we’re synthesizing these contributions, we’ll share draft prompts in the document here for feedback. Once we have a list of prompts for the site, we’ll work with the community to ensure the resource is available in a variety of languages.
We hope these “Open for whom?” prompts will be a useful resource for the community to continue these critical discussions beyond this week and keep in mind that it’s not enough to simply focus on whether we reach a fully open access system of sharing knowledge—we also have to consider how we get there.
Open Access Bangladesh started its journey on February 17, 2017 with a vision to work as a platform for advocating open access, open data and open education in Bangladesh. During its two and half year journey, Open Access Bangladesh gained the strength of solidarity as an organization working to promote openness in scholarly works by organizing events, workshops and seminars. Some programs worth mentioning arranged by Open Access Bangladesh are – ‘Workshop on Open Access- A useful tool for education and research’, ‘OpenCon 2018 Dhaka’, ‘Learn Research with Fun’ among others.
The mandate of Open Access Bangladesh is to popularize open access in Bangladesh through the engagement of scholarly community.
Plans for the Future!
From our perspective in Bangladesh, the main obstacle in the way of popularizing open access is the vague concept on it. The concepts on open access, especially open access publications, aren’t clear among the researchers in our country. The majority of them consider publications in open access journals as low quality scholarly works. The introduction of a national policy can help to encourage scholarly communities to make their works OA and benefit through advantages open sharing provides. It is now an urgency for Bangladesh to formulate open access policy on research and publications. Open Access Bangladesh is working with stakeholders like UGC, universities, policy makers, researchers, scholarly societies to initiate a policy in university and in national level.
Open Access Bangladesh will continue its endeavors in spreading open access awareness through open access carnivals, scholarly meetings and international seminars, by publishing articles on open access in Bengali for more effective impact, introducing BanglaXiv, the first ever pre-print service in Bangladesh by the end of this year. With the help of its strong national committee, Open Access Bangladesh will continue to leverage the awareness and raise issues related to open access in general and in specific to Bangladesh.
Open Access Week 2019
Open Access Bangladesh will observe Open Access Week 2019 on October 26th at Sufia Kamal National Public Library in Dhaka, Bangladesh. For observing this week, the team at Open Access Bangladesh translated this year’s theme “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge” in Bengali as Ó ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ÓThe program will be inaugurated with a colorful procession and a panel discussion held afterward that will include the participation of professionals from diverse area including academicians, researchers, librarians, government officers, teachers and students. The Dhaka University Researcher Society (DURS) and Society for Leadership Skills Development (SLSD) are our strategic partners for the event, and a prominent TV channel and a few online news portals will work as media partner of the event.
As Nick Shockey notes in his 2019 Open Access Week blog post, considering “open for whom?” institution transition to open knowledge sharing platforms is essential. Journals and repositories that support the dissemination of open access peer-reviewed articles or licensed or public datasets are often designed with academic users in mind. However users of these resources are varied and diverse, including researchers and research support staff, students, patients, and patient advocates. How can open access websites and repositories be designed and updated with a variety of users’ needs in mind?
Serving a variety of users’ needs was a primary motivator behind CTS-Personas, a project of the National Center for Data to Health (Grant U24TR002306). Through this project, conducted by librarians and informatics professionals from Northwestern University, Washington University, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and Oregon Health & Science University, one dozen employee roles in clinical and translational science, as well as two patients, were profiled through a combination of literature review and interviews. The project resulted in fourteen one-page profiles outlining responsibilities, goals, motivators, pain points, and the software usage of roles including various types of researchers, research coordinators and administrators, data analysts, and support staff.
The goal of CTS-Personas was to provide a tool that those creating software, educational, or communications resources could use in academic health centers and clinical research organizations to make those tools more relevant and useful to a diverse array of stakeholders. With this tool in hand, use cases and implementations can be created to demonstrate how a clinical research coordinator, a data analyst, a patient, or any other of the fourteen roles would interact with a software tool, an educational resource, or even an idea or initiative.
At Northwestern’s Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, we leveraged the Personas for our 2019 Open Access week programming. In addition to offering banners, buttons, and an open access quiz slideshow on the library’s LED screens, we created tabletop posters outlining the way that four of the Personas both support and benefit from open access.
- Two researchers, one a physician-scientist and the other a community-engaged researcher, support open access by utilizing OA repositories and advocating for open science and reproducibility. The researchers reap the benefits of open access in the form of increasing their dissemination to a wider community of researchers, and obtaining greater insights through sharing research results with a broader community.
- The OA poster for a college student patient Persona outlines her difficulties in gaining access to resources behind paywalls. For her, open access publications provide a means to easily obtain trusted, peer-reviewed resources at no cost.
- The librarian Persona advocates for publishing through open access journals, since, as these journals increase in popularity, they allow for more trusted resources to be provided by the library through significant subscription cost savings. This in turn supports a cycle of increased information dissemination, as greater numbers of students have increased access to articles and other resources without the limiting factor of paywalls.
While open access publishing and data cataloging practices may appear to offer much upfront challenges without assurance of the benefits, the Personas use cases help demonstrate in real and human terms the exact forms that such benefits may take. By using Personas to demonstrate the applications and benefits of open access, we are reminded of what diverse people in a variety of roles can gain from following the tenets and practices of open access. When considering “open for whom?”, Personas use cases can be a great place to start.
Blog post by Sara Gonzales
Exploring this year’s Open Access Week theme of “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge,” Antoinette Foster reflects on underlying, often-invisible causes of exclusion and marginalization in research and calls on each of us individually to do the important work of critical introspection as an important first step in working collectively to make research more inclusive.
Does scientific research allow space for everyone, regardless of race, wealth, ability etc., to participate equally?
Does your program, department, or institution explicitly or implicitly create a scientific research environment that selects for a specific demographic of people to participate and thrive?
Who am I?
My name is Antoinette Foster. I am a black Latina woman, an activist, and a PhD candidate in neuroscience.
Who is this article for?
For people who believe research is not exclusionary, for those who believe it is, and everyone in between.
What’s my goal in writing this?
My objective is to present ideas to consider, evaluate, and apply your own critical thought process to. I hope readers remain curious, open, and honest about their thoughts and feelings as they read this. As researchers, our curiosity and ability to think critically represents core aspects of who we are. We strive to be seekers of objective truth, and we see value in alternative ideas that may hold merit. Your expertise in curious, objective, critical thought will be powerful tools in this discussion.
A common response to the questions above may sound something like this: “Of course we are a welcoming institute [department, program, work environment]. First of all, it is illegal to practice discrimination in the workplace. We let anyone apply to graduate programs, post-doctoral positions, and faculty/staff positions. In addition, we have ‘diversity quotas’ and pipeline programs to increase diversity. We even offer diverse individuals monetary incentives to come to our institution.” A typical retort might sound like, “Yes those things are true, but what about [insert an example of an exclusionary practice or inequity]?”. Then, a policy might be implemented to address the inequity; it is cited as an example of a proactive inclusion effort until another exclusionary practice surfaces. The scenario plays out over and over: wash, rinse, repeat. In a sense, both arguments are accurate. Some people are able to point to attempted efforts to create more equity, and others acknowledge areas that still need improvement.
I wonder if this approach makes sense. It reminds me of picking mushrooms. We pluck the fruiting body, addressing one mushroom after another, while completely overlooking the vast, strong, and invisible interconnected system beneath our feet. This foundational core of the mushroom is the very structure the fruiting bodies rely on for survival. The mushroom is merely a small manifestation of the much larger organism. Similarly, is it possible that the foundational core of academic research, ie. the core of what research is built on, undermines our own efforts to address social inequities seen in science? I cannot provide a comprehensive answer to these questions, but I would like to propose a possible framework to you while you consider these questions.
I believe we can start to understand our foundational structure by understanding what the research community thinks is important- What are our collective values and beliefs? For instance, we value objectivity because we believe that science should not be influenced by personal interest or community bias. One way the scientific structure reflects this value is by requiring external review for publications and grant applications. Researchers participate within this structure by submitting publications and grants. We can view this participation as a behavior. The value of objectivity and the related beliefs, structure, and behaviors are woven into the fabric of the scientific culture. Therefore, a possible model to find our foundational structure may look like this: Our values (what we think is important), shape our research structure (how we organize ourselves to do science). Our values also influence our behavior and attitudes (how we actualize, manifest, and justify our values), and our structure provides the framework where we execute our behavior. These elements create our research culture. To summarize:
I use this framework to understand the relationship between our values and how we embed these values and beliefs into our structures and culture. I also use this framework to understand how our structure and culture drives, supports, and protects our behaviors, and most importantly, how this may set a foundation for inequity.
What are other values we hold within research? As a neuroscientist, I am more familiar with values we hold within the scientific research community, but I imagine many values are universal. For example, we value researcher autonomy, i.e. that principal investigators (PI)/mentors should have autonomy over the direction of their research and how their lab is managed. Though this concept is not inherently bad, it becomes problematic when we assume PIs will treat their employees ethically and we grant autonomy without much supervision. We create a system (the lab) with little oversight and are hesitant to become involved when the environment seems amiss, all in the name of protecting autonomy. In the same vain, we value money. We might grant flexibility to unethical behavior if the PI receives large grants and runs a scientifically successful lab. We also value prestige and do not want to tarnish our program/institutions name, so we grant additional leniency to problematic behavior. Our actions, or lack thereof, speak volumes about how far we are willing to go to protect our core values. We can argue about the universality these specific values and behaviors, but I would bet most of us know of someone somewhere who has suffered as a consequence of “respecting” an employer’s autonomy. Our values of autonomy, money, and prestige lead us to behave in ways that protect our values, even in the face of dysfunction. In essence, our values can create and support systems that protect unethical behavior, while simultaneously devaluing those who are the target of unethical behavior. Unchecked values and behaviors allow us to create systems that have the potential to hurt others, often times victimizing those with less power. This is the opposite of inclusion.
What are other unchecked values that may drive exclusion and inequity? Here are two additional examples:
Value/belief: Sacrifice-We believe a “good scientist” puts science above all else.
- Toxic when: We believe this regardless of a person’s financial stability, family or community support, mental health, etc.
- Excludes: Those with less wealth who cannot afford unpaid internships or low wage stipends, single parent homes with little support, those with mental health needs (anxiety and depression are common in researchers)
- Selects for: Those with financial resources, community support, & access to health care
- Embedded in system/behaviors: Acceptance to graduate programs is dependent on previous (typically unpaid) internships. We view sacrifices made as a badge of honor regardless of the impact of the sacrifice on the individual.
Value/belief: Similarity- we value those who have similar values/paths as ourselves. We believe similarity is better.
- Toxic when: The decision-making bodies are homogenous and we consciously/unconsciously select for people similar to us
- Excludes: The demographics of people not represented in the decision-making process
- Selects for: The demographics of people represented in the decision-making process
- Embedded in system/behaviors: Homogenous decision-making bodies, biased grant funding based off value similarities or ‘scientific nepotism’ (association with well-known scientists results in a higher likelihood of funding/acceptance into positions)
These factors all shape and protect one of our most dangerous attitudes in research: If I can do it, why can’t they? If this woman can do it, why can’t she? If this black person can do it, why can’t another? We compare individual characteristics without examining the entire system. We subconsciously engage in determining someone’s ability and worth based off of simple comparisons and anecdotal evidence that does not consider the larger structural inequities.
If culture is merely an assembly of shared attitudes, values, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization, we must ask ourselves what these attitudes, values, and practices say about our research culture. As a black Latina woman from a low-income background, research culture holds values, beliefs, and attitudes that lay the foundation of a system that actively excludes someone like me. We can have as many pipeline programs as we want. We can require and attend cultural sensitivity trainings. We can abide by “diversity quotas” and include the words “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in every mission statement we make, but until we become deeply introspective about what our real values, beliefs, and attitudes are and how they drive the structures we create, we will continue to participate and perpetuate an exclusionary culture.
These problems are deeply interconnected and challenging, but remember…
Anything we’ve created, we can change.
These problems are not too big.
But where do we start?
Start with the only thing you have control over: yourself. Start with self-assessment of your own values. There are many free online resources to help guide you. If you value autonomy, money, and prestige-great! Now, ask yourself, “At what cost?”. Do I believe in autonomy to the point of abuse? Do I value prestige over safety of others? Finding your limits helps ground you for your next steps.
Now that you are armed with your own values as a guide, determine the values of your program/department/institution. Is there alignment or misalignment? Collaboration is key here. Different perspectives will help you gain a fair assessment of your organization’s values, so talk to your colleagues. It would be helpful if these colleagues were diverse in a multitude of ways as they may notice implicit values you don’t. Is your department lacking diversity? Reach out to colleagues in different departments or even across institutions: the values that set the culture may be universal.
Now for the hard part – you must ask yourself in a moment of genuine honesty – Are my values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors contributing to a toxic/exclusive culture? Is the institution/department’s values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors contributing to a toxic/exclusive culture? It’s okay if there are incongruencies between where you are and where you want to be, as long as you are prepared to shift in order to align yourself with values that are supportive and inclusionary. Fight the temptation of becoming paralyzed with guilt or shame at your own shortcomings, as this only inhibits productive change. Instead focus on how best to align yourself with values that support the behaviors you wish to see in yourself and in your environment -that’s your goal.
Critical introspection is imperative. Without it, we will passively accept our participation and consequently reinforce the toxic aspects of academia. With it, we acknowledge the power and influence unchecked values, structure, and culture has on us all, and we better equip ourselves to create deeply meaningful change.
I genuinely believe that most people do not want to hurt others and we hold similar values in that regard. I also believe that many of us are out of alignment with our values; whether that is shown explicitly or implicitly through our compliance in harmful systems. This includes me. Critical introspection underlies this year’s theme for International Open Access Week, “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge” and motivated OpenCon organizers to use this year to reflect and rebuild their systems to center equity and inclusion. Their recognition in the importance of values-based decision-making serves as a powerful example for all of us: as we grow and evolve, we can always shift our practices to reflect what we think is important. This flexibility can happen any time; it is never too late as long as it happens with intention.
These problems are large but they are rooted within us through our values, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior, so it makes sense to start within ourselves. adrienne maree brown, author of Emergent Strategy, says that what we do on a small scale is reflected on a large scale. Molecules make the protein which makes the cells that makes the organisms that create the ecosystem, and so on. If you change all of the molecules, you change the ecosystem. If we remain open, reflective, and critical, we are engaging in the initial but most important steps of inclusion.
Note: This is cross-posted on the OpenCon Blog website at https://www.opencon2018.org/blog.
I learnt about Open Access Week only now and I found this year’s theme “Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge” especially exciting because one of the core principles of the organisation I work for and the journal we publish is that of knowledge production ‘from the ground up’.
I work at the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) – an international feminist NGO network based in Bangkok, Thailand, which advocates for the rights of migrant and trafficked women worldwide. We publish the Anti-Trafficking Review – the first open access, peer reviewed journal dedicated to examining the issue of human trafficking in its broader context and intersections with gender, migration, and labour.
Since its inception in 1994, GAATW has placed high value on the knowledge and lived experiences of communities, in particular, of migrant and trafficked women, by employing the principles of Feminist Participatory Action Research. FPAR is carried out under the premise that ‘when people are directly involved in an analysis of their situation, they are often stimulated to find answers to these problems’. It therefore aims both to produce an analytical description of a complex issue and to radically change it. In FPAR, researched communities are not simply ‘respondents’ or ‘interviewees’ – they are active participants.
These same principles guided us when, in 2012, we launched the Anti-Trafficking Review. We framed the journal explicitly as an ‘outlet and space for dialogue between academics, practitioners and advocates seeking to communicate new ideas and findings to those working for and with trafficked persons.’ We try to achieve this in several ways. First, our submissions guidelines explicitly encourage articles written in an easy to understand, jargon-free English, with a recommended length of 4,000-6,000 words, and an appropriate, but not excessive, number of citations. The aim of these ‘restrictions’ is to ensure that articles can be understood by a broad range of readers. Second, in addition to full-length scholarly papers, we have a ‘short articles’ section where we publish blog or op-ed style articles of 1,000-1,500 words. This section is particularly used by practitioners, advocates and NGOs who have invaluable practical knowledge of on-the-ground work, but not necessarily the time or capacity to develop a scholarly article. Third, several members of the journal Editorial Board are representatives of NGOs and UN agencies, and as much as possible and feasible, we invite practitioners to serve as peer reviewers. And finally, after publication, we invite authors to turn their scholarly articles into shorter, blog-style pieces, which we publish on Open Democracy through an internal agreement between the journal and its editorial team.
This strategy has had some success. We have published articles written not only by academics and researchers, but also by current or former sex workers, survivors of human trafficking, service providers, attorneys, and representatives of NGOs and UN agencies. I cannot count the number of NGO colleagues who have expressed their high appreciation for the journal and how much they have learnt from it. In fact, for better or worse, it may be that the journal is more popular among NGOs, practitioners, and advocates than academics. Furthermore, as an advocacy NGO, GAATW uses the research published in the journal in its international advocacy for rights protections for migrant and trafficked women. In this way we ensure that academic knowledge and evidence does not simply ‘sit on a shelf’ but is actively used for the improvement of the lives of affected people.
At the same time, many challenges remain to achieving full equity in knowledge production. Language is one major issue. We publish only articles in English and the vast majority of contributors are from or based in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. We rarely receive submissions focusing on Latin America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Middle East and North Africa, despite their importance in the fields of interest of the journal. Even with our short articles section, the majority of contributors remain academics, as articles written by community members or service providers often do not pass peer review. On the plus side, the overwhelming majority of authors we have published are women.
While grappling with these challenges, and actively trying to find solutions to them, we remain committed to open access publishing with, by and for affected communities. In an age of “fake news” and post-truth politics, including in the fields of human trafficking, migration, and women’s rights, this is more urgent than ever.
 Boesveld, M. and Boontinand, J. ‘Practicing Feminist Participatory Action Research Methodologies’. GAATW Newsletter, January 1999, pp. 14-17.
What are Open Textbooks?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of college textbooks rose 88% between 2006 and 2016. The high cost of required textbooks leads many students to forgo purchasing textbooks altogether, take fewer courses, or even drop or fail a course.
Open textbooks are a solution to some of these academic and financial concerns students face today.
As defined by the Open Textbook Library, “Open textbooks are textbooks that [can be] freely used, adapted, and distributed… These books can be downloaded for no cost or printed at low cost.”
Open textbooks give faculty more control over their instructional resources, and they also increase access to information and higher education by reducing student costs.
Did you know that there are thousands of Open Access engineering textbooks and other resources available online?
Check out my recommendations for Open Textbooks that might help you in your coursework or your general quest for knowledge! Our Open Access Library Resource Guide also has lots of information about Open Access in general.
an interview by Profs. Monica Berger and Maura Smale, Library, New York City College of Technology, CUNY
Wouldn’t it be great if your scholarship was highlighted in The Chronicle of Higher Education? Last April, Dr. Maura Smale, Chief Librarian and Library Chair at New York City College of Technology, City University of New York (CUNY), received wide publicity for her research on students and reading. Maura’s success story can help you better understand how open access and your local institutional repository can enhance scholarly visibility.
Being read by our peers is very important and open access has a clear citation advantage. We typically think of institutional repositories in terms of post-publication dissemination. However, in this case, Maura’s article had been accepted to the open access journal IMPACT: The Journal of the Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning but there was a very long wait for publication. The article would be published in Winter 2020. Maura decided to add her article to Academic Works, CUNY’s institutional repository, so it could be read immediately. We asked Maura more about her experience.
MB: Tell us more about your choice to share out your article before publication via Academic Works.
MS: It’s important to me that I share my research widely, and I only submit the articles I write (or cowrite) to open access publications. The research I reported on in this particular article was the result of my sabbatical project, in which I interviewed students to learn about their attitudes and practices around the required reading in their courses. I chose to submit to IMPACT because of their specifically pedagogical and interdisciplinary focus — I talked to students in a range of courses, and I wanted to be sure that I was sharing this research broadly across the disciplines.
When the editors of IMPACT let me know that my article was accepted with minor revisions, they also let me know that their publication schedule was running about a year out from acceptance. Since they’re an open access journal I was reasonably confident that they’d support my posting the post-peer reviewed, pre-publication version of my article in Academic Works, which they confirmed was fine. Without the ability to post a version ahead of publication in the journal, I likely would have sought another journal to submit my article to, and I was glad that the folks at IMPACT were okay with my depositing the article in Academic Works.
MB: Did you know the Chronicle would report on your article and link to it via Academic Works? What was that experience like?
MS: I did not! I was pleasantly surprised to get a phone call from Chronicle reporter Steven Johnson about a month after my article was posted in Academic Works. He was working on a piece about why students may not read their assigned course texts, and faculty strategies for addressing that. He’d gotten a link to my article from library faculty member Dr. Diane Mizrachi at UCLA, who also researches student reading preferences (and everyone should read her terrific coauthored article that aggregates academic reading preference survey data from 10,000+ students worldwide.
I had a phone conversation with Steve and he asked a few questions about my research, and also mentioned other faculty and researchers he was talking to for the piece. It was super interesting to talk with him — he’d been talking to some of the scholars whose work I’d cited in the literature review for my article, and he was able to point me to a few other researchers that I hadn’t known about previously.
MB: What good things ensued after the Chronicle article went live?
MS: It’s always gratifying to have the opportunity to share my work more widely, and the Chronicle article definitely helped spread the word. By the time the Chronicle piece was published it was about three months after I’d talked with Steve on the phone, and my article had been available for about four months. When I look on Academic Works at the download statistics for the article it’s clear that the Chronicle piece gave me a readership boost: there’s a marked increase in downloads in April after the article was mentioned in the Chronicle.
I also think the Chronicle mention helped spread the word about my research beyond my immediate context, to faculty and staff outside of academic libraries, to scholars outside of the US, etc. For example, over the summer I got a Google Alert that led me to a faculty workshop on web annotation at Ohio State University in which one of the activities was group annotation of my article, which was terrific to see.
MB: Did you self-promote your article in Academic Works before or after the Chronicle article?
MS: Yes, when I uploaded my article into Academic Works I posted about it on Twitter, which is the primary social network I use. I’ve been on Twitter for over a decade and I do have a fairly robust network of librarians, researchers, and academics that I follow, which makes self-promotion easier. And I really value Twitter for my own academic research and practice — it’s easy for folks to retweet publications of interest, and to learn about research across the disciplines.
MB: Finally, tell us more about why you believe in open access for your scholarship and how it’s benefitted you over the years.
MS: I’m super committed to open access for my research and scholarship, and have been since before I was tenured and promoted. It’s absolutely been advantageous in my own work to publish open access, I’m convinced that I’ve gotten wider readership than I would have with paywalled publications (and there’s research backing that conviction up). I’m also committed to open access as a scholar and faculty member at CUNY. The research I do is funded by taxpayers and my research focus is broadly on student success — it’s important to me that anyone can read the articles I write, regardless of institutional affiliation.
MB: Any concluding thoughts?
MS: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share my experiences with open access. Happy OA Week 2019!
Here is a small collection of OA themed goodies over the years. Shout out to Gettysburg College’s 2014“Story of the Open Access Cookie Cutter”. Recipe included. Written by Janelle Wertzberge. It’s worth a reread! Updated version of the 3D cutter here.
Inspired? Share your creations #OAWeekBakedGoods or tag your old pics! #OpenAccessWeek2019 #OAWeek @davulis @NeilPBardhann OA@pitt
- Paul Stainthorp – OA cake 1Uploaded by Mietchen, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17965788
- Linda Hall https://twitter.com/lindenehall/status/923072694538481664
- OA@Pitt http://www.openaccessweek.org/photo/our-favorites-are-back-oa-cookies-1?context=latest
- Alison Makins https://twitter.com/TheLibnLawyer/status/790382396952621061
- Daniel Hook https://twitter.com/danielintheory/status/791620587105972224
- Bepress Commonshttps://twitter.com/bepress_DC/status/922871676831858688
- Cupola.Gettysburg Commons https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/oaweek14images/3/
- Amyblue1 http://www.liblog.port.ac.uk/blog/2016/03/15849/
- Digital Scholarship at Columbia Takes a (open) village! Chip Wolfe designed it; @gettysburg shared it; @ghostlyfu enhanced it; @davidascherer shared it via @LibPubCoalition listserv; our own @wvanti 3D-printed it. Now @terrainsvagues & @TheLibrarianM can bake #oaweek #openaccess cookies! https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/oaweek/2014/oapromotion2014/4/