Towards Open Annotation: Examples and Experiments

Abstract:  This article interrogates how digital text annotation tools and projects facilitate online engagement and virtual communities of practice. With the rise of the Web 2.0 movement and the proliferation of digital resources, annotation has evolved from an isolated practice to a collaborative one. This article unpacks the impact of this shift by providing an in-depth discussion of five web-based tools and two social reading projects. This article examines issues of design, usability, and applicability to pedagogical intervention as well as underscores how productive group dynamics can be fostered through digital, social annotation. 

Towards Open Annotation: Examples and Experiments

Abstract:  This article interrogates how digital text annotation tools and projects facilitate online engagement and virtual communities of practice. With the rise of the Web 2.0 movement and the proliferation of digital resources, annotation has evolved from an isolated practice to a collaborative one. This article unpacks the impact of this shift by providing an in-depth discussion of five web-based tools and two social reading projects. This article examines issues of design, usability, and applicability to pedagogical intervention as well as underscores how productive group dynamics can be fostered through digital, social annotation. 

‘No comment’? A study of commenting on PLOS articles – Simon Wakeling, Peter Willett, Claire Creaser, Jenny Fry, Stephen Pinfield, Valerie Spezi, Marc Bonne, Christina Founti, Itzelle Medina Perea, 2019

Abstract:  Article–commenting functionality allows users to add publicly visible comments to an article on a publisher’s website. As well as facilitating forms of post-publication peer review, for publishers of open-access mega-journals (large, broad scope, open-access journals that seek to publish all technically or scientifically sound research) comments are also thought to serve as a means for the community to discuss and communicate the significance and novelty of the research, factors which are not assessed during peer review. In this article we present the results of an analysis of commenting on articles published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), publisher of the first and best-known mega-journal PLOS ONE, between 2003 and 2016. We find that while overall commenting rates are low, and have declined since 2010, there is substantial variation across different PLOS titles. Using a typology of comments developed for this research, we also find that only around half of comments engage in an academic discussion of the article and that these discussions are most likely to focus on the paper’s technical soundness. Our results suggest that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.

Göttingen University Press Platform supports Annotation via Hypothes.is – Hirmeos Project

Within the HIRMEOS project, Göttingen University Press aims to add on its platform new services that allow for deeper interaction with Open Access monographs. The University Press is pleased to announce that now it is possible to annotate all its publications within the browser through the Hypothes.is annotation tool….”

Publisciences – Sciences publishing by Researchers

“Scientific publication is an essential tool for the dis- semination and transfer of knowledge. Free access to publications and “bibliodiversity” are fundamen- tal both to researchers, who wish to broadcast their work and thus secure funding for it, and for the sci- entific community, which is fuelled by the progress of each of its members. Researchers ensure that scien- tific discoveries can be replicated. Today, publishers, via their editorial choices, influence the direction of research, whereas this should be the prerogative of researchers. As evidenced in the “Appel de Jussieu”(1), research- ers are in favour of an Open Access model, yet the community is faced with one pressing problem: “Who will foot the bill?”. Within the current Open Access model, publishing is expensive for authors/ researchers (from €1000 to €5000 for one article), despite low added value provided by publishers in terms of editing, but also reviewing. Peer review and validation are performed by other researchers for free. There is a real need to create a more af- fordable, more diverse, and fairer Open Access solu- tion. Researchers’ work, especially as authors and reviewers, is financed by public funds with no com- pensation provided by private publishers. An innovative cooperative We propose a scientific publication platform led by the research community itself. For the collective in- terest to prevail, we want to set up the first coop- erative platform dedicated to scientific publication. In France there is a type of business entity that suits this purpose perfectly: the SCIC. Short for Société Coopérative d’Intérêt Collectif (public interest cooperative company), this type of entity lets each par- ticipant weigh in as a stakeholder: researchers (authors and reviewers), publishers, public institutions and investors….”

Member Collaborations Blossom in OASPA – OASPA

“OASPA has seen an exciting recent blossoming of inter-membership collaborations, partnerships, and instances of members working alongside each other in support of common goals. In honour of Open Access Week, which celebrates the global open access community annually and runs from October 22-28th this year, we are highlighting these inspiring instances of collaborative efforts of our members in their work to find new solutions to making research openly accessible for all….”

In Review: a new way to open up the submissions and peer review process – Research in progress blog

“That’s why we’ve created a new service, In Review. Powered by Research Square, In Review offers authors a personal dashboard to easily track the status of their manuscript, and the opportunity to share it with the wider community earlier in the submission and peer review process. In the first instance, this service will be available across four BMC journals….

By using In Review authors will be able to:

  • Share their work while it is under review and engage the wider community in discussion (through the Hypothes.is open annotation tool)
  • Track the status of their manuscript on a more granular level – including number of reviewers invited, number of reports received, and immediate access to reviewer reports
  • Demonstrate the integrity of their work with a transparent editorial checklist
  • Benefit from early sharing, including potential for earlier citations and collaboration opportunities…”

How Open Commenting on Preprints Can Increase Scientific Transparency: An Interview With the Directors of PsyArxiv, SocArxiv, and Marxiv

“We believe more discourse around research is a good thing. To that end, we have partnered with Hypothesis, a third-party platform, to allow for annotation and discussion on our preprints services.  Annotation on preprints will increase transparency in scientific practices by enabling researchers to collaborate, discuss research with peers, and share additional information directly on preprints both before and after they are posted.”

Get the research

“Our plan: provide access to both content and context, for free, in one place. To do that, we’re going to bring together an open a database of OA papers with a suite AI-powered support tools we’re calling an Explanation Engine. We’ve already finished the database of OA papers. So that’s good. With the free Unpaywall database, we’ve now got 20 million OA articles from 50k sources, built on open source, available as open data, and with a working nonprofit sustainability model….”

Hypothesis Awarded $2M of New Funding From The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation – Hypothesis

“Hypothesis is pleased to announce that it has recently been awarded $2 million in new funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. This is our sixth grant from the Mellon Foundation, and we are grateful for their continued endorsement of our mission and work to scale the use of open, standards-based web annotation and the Hypothesis annotation tool suite in scholarship and research. Specifically, the focus of this multi-year grant, Scaling Annotation in Scholarship and the Humanities, will be to support feature enhancements and program development for Hypothesis’ annotation software and services, with an emphasis on the arts and humanities. With the support of the Mellon Foundation, Hypothesis has made substantial progress in adding important features such as group functions and moderation, realizing a W3C standard for web annotation, building the Annotating All Knowledge Coalition to bring together major publishers and scholarly platforms around open annotation, and growing our user base in the arts and humanities through outreach in publishing and education. This new round of funding will enable us to capitalize on our previous work and current trends in scholarship, publishing and education to accelerate growth in annotation and execute our business strategy for long term sustainability….”