# Open Social Scholarship Annotated Bibliography/New Modes of Scholarly Communication
## Category Overview

Recent decades have witnessed an exponential shift in modes of research production and dissemination from primarily print-based formats to digital mediums. This switch in modes of scholarly communication has resulted in various discourses and experimentations that address and explore optimal ways of knowledge creation, access, and representation. The digital medium has also motivated a novel scope of knowledge outreach fueled by open access advocacy and practices by numerous scholars and scholarly groups. This interest in outreach is expressed in an increasing shift to open access journals, including Scholarly and Research Communication. This journal addresses ways of facilitating collaborations and discussions around the future of scholarly publishing, such as introducing open peer review systems and open access publishing (Arbuckle, Crompton, and Mauro 2014). Some of these methods are enacted in the open networked peer review and publishing system CommentPress (Fitzpatrick 2007). This category addresses the digital book historically, currently, and in potential future forms (Bath, Schofield, and the INKE Research Group 2014; Fjällbrant 1997; Shearer and Birdsall 2002; Siemens 2002). A central component in current scholarly communication involves experimenting with and building alternative forms of digital scholarly editions, such as social and visualization-based editions (Crompton, Arbuckle, and Siemens, with the Devonshire Manuscript Editorial Group 2013; Saklofske and Bruce 2013, with the INKE Research Group). Together, the resources explore the evolution of knowledge production and dissemination and speculate about potential directions for this form of scholarly communication.

## Annotations

Adema, Janneke. 2014. “Overview of Open Access Models for eBooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” OAPEN Project Report. https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/a976330e-ed7a-4bd5-b0ed-47cab90e9a5e/1/ademaoapen2comb.pdf.
    Adema provides an overview of current open access publishing models being experimented with by organizations and institutions in the humanities and social sciences. The author intends to find strategies for making open access book publishing a sustainable enterprise, with funding and profit for all parties involved. Adema explores a variety of business models and publishing processes that make up what she terms the "experimental phase" of open access book publishing. She touches on the motives—both monetary and missionary—behind the open access movement, compares various presses and press partnerships, and explores the different practices and collaborations that make open access sustainable.
+ Andersen, Christian Ulrik, and Søren Bro Pold. 2014. “Post-digital Books and Disruptive Literary Machines.” Formules/Revue des creations formelles et littératures à contraintes 18: 169–88.
    Andersen and Pold explain that the book is now “post-digital” and they provide various examples of innovative and common textual artefacts to support this claim. They argue that the infrastructure around electronic publications has been normalized and integrated fully into international reading, writing, and consumption practices. Andersen and Pold emphasize the capitalism inherent to current mainstream digital text platforms, like Amazon, and detail and vouch for attempts to counter the controlled, corporate, and user-objectifying electronic text ecosystem.
Arbuckle, Alyssa, Alex Christie, Lynne Siemens, Aaron Mauro, and the INKE Research Group, eds. 2016. Special Issue, Scholarly and Research Communication 7 (2/3): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/issue/view/24.
    Arbuckle, Christie, and Siemens dedicate the introduction of this special issue to an exploration of the topics discussed in the “New Knowledge Models: Sustaining Partnerships to Transform Scholarly Production” INKE gathering of 2016. They explain that the conversations addressed aspects of digital scholarship including creativity, implementation, institutional interface, opportunities, challenges, audience, initiatives, and sustainability. They claim that digital technology has enhanced the dissemination of contemporary scholarly practice, all the while acknowledging that the technological changes in knowledge production are not new concepts. They add that “new models for knowledge production blend more traditional forms of scholarly inquiry with digital modes and methods” (n.p). Furthermore, the editors address how cultural institutions are changing their views on how to best to serve the public at large, with digital scholarship in mind. They conclude by emphasizing that open social sharing of scholarship constructs a community that contributes to maintaining a critical mass of thought through its diversity of strength and interests.
+ Arbuckle, Alyssa, and Alex Christie, with the ETCL Research Group, INKE Research Group, and MVP Research Group. 2015. “Intersections Between Social Knowledge Creation and Critical Making.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (3): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/200.
    Arbuckle and Christie outline the practices of digital scholarly communication (moving research production and dissemination online), critical making (producing theoretical insights by transforming digitized heritage materials), and social knowledge creation (collaborating in online environments to produce shared knowledge products). In addition to exploring these practices and their principles, the authors argue that combining these activities engenders knowledge production chains that connect multiple institutions and communities. Highlighting the relevance of critical making theory for scholarly communication practice, Arbuckle and Christie provide examples of theoretical research that offer tangible products for expanding and enriching scholarly production.
+ Arbuckle, Alyssa, Constance Crompton, and Aaron Mauro, eds. 2014. Special Issue, Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/issue/view/18.
    Arbuckle, Crompton, and Mauro introduce the INKE Gathering special issue of the Scholarly and Research Communication journal by exploring the topics discussed during the 2014 “Building Partnerships to Transform Scholarly Publishing” gathering. They explain that the gathering aimed at facilitating collaborations and discussions around the future of scholarly publishing. They emphasize the importance of open peer review systems and open access online publishing to the evolution of technology and programming standards. The editors also address the question of knowledge mobilization, which is taking place online and is contributing to how the humanities are currently being measured. Referencing the content of the issue, the editors discuss how digital innovations are affecting the terms of academic publishing as well as the collaborative and interdisciplinary aspect of the humanities and how it is flourishing within digital environments. They conclude on the note that the INKE gathering 2015 will facilitate a continuation of these conversations.
Arbuckle, Alyssa, Nina Belojevic, Matthew Hiebert, and Raymond G. Siemens, with Alex Christie, Jon Saklofske, Jentery Sayers, Derek Siemens, Shaun Wong, and the INKE and ETCL Research Groups. 2014. “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (2). http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/150/299.
    Arbuckle, Belojevic, Hiebert, Siemens, with Wong, Siemens, Christie, Saklofske, Sayers, and the INKE and ETCL research groups provide three annotated bibliographies anchored in social knowledge creation. They claim that their project transiently represents interrelational research areas and that it emphasizes “(re)shaping processes that produce knowledge” (n.p). The authors address the work’s intent, highlighting the importance of collaboration and open source. They discuss the principles to which this bibliography adheres, addressing topics such as the book, print, remediation of culture, and interaction and collaboration. In addition, they explore the importance of digital tools and gamification to the practice of social knowledge creation. The three main parts of this document are social knowledge creation and conveyance, game-design models for digital social knowledge creation, and social knowledge creation tools. Each of these sections begins with an introduction that presents an overview of the section’s content and ends with a complete alphabetical list of selections.
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada-Canadian Association of Research Libraries Task Force on Academic Libraries and Scholarly Communication. 1997. “The Changing World of Scholarly Communication: Challenges and Choices for Canada — Final Report of the AUCC-CARL/ABRC Task Force.” Canadian Journal of Communication 22 (3): n.p.
    The AUCC-CARL/ABRC Task Force on Academic Libraries and Scholarly Communication claims that advances in electronic communication influence knowledge creation and communication, which in turn affect the state of scholarly communication. The authors generate a series of recommendations, so that “Canadian scholarship flourishes in the global network of knowledge dissemination of the future” (n.p). These recommendations address local and national action for raising awareness, implementing best practices, establishing an electronic communications infrastructure, building a distributed digital library, supporting electronic publishing, creating an appropriate copyright environment, and renewing the academic reward system.
+ Bath, Jon, Scott Schofield, and the INKE Research Group. 2014. “The Digital Book.” In The Cambridge Companion to the History of the Book, edited by Leslie Howsam, 181–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Bath and Schofield reflect on the rise of the e-book by contemplating the various moving parts involved in its history and production. They focus on, and contribute to, the scholarly engagement with e-books, and they provide a comprehensive survey of theorists, including Johanna Drucker, Elizabeth Eisenstein, N. Katherine Hayles, Matthew Kirschenbaum, Jerome McGann, D.F. McKenzie, and Marshall McLuhan. Bath and Schofield integrate these theorists into a larger argument that suggests that both a nuanced understanding of book history and a comprehensive familiarity with digital scholarship are necessary to fully grasp the material and historical significance of the e-book. The authors conclude with a call to book history and digital humanities specialists (a.k.a. “scholar-coders”) to collaborate and develop new digital research environments together.
Belojevic, Nina. 2015. “Developing an Open, Networked Peer Review System.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/205.
    Belojevic presents the Personas for Open, Networked Peer Review wireframe prototype – an open, networked peer review model initiated by Belojevic and Jentery Sayers in 2013 that was further developed by the Electronic Textual Cultures Laboratory, in partnership with University of Victoria Libraries, the Humanities Computing and Media Centre, and the Public Knowledge Project. In this environment, articles undergo open peer review and can be commented on by a specific group of reviewers or the public. The prototyping process followed an approach similar to the one described in Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman’s Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals in which they outline common game design principles. Belojevic describes how the project moved from iterative prototyping to agile development, an approach that permits researchers to break down the project into smaller chunks. This approach allows stakeholders to ensure that their goals are being met at every stage, and scholars and researchers to maintain the quality of the project. Further research will focus on determining the aspects of agile development that are adaptable for the project in order to facilitate a balance between project development and deliverables, while being flexible enough to pursue and integrate novel insights that may appear during the prototyping process.
+ Borgman, Christine. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Borgman lays out research questions and hypotheses concerning the evolving scholarly infrastructure and modes of communication in the digital environment. She deduces that the inherent social elements of scholarship endure, despite new technologies that alter significantly the way scholarship is performed, disseminated, and archived. Scholarship and scholarly activities continue to exist in a social network of varying actors and priorities. Notably, Borgman focuses on the “data deluge”—the increasing amount of generated data and data accessed for research purposes. Meditating on the influences of large data sets, as well as how these data sets will be preserved in keeping with library and archival conventions, forms a significant node in the book. Overall, Borgman synthesizes the various aspects of contemporary scholarship and reflects on the increasingly pervasive digital environment.
+ Bowen, William R., Matthew Hiebert, and Constance Crompton. 2014. “Iter Community: Prototyping an Environment for Social Knowledge Creation and Communication.” Scholarly and Research Communication. 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/193/360.
    Bowen, Crompton, and Hiebert discuss the features and challenges of Iter Community, a collaborative research environment. They also discuss A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript, focusing on its human and computer social engagement. The authors organize the article into three sections: 1) a historical and conceptual framework of Iter Community, 2) an update on the state of Iter Community (at writing), and 3) a perspective on A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript. They conclude that Iter Community’s vision is to provide a flexible environment for communication, exchange, and collaboration, which will evolve with its participants’ priorities and challenges.
Brown, Susan, and John Simpson. 2015. “An Entity By Any Other Name: Linked Open Data as a Basis for a Decentered, Dynamic Scholarly Publishing Ecology.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/212.
    Brown and Simpson propose that linked open data enables more easily navigable scholarly environments that permit better integration of research materials and greater interlinkage between individuals and institutions. They frame linked open data integration as an ecological problem in a complex system of parts and relationships. The different parts of the ecology co-evolve and change according to the relationships in the system. The authors suggest that tools are needed for establishing automated conditions; for evaluating the provenance, authority, and trustworthiness of linked open data resources; and for developing tools that facilitate corrections and enhancements. The authors explain that an ontology negotiation tool would be a most valuable contribution to the Semantic Web. Such a tool would represent an opportunity for collaboration between different sectors of the knowledge economy, and would allow the Semantic Web to develop as an evolving space of knowledge production and dissemination.
Brown, Susan, and John Simpson. 2014. “The Changing Culture of Humanities Scholarship: Iteration, Recursion, and Versions in Scholarly Collaboration Environments.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/191.
    Brown and Simpson discuss versions and versioning in contemporary scholarship, archiving, and data preservation. They present dynamic textuality, collaborative textuality, granulated and distributed textuality, and interdependent textuality. They also discuss technical considerations in order to highlight the cyclical influence between culture and technology (sections study control, cost, collaboration, conflicts and management, and representation, mostly within the context of digital texts). Brown and Simpson explain that collaborative digital objects are subject to modification, remediation, and revision, as “textuality is increasingly granular, distributed, and interdependent” (n.p). The authors conclude that the dynamic aspect of the culture of scholarship allows for the community to contribute to the sustainability of cultural scholarship and record.
Cohen, Daniel J. 2010. “Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Values.” https://dancohen.org./2010/05/27/open-access-publishing-and-scholarly-values/.
    Cohen builds on the notions of the supply and demand side of scholarly communication, as well as the value system of scholars, in order make a case for increasing open access scholarship and being more receptive to scholarship that does not adhere to the conventional academic publishing system. According to Cohen, the four sentiments that stand in the way of embracing open access scholarship are impartiality, passion, shame, and narcissism. Cohen uses impartiality in relation to the pressure scholars feel to publish in established, toll access venues for a number for reasons, including legitimate concerns such as career growth. He argues that open access publishing can take place in parallel to more traditional forms of academic publishing. Cohen also criticizes the commercial apparatus of the publishing system that takes advantage of scholars and their labour and passion, which is expressed in writing. He argues for the need to reorient the ways in which scholarship is produced and published in order to increase access, and also to break the chain within a system that is exploiting academics. Cohen argues that the act of accepting certain digital medium aspects and rejecting others is a “shameful hypocrisy” (n.p.). The examples he provides are using the digital medium as the primary source for research, yet avoiding it as a means of publishing and talking about access and the need for academics to be more inclusive, but avoiding the existing necessary steps towards implementing these notions into practice. Finally, the narcissistic factor is related to the reputability of publishing in traditional venues; Cohen counters this by saying that open access publishing is likely to get better readership and to spread ideas more widely, and could also be added to the CV. The author concludes by inviting us to envision and enact a more straightforward and virtuous model for scholarly communication.
+ Crompton, Constance, Alyssa Arbuckle, and Raymond G. Siemens, with the Devonshire Manuscript Editorial Group. 2013. “Understanding the Social Edition Through Iterative Implementation: The Case of the Devonshire MS (BL Add MS 17492).” Scholarly and Research Communication 4 (3): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/118/311.
    Crompton, Arbuckle, and Siemens address the process of building a digital social edition of a manuscript that involves consultation with and contribution from various communities. The article is based on a case study of A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript, a Wikibooks edition of the first known miscellany that features women and men writing together in English. Since A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript is published on Wikibooks, it includes a traceable revision history and is available for collaborative work. The Wikibooks platform also provides a safety net in case users tamper with the content in bad faith; the authors detail a user incident that was easily reversible due to the Wikibooks versioning options. Work on A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript involved a series of consultations with various communities and advisory boards, primarily through Skype and Iter-based interactions, but also through social network platforms such as Twitter. Researchers in the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL) often carried out suggested changes to the Wikibooks edition that arose from these consultations. One of the primary outcomes of this process involved rethinking the authority of the editor within a project that also involves citizen scholar contributions and a number of researchers contributing to the work to different extents. The authors regard this project as an example of a process-driven digital social edition that practices traced versioning and involves various communities working and contributing to a project that is, in its own way, meaningful to all. This is done in conjunction with experimenting with the digital medium.
+ Crompton, Constance, Raymond G. Siemens, and Alyssa Arbuckle, with the Devonshire Manuscript Editorial Group. 2015. “Enlisting ‘Vertues Noble & Excelent’: Behavior, Credit, and Knowledge Organization in the Social Edition.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9 (2): n.p. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/2/000202/000202.html.
    Crompton, Siemens, and Arbuckle consider the gender factors involved in social editions, drawing on their experience developing A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript: a Wikibooks edition of the sixteenth century multi-author verse miscellany the Devonshire Manuscript. The authors argue that while the Wikimedia suite can often devolve into openly hostile online spaces, Wikimedia projects remain important for the contemporary circulation of knowledge. The key, for the authors, is to encourage gender equity in social behavior, credit sharing, and knowledge organization in Wikimedia, rather than abandon it for a more controlled collaborative environment for edition production and dissemination.
**Dumova, Tatyana. 2012. “Social Interaction Technologies and the Future of Blogging.” In Blogging in the Global Society: Cultural, Political and Geographical Aspects, edited by Dumova and Richard Fiordo, 249–74. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
    Dumova addresses the social potential of blogging centres on the ways in which blogs permit people to engage in social interactions, build connections, and collaborate with others. She argues that blogging should not be studied in isolation from the social media clusters that function together to sustain each other. She also notes that blogging is an international phenomenon, since over 60% of all blogs created after the 1990s are written in languages other than English. Next, Dumova broadly traces the development of blog publishing platforms. She concludes that network-based peer production and social media convergence are the driving forces behind the current transformation of blogs to increasingly user-centric, user-driven practices of producing, searching, sharing, publishing, and distributing information.
Erickson, John, Carl Lagoze, Sandy Payette, Herbert Van de Sompel, and Simeon Warner. 2004. “Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Building the System That Scholars Deserve.” D-Lib Magazine 10 (9): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2004-vandesompel.
    Erickson, Lagoze, Payette, Van de Sompel, and Warner ruminate on transforming scholarly communication to better serve and facilitate knowledge creation. They primarily target the current academic journal system; for the authors, this system constrains scholarly work as it is expensive, difficult to access, and print biased. Erickson et al. propose a digital system for scholarly communication that more accurately incorporates ideals of interoperability, adaptability, innovation, documentation, and democratization. Furthermore, the proposed system would be implemented as a concurrent knowledge production environment instead of a mere stage, annex, or afterthought for scholarly work.
**Eve, Martin Paul. 2015. “Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Communication in Non-Scientific Disciplines.” Online Information Review 39 (5): 717–32.
    Eve presents an overview of the current open access debate in non-scientific (STEM) disciplines. Eve argues that non-STEM disciplines have consistently lagged behind in their approach to open access policies and practices. He attributes this gap to a variety of economic and cultural factors, and argues that these specific challenges or objections have stunted the discipline’s growth of open access. Eve suggests that his article is far too short and biased to do justice to the complexity of the issues he raises; however, it is his hope that the insights therein spur action and critical appraisal from the community at large. Academia needs to consider what is needed from a scholarly communications infrastructure, and simultaneously build pragmatic and non-damaging transition strategies in order to utilize open access dissemination to its full advantage.
+ Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2007. “CommentPress: New (Social) Structures for New (Networked) Texts.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 10 (3): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.305.
    Fitzpatrick meditates on the current state and future possibilities of electronic scholarly publishing. She focuses her consideration on a study of CommentPress, a digital scholarly publishing venue that combines the hosting of long texts with social network features. Fitzpatrick argues that community and collaboration are at the heart of scholarly knowledge creation—or at least, they should be. Platforms like CommentPress acknowledge the productive capabilities of scholarly collaboration, and promote this fruitful interaction between academics. Although Fitzpatrick admits that CommentPress is not the only or best answer to the questions of shifting scholarly communication, she celebrates its emergence as a service for the social interconnection and knowledge production of authors and readers in an academic setting.
+ Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2011. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: New York University Press.
    Fitzpatrick duly surveys and calls for a reform of academic publishing. She argues for more interactivity, communication, peer-to-peer review, and a significant move toward digital scholarly publishing. Fitzpatrick demonstrates how the current mode of scholarly publishing is economically unviable. Moreover, tenure and promotion practices based primarily on institutional modes of scholarly publishing need to be reformed. Fitzpatrick acknowledges certain touchstones of the academy (peer review, scholarship, sharing ideas) and how these tenets have been overshadowed by priorities shaped, in part, by mainstream academic publishing practices and concepts. She details her own work with CommentPress and the benefits of publishing online with an infrastructure that enables widespread dissemination as well as concurrent reader participation via open peer review.
+ Fjällbrant, Nancy. 1997. “Scholarly Communication—Historical Development and New Possibilities.” In Proceedings of the IATUL Conference. Indiana: Purdue University Library. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/1997/papers/5/.
    In order to study the widespread transition into electronic scholarly communication, Fjällbrant details the history of the scientific journal. Academic journals emerged in seventeenth-century Europe, and the first journal, Journal des Sçavans, was published in 1665 in Paris. According to Fjällbrant, the scholarly journal initially developed out of a desire for researchers to share their findings with others in a cooperative forum. As such, the journal had significant ties with the concurrent birth of learned societies (i.e., the Royal Society of London and the Académie des Sciences in Paris). As their primary concern was the dissemination of knowledge, learned societies began seriously experimenting with journals. Fjällbrant lists other contemporaneous forms of scholarly communication, including the letter, the scientific book, the newspaper, and the anagram system. The journal, however, emerged as a primary source of scholarly communication because it met the needs of various stakeholders: the general public, booksellers, libraries, authors who wished to make their work public and claim ownership, the scientific community invested in reading and applying other scientist’s findings, publishers who wished to capitalize on production, and academic institutions that required metrics for evaluating faculty.
Grumbach, Elizabeth, and Laura Mandell. 2014. “Meeting Scholars Where They Are: The Advanced Research Consortium (ARC) and a Social Humanities Infrastructure.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4). http://www.src-online.ca/src/index.php/src/article/view/189.
    Grumbach and Mandell investigate the Advanced Research Consortium (ARC) infrastructure in the context of scholarly engagement, focusing on digital project peer review, aggregation and search, and outreach services. The authors emphasize the importance of meeting scholars where they are for the sake of success and productivity. They also outline a history of NINES and ARC and how they have assisted the scholarly community through the areas of focus listed above. The article concludes with a note that the ARC nodes’ directors are not necessarily digital humanists, which helps bring together conventional scholarly and new digital infrastructures.
+ Jones, Steven E. 2014. “Publications.” In The Emergence of the Digital Humanities, 147–77. New York: Routledge.
    Jones explores the current state of scholarly publishing and the role of the digital humanities. He argues that now, more than ever, academic practitioners are able to take the means of producing scholarly work into their own hands. Rather than relying on scholarly communication systems already in place, researchers can now experiment with different modes, media, and models of publication. Jones considers digital publishing and engagement of academic work as symptomatic of the deep integration and interplay of computational methods with contemporary scholarship in general, and with digital humanities in particular.
Lane, Richard. 2014. “Faith-Based Electronic Publishing and Learning Environments as a Model for New Scholarly Publishing Applications.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/188.
    Lane explores the popular eTheology platforms Olive Tree and Logos, and the possibilities for uptake of their information management and design models. Lane details the advantages of popular or nonacademic digital knowledge spaces and argues for their potential application to secular electronic publishing. The most evident advantage of this proposal may be the suggestion to tailor applications to communities of users, similarly to the way that Olive Tree and Logos do, as described in the article, in order to develop a more integrated and dynamically engaged scholarly publishing system that includes user analysis.
Lewis, Vivian, Lisa Spiro, Xuemao Wang, and Jon E. Cawthorne. 2015. Building Expertise to Support Digital Scholarship. Council on Library and Information Resources. https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub168/pub168.
    Lewis, Spiro, Wang, and Cawthorne investigate necessary expertise for robust and sustainable digital scholarship (DS). The authors list components of expertise, laying out their methods (such as site selection and interviews) and findings (including analysis, study limitations, and challenges). Lewis et al. discuss the skills, competencies, and mindsets important to digital scholarship and list the factors upon which digital scholarship depends. Additionally, the authors study the characteristics of organizations that enable continuous learning to nurture expertise and knowledge creation. They examine DS expertise in a global context, the role of the research library and campus computing, and the challenges faced by digital scholarship organizations. Based on their observations of successful programs, they offer some recommendations for digital scholars, leaders of digital scholarship organizations, university and host organizations, organizations that fund digital scholarship, and the digital scholarship community. They conclude that sharing and communication among individuals allows for remarkable learning in digital scholarship.
Liu, Alan. 2007. “Imagining the New Media Encounter.” In A Companion to Digital Literary Studies, edited by Raymond Siemens and Susan Schreibman, 3-25. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Liu introduces a volume edited by Siemens and Schreibman that brings together narratives about the new media encounter as told from the perspective of scholars, theorists, and practitioners working in the intersection of literary studies and digital new media. He offers a narrative of the origin and development of new media and its encounters with socio-political, historical, and subjective registers, ultimately claiming that its dynamic and manifold nature elicits numerous encounter narratives. Liu draws on a number of central theorists to points to the manifold, often juxtaposing characteristics of media that further complicate its clear-cut definition. Given this context, Liu argues that the goal of this volume is to introduce the various stories of this new media encounter and the messiness and imaginative possibilities integral to it. Essays in this volume fall under three main sections: “Traditions,” “Textualities,” and “Methodologies,” and work together to address the potentials of new media in scholarly and cultural contexts.
+ Lorimer, Rowland. 2013. “Libraries, Scholars, and Publishers in Digital Journal and Monograph Publishing.” Scholarly and Research Communication 4 (1): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/viewFile/43/117.
    Lorimer briefly details the last forty years of scholarly publishing to explicate the current state of affairs. He asserts that a reorganization of the academic publishing infrastructure would greatly encourage forthright contributions to knowledge, especially concerning academic journals and monographs. The splitting of the university press from the university (except in name), coupled with funding cuts and consequent entrepreneurial publishing projects, has hampered the possibilities of academic publishing. By integrating all of the actors of digital scholarly communication in an inclusive collaboration—libraries, librarians, scholars on editorial boards, technologically inclined researchers, programmers, digital humanists, and publishing professionals—digital technology could bear significant benefits for the future of scholarship and knowledge creation.
+ Lorimer, Rowland. 2014. “A Good Idea, a Difficult Reality: Toward a Publisher/Library Open Access Partnership.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/180.
    Lorimer comments on the state of scholarly publishing in Canada. He offers thorough insight into the financial, social, and cultural obstacles that arise as academic institutions move toward an open access model of knowledge mobilization. Lorimer argues that although the idea of open access is desirable to academic and academic-aligned researchers, practitioners, and organizations, the reality of a complete open access model still requires considerable planning and implementation. Lorimer emphasizes the importance of long-term thinking in order to support Canada’s research libraries as open access hubs of orderly, sustainable, and productive information.
+ Maxwell, John W. 2014. “Publishing Education in the 21st Century and the Role of the University.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 17 (2): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0017.205.
    From his perspective in the Canadian Institute for Studies in Publishing at Simon Fraser University, Maxwell ruminates on the current state of university-level training in publishing studies, as well as its future role. He considers the shifting economy and the rise of digital media and practices as major factors in the current Canadian academic and nonacademic publishing scene. Maxwell suggests that the university has a pivotal role to play in reinvigorating publishing by encouraging a supportive community of practice as well as openness to creativity, innovation, and flexibility. Overall, Maxwell underlines the importance of academic publishing studies in the evolving publishing scene.
+ Maxwell, John W. 2015. “Beyond Open Access to Open Content.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (3): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/202.
    Maxwell calls for radical openness in scholarly publishing, that is, moving beyond the ideas of open access towards a cultural transformation. He argues that as the humanities re-imagine themselves in the light of digital media, there is an increasing need for old practices to be thrown away instead of merely reconceived. For Maxwell, the print based journal economy relies on limited access in order to maintain a profit. The economics of open access, however, could adapt a new system of openness to shifting market demands, opened by the Web, that depend upon interconnection and inter-linkage. Maxwell turns to agile publishing and its mission statement of “release early, release often” as an example of a more open movement. He questions how scholarly work can be remixed, combined, reassembled, taken apart, and inscribed through an iterative process. Maxwell asserts that education, publishing, and scholarship can all be cultures of transformation.
+ O’Donnell, Daniel, Heather Hobma, Sandra Cowan, Gillian Ayers, Jessica Bay, Marinus Swanepoel, Wendy Merkley, Kelaine Devine, Emma Dering, Inge Genee. 2015. “Aligning Open Access Publication with the Research and Teaching Missions of the Public University: The Case of the Lethbridge Journal Incubator (If 'if's and 'and's were pots and pans).” Journal of Electronic Publishing 18 (3): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.309.
    O’Donnell, Hobma, Cowan, Ayers, Bay, Swanepoel, Merkley, Devine, Dering, and Genee present a research mission summary for the group behind the Lethbridge Journal Incubator and detail how this project provides graduate students with early experience in scholarly publishing. The Lethbridge Journal Incubator trains graduate students in technical and managerial aspects of journal production under the supervision of scholar-editors and professional librarians. The project introduces students to the core elements of academic journal production workflows and provides training in copyediting, preparation of proofs, document encoding, and the use of standard journal-production software. Using circle graphs, the authors demonstrate the significant increase in research time devoted to production tasks that improve research ability or knowledge. For O’Donnell et al., the key innovation of the Lethbridge Journal Incubator is its alignment of journal production sustainability with the educational and research missions of the university. The authors attribute the slow growth of open access to attitudes among those who pay for the production and dissemination of research. By unlocking the training and administrative support potential of the production process, the Lethbridge Journal Incubator promotes access within the University of Lethbridge.
+ Powell, Daniel James, Raymond G. Siemens, and the INKE Research Group. 2014. “Building Alternative Scholarly Publishing Capacity: The Renaissance Knowledge Network (ReKN) as Digital Production Hub.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/183.
    Powell, Siemens, and the INKE Research Group report on the status of the Renaissance Knowledge Network (ReKN), an Advanced Research Consortium node. ReKN is a large-scale collaborative project that spans the University of Victoria, the University of Toronto, and Texas A&M University. The authors detail the planning phase of ReKN, a project that aims to centralize and integrate research and production in a single online platform that will serve the specific needs of early modern scholars. The authors aim to develop and implement ReKN as a dynamic, holistic scholarly environment. For a further update, please see Powell, Siemens, and Bowen, with Hiebert and Seatter (2015), an article that reflects on the first six months of ReKN development that is also included in this bibliography.
+ Powell, Daniel, Raymond G. Siemens, and William R. Bowen, with Matthew Hiebert and Lindsey Seatter. 2015. “Transformation through Integration: The Renaissance Knowledge Network (ReKN) and a Next Wave of Scholarly Publication.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/199.
    Powell, Siemens, and Bowen, with Hiebert and Seatter, explore the first six months of the Andrew W. Mellon-funded Renaissance Knowledge Network (ReKN). The authors focus on the potential for interoperability and metadata aggregation of various Renaissance and early modern digital projects. They examine how interconnected resources and scholarly environments might integrate publication and mark up tools. Powell et al. consider how projects like ReKN contribute to the shifting practices of contemporary scholarly publishing. For a detailed exploration of the planning phase of ReKN, please see Powell, Siemens, and the INKE Research Group (2014), also included in this bibliography.
Saklofske, Jon. 2014. “Exploding, Centralizing and Reimagining: Critical Scholarship Refracted Through the NewRadial Prototype.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5(2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/151.
    In light of the focus of the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) focus on the ways in which digital environments affect the production, dissemination, and use of established venues for academic research, the NewRadial prototype has been extended for further investigation of this research direction. NewRadial is a data visualization environment that was originally designed as an alternative way to encounter and annotate image-based databases. It allows users to engage with humanities data outside of scholarly paradigms and the linear nature of the printed book and encourages user contributions through collective commentary rather than isolated annotation. This prototype investigates a number of questions, such as whether the aforementioned venues can coexist in their present form, what are the ways in which scholarship can be visualized through time and space, how are critical ideas born and evolve, and whether the collaborative elements of Alternate Reality Games and Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games collaborative aspect can be adopted into the peer review process and secondary scholarship. The prototype is a response to the established view of a finished work existing in a print-based format and is rather a way of experimenting in an interactive and dynamic digital environment that invites dialogue and collaborative curation, as well as numerous alternative narrative opportunities.
Saklofske, Jon. 2016. “Digital Theoria, Poiesis and Praxis: Activating Humanities Research and Communication through Open Social Scholarship Platform Design.” Scholarly and Research Communication 7(2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/252/495.
    Sakolofske states that although research has drastically changed in the last two decades, scholarly communication has remained relatively stable, adhering to traditional scholarly forms of publication as a result of materialist economies. Sakolofske argues for the necessity of innovating digital means of scholarly communication with theoria, poiesis, and praxis in mind. He offers a number of case studies that experiment with unconventional ways of carrying out research that utilize these concepts, among which is the NewRadial prototype – an online environment that brings in secondary scholarship and debate, where outside information can be added to, and visualized with the primary data without affecting the original databases. NewRadial is taken as a model for other spaces that facilitate such dynamic organization and centralized spacing as an alternative solution to traditional isolated forms of monographs and linear narrativization. Sakolofske, who is a proponent of open social scholarship, argues that this type of scholarship is an essential part of the transformation of scholarly research and communication in a way that would take advantage of the digital medium rather than propagating traditional forms of knowledge creation into this environment. This type of research platform is also more inclusive and public-facing.
+ Saklofske, Jon, and Jake Bruce, with the INKE Research Group. 2013. “Beyond Browsing and Reading: The Open Work of Digital Scholarly Editions.” Scholarly and Research Communication 4 (3): n.p. http://src- online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/119.
    Saklofske and Bruce detail NewRadial, an Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) prototype scholarly edition environment. The prototype draws together primary texts, secondary scholarship, and related knowledge communities into a social digital scholarly edition. NewRadial provides an open, shared workspace where users may explore, sort, group, annotate, and contribute to secondary scholarship creation collaboratively.
+ Schreibman, Susan, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth, eds. 2004. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Schriebman, Siemens, and Unsworth edit a collection of essays by practitioners who address the digital humanities as a separate discipline in a volume for the first time; and who think of the ways in which it connects to more traditional humanities practices. The collection presents various disciplinary perspectives on the digital humanities and describes evolving modes of scholarly research. According to the editors, one of the main principles uniting the various subfields of the digital humanities is that they are as concerned with the practical application of knowledge to concrete environments as they are with the theoretical. Together, the essays offer a historical record of how digital humanities has been practiced and evolved over the past half-century, its present state, and its potential futures. The editors believe that the discipline has the potential to work with human records on an unprecedented scale and to recognize patterns and connections that would have otherwise remained unnoticed.
Shearer, Kathleen, and Bill Birdsall. 2002. The Transition of Scholarly Communications in Canada. 1–13. http://www.moyak.com/papers/scholarly-communications-canada.pdf.
    Shearer and Birdsall analyze the impact of technology and economy on the scholarly communication process, and outline a conceptual framework for the latter along with corresponding actors, drivers, and issues. They start by addressing the scholarly communication system, and emphasize the economic and social importance of knowledge. The authors also discuss the actors within the process, which they categorize into researchers, publishers, libraries, and users. Shearer and Birdsall identify technology, globalization, economics, changing patterns of research, increasing quantity of scholarly publications, and public policy as “external forces [to], or drivers” of the system (4). They address issues such as changing knowledge needs, alternative publishing models, copyright, licensing, intellectual property, interoperability and technical infrastructure, and access and retrieval. The authors conclude that there are many transformations in the scholarly communication system that have various impacts that are yet to become clear, which calls for a multidisciplinary research agenda.
+ Siemens, Raymond G. 2002. “Scholarly Publishing at its Source, and at Present.” In The Credibility of Electronic Publishing: A Report to the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, compiled by Raymond G. Siemens, Michael Best, Elizabeth Grove-White, Alan Burk, James Kerr, Andy Pope, Jean-Claude Guédon, Geoffrey Rockwell, and Lynne Siemens. Text Technology 11 (1): n.p. https://web.archive.org/web/20151012065051/https://web.viu.ca/hssfc/Final/Overview.htm.
    Siemens’s introduction to this report focuses on the rethinking of scholarly communication practices in light of new digital forms. He meditates on this topic through the framework of ad fontes—the act, or conception, of going to the source. Siemens argues that scholars should look at the source or genesis of scholarly communication. The source, for Siemens, includes more than the seventeenth-century inception of the academic print journal: it also includes less formal ways of communicating and disseminating knowledge (i.e., verbal exchanges, epistolary correspondence, and manuscript circulation). In this way, scholars can look past the popular, standard academic journal and into a future of scholarly communication that productively involves varied scholarly traditions and social knowledge practices.
Siemens, Raymond G., Claire Warwick, Richard Cunningham, Teresa Dobson, Alan Galey, Stan Ruecker, Susan Schreibman, and the INKE Research Group. 2009. “Codex Ultor: Toward a Conceptual and Theoretical Foundation for New Research on Books and Knowledge Environments.” Digital Studies / Le champ numérique 1 (2): n.p. http://www.doi.org/ojs/10.16995/dscn.270.
    Siemens, Warwick, Cunningham, Dobson, Galey, Ruecker, Schreibman, and the INKE Research Group investigate the “conceptual and theoretical foundations for work undertaken by the Implementing New Knowledge Environments research group” (n.p). They address the need for designing new knowledge environments, taking into consideration the evolution of reading and writing technologies, the mechanics and pragmatics of written forms of knowledge, and the corresponding strategies of reading, as well as the computational possibilities of written forms due to emerging technology. The authors highlight the importance of prototyping as a research activity and outline corresponding research questions, which target the experiences of reading, using, and accessing information, as well as issues of design. They discuss their research methods, which include digital textual scholarship, user experience evaluation, interface design prototyping, and information management. Siemens et al. conclude that the various reading interface prototypes produced by INKE allow a transformation of engagement methods with reading materials.
Siemens, Raymond G., and David Moorman, eds. 2006. Mind Technologies: Humanities Computing and the Canadian Academic Community. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
    Siemens and Moorman edit a collection of essays that result from an awareness of the increasing role of the computer in the academy and its central role in enhancing humanities research and pedagogy in particular. The collection focuses on how scholars in Canada utilize computational methods, described here within the Humanities Computing framework, in the arts and humanities. This collection was preceded by various discussions and planning, with the Mind Technologies conference sessions hosted by the Consortium for Computing in the Humanities/ Consortium pour ordinateurs en science humaines (COCH/COSH) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) at the University of Toronto being one of the most central and recent. The papers describe the various terminologies and research directions that fall within Humanities Computing and offer a broad range of applications in academic contexts.
Siemens, Raymond G., and Kenneth Price, eds. 2013. Literary Studies in the Digital Age. New York: Modern Language Association.
    Price and Siemens bring together an anthology of essays that address the changing modes of knowledge production and dissemination in the digital age. In their introduction, the authors offer an explanation of digital humanities and digital literary studies and how they developed historically, as well as their present form and the various branches and opportunities that stem from them. They highlight some of the significant aspects of digital humanities, such as the ability to bridge theory and practice, as well as the collaborative element at the heart of most research carried out in the field. The authors also point to the various aspects that have been affected by the digital turn, such as textual editing, access to primary materials, and the development of online databases that can feed various projects, among others. The essays also address various ways in which computers can assist literary studies and the ways in which these technologies can deal with humanities-oriented questions and concerns.
Siemens, Raymond G., Teresa Dobson, Stan Ruecker, Richard Cunningham, Alan Galey, Claire Warwick, and Lynne Siemens. 2011. “HCI-Book? Perspectives on E-Book Research, 2006-2008 (Foundational to Implementing New Knowledge Environments).” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada / Cahiers de la Société bibliographique Du Canada 49 (1). http://web.uvic.ca/~siemens/pub/2011-HCI-Book.pdf.
    Siemens, Dobson, Ruecker, Cunningham, Galey, Warwick, and Siemens examine the book in various domains as the electronic book emerged, with a specific focus on the role and importance of digital and analog books in humanities scholarship. They contextualize electronic book research, aiming at understanding and describing principles of humanistic interaction with knowledge objects. The authors lay out core strategies for designing those objects, and study principles of evaluation and implementation of new technologies. They also investigate human-computer interaction possibilities and those of the electronic book. The authors take various elements into consideration, including audience, interface and design, and form and content. When studying readers and users, the authors consider user studies and usability assessment, the importance of user studies in the humanities, and previous studies of humanities users. They also examine features of books and e-books, such as tangibility, browsability, searchability, referenceability, and hybridity, and investigate uses of books and e-books, as well as digital archives, sustainability, and access. The authors’ research also examines aspects of the books (material, symbolic, and formal), and develops prototypes in various directions. They conclude by noting that since the team has been working together for six years, the members have been able to create relationships and processes necessary for them to work through the challenges of multidisciplinary research collaborations.
+ Stein, Bob. 2015. “Back to the Future.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 18 (2): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.204.
    Stein considers the digital book as a place rather than an object or tool—a place where readers gather, socially. He details the experiments at his Institute for the Future of the Book with social platforms, including creating an online social edition of Mckenzie Wark’s Gamer Theory, and their current work with SocialBook. SocialBook is an online, collaborative reading platform that encourages readers to comment on the text and interact with each other. Stein gestures to historic social reading practices, and infers that platforms like SocialBook are closely aligned to these traditions.
Stranack, Kevin. 2008. Starting A New Scholarly Journal in Africa. Public Knowledge Project. https://pkp.sfu.ca/files/AfricaNewJournal.pdf
    Stranack outlines the factors involved in starting a high quality and sustainable academic journal. He situates this discussion within an African framework, arguing that African knowledge production is crucial for local communities and for the academic community at large. He presents the benefits of starting a journal on a personal, institutional, disciplinal, and national level and addresses certain challenges involved, such as the necessary economic input, and the need for time and people that will dedicate themselves to such an undertaking. In this booklet, Stranack addresses the elements involved in starting an academic journal; he spans the types of existing journals and methods, economic models for journals, the open access versus limited access debate, and tips on how to promote and sustain a successful journal. Stranack concludes by highlighting the merit of a journal with valuable contributions to the academic society at large.
+ Vandendorpe, Christian. 2012. “Wikisource and the Scholarly Book.” Scholarly and Research Communication 3 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/src/index.php/src/article/viewFile/58/146.
    Vandendorpe contemplates Wikisource, a project of the Wikimedia foundation, as a potential platform for reading and editing scholarly books. He comes to this conclusion after considering what the ideal e-book or digital knowledge environment should look like. For Vandendorpe, this artefact must be available on the web; reflect the metaphor of a forest of knowledge, rather than a container; situate the reader at the centre of the experience; and be open, reliable, robust, and expandable. Wikisource, the author concludes, has the potential to meet these criteria. Vandendorpe highlights that Wikisource enables quality editing and robust versioning, and has various display options. He also outlines areas of development for Wikisource to become an ideal candidate for hosting the aforementioned type of knowledge creation.
Veletsianos, George. 2015. “A Case Study of Scholars’ Open and Sharing Practices.” Open Praxis 7 (3): 199–209.
    Velatsianos addresses the extent of enactment of open scholarship in institutions that lack a formal infrastructure to support such research. This is carried out through a case study on Tall Mountain University – a public, not-for-profit North American institution –specifically by working with faculty members. According to the case study, there are a number of ways in which open scholarship is carried out, with certain practices being favored over others; some examples include open access manuscripts and educational resources, social media, and open teaching/pedagogy. Another finding is that some faculty members publish their materials openly on the Internet without attaching open licenses, and that the settings of the platform, as well as the institutional protocol, also affect the extent to which the material is accessible. Despite these findings, Veletsianos states that open scholarship is still a relatively narrow practice at the institution. The author outlines possible limitations of the research, such as open practices that may not have been revealed in the case study and possible limitations of Google Scholar (the search engine used for this research) that may refrain the study from being exhaustive. The study is also descriptive and does not address the motivations behind practicing open scholarship.

## References

* Adema, Janneke. 2014. “Overview of Open Access Models for eBooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” OAPEN Project Report. https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/a976330e-ed7a-4bd5-b0ed-47cab90e9a5e/1/ademaoapen2comb.pdf.
* Andersen, Christian Ulrik, and Søren Bro Pold. 2014. “Post-digital Books and Disruptive Literary Machines.” Formules/Revue des creations formelles et littératures à contraintes 18: 169–88.
* Arbuckle, Alyssa, Alex Christie, Lynne Siemens, Aaron Mauro, and the INKE Research Group eds. 2016. Special Issue, Scholarly and Research Communication 7 (2/3): n.p. http://srconline.ca/index.php/src/issue/view/24.
* Arbuckle, Alyssa, and Alex Christie, with the ETCL Research Group, INKE Research Group, and MVP Research Group. 2015. “Intersections Between Social Knowledge Creation and Critical Making. Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (3): n.p. http://srconline.ca/index.php/src/article/view/200.
* Arbuckle, Alyssa, Constance Crompton, and Aaron Mauro, eds. 2014. Special Issue, Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/issue/view/18.
* Arbuckle, Alyssa, Nina Belojevic, Matthew Hiebert, and Raymond G. Siemens, with Alex Christie, Jon Saklofske, Jentery Sayers, Derek Siemens, Shaun Wong, and the INKE and ETCL Research Groups. 2014. “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (2). http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/150/299.
* Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada-Canadian Association of Research Libraries Task Force on Academic Libraries and Scholarly Communication. 1997. “The Changing World of Scholarly Communication: Challenges and Choices for Canada — Final Report of the AUCC-CARL/ABRC Task Force.” Canadian Journal of Communication 22 (3): n.p.
* Bath, Jon, Scott Schofield, and the INKE Research Group. 2014. “The Digital Book.” In The Cambridge Companion to the History of the Book, edited by Leslie Howsam, 181–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Belojevic, Nina. 2015. “Developing an Open, Networked Peer Review System.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/205.
* Borgman, Christine. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
* Bowen, William R., Matthew Hiebert, and Constance Crompton. 2014. “Iter Community: Prototyping an Environment for Social Knowledge Creation and Communication.” Scholarly and Research Communication. 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/193/360.
* Brown, Susan, and John Simpson. 2015. “An Entity By Any Other Name: Linked Open Data as a Basis for a Decentered, Dynamic Scholarly Publishing Ecology.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/212.
* Brown, Susan, and John Simpson. 2014. “The Changing Culture of Humanities Scholarship: Iteration, Recursion, and Versions in Scholarly Collaboration Environments.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://srconline.ca/index.php/src/article/view/191/354.
* Cohen, Daniel J. 2010. “Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Values.” https://dancohen.org./2010/05/27/open-access-publishing-and-scholarly-values/.
* Crompton, Constance, Alyssa Arbuckle, and Raymond G. Siemens, with the Devonshire Manuscript Editorial Group. 2013. “Understanding the Social Edition Through Iterative Implementation: The Case of the Devonshire MS (BL Add MS 17492).” Scholarly and Research Communication 4(3): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/118/311.
* Crompton, Constance, Raymond G. Siemens, and Alyssa Arbuckle, with the Devonshire Manuscript Editorial Group. 2015. “Enlisting ‘Vertues Noble & Excelent’: Behavior, Credit, and Knowledge Organization in the Social Edition.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9 (2): n.p. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/2/000202/000202.html.
* Dumova, Tatyana. 2012. “Social Interaction Technologies and the Future of Blogging.” In Blogging in the Global Society: Cultural, Political and Geographical Aspects, 249–74. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
* Erickson, John, Carl Lagoze, Sandy Payette, Herbert Van de Sompel, and Simeon Warner. 2004. “Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Building the System That Scholars Deserve.” D-Lib Magazine 10 (9): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/september2004-vandesompel.
* Eve, Martin Paul. 2015. “Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Communication in Non-Scientific Disciplines.” Online Information Review 39 (5): 717–32.
* Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2007. “CommentPress: New (Social) Structures for New (Networked) Texts.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 10 (3): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.305.
* Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2011. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: New York University Press.
* Fjällbrant, Nancy. 1997. “Scholarly Communication—Historical Development and New Possibilities.” In Proceedings of the IATUL Conference. Indiana: Purdue University Library. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/1997/papers/5/.
* Grumbach, Elizabeth, and Laura Mandell. 2014. “Meeting Scholars Where They Are: The Advanced Research Consortium (ARC) and a Social Humanities Infrastructure.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4). http://www.src-online.ca/src/index.php/src/article/view/189/362.
* Jones, Steven E. 2014. “Publications.” In The Emergence of the Digital Humanities, 147–77. New York: Routledge.
* Lane, Richard. 2014. “Faith-Based Electronic Publishing and Learning Environments as Model for New Scholarly Publishing Applications.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/188.
* Lewis, Vivian, Lisa Spiro, Xuemao Wang, and Jon E. Cawthorne. 2015. “Building Expertise to Support Digital Scholarship.” Council on Library and Information Resources. https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub168/pub168.
* Liu, Alan. 2007. “Imagining the New Media Encounter.” In A Companion to Digital Literary Studies, edited by Raymond Siemens and Susan Schreibman. Oxford: Blackwell.
* Lorimer, Rowland. 2013. “Libraries, Scholars, and Publishers in Digital Journal and Monograph Publishing.” Scholarly and Research Communication 4 (1): n.p. http://srconline.ca/index.php/src/article/viewFile/43/117.
* Lorimer, Rowland. 2014. “A Good Idea, a Difficult Reality: Toward a Publisher/Library Open Access Partnership.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/180.
* Maxwell, John W. 2014. “Publishing Education in the 21st Century and the Role of the University.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 17 (2): n.p. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0017.205?view=text;rgn=main.
* Maxwell, John W. 2015. “Beyond Open Access to Open Content.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (3): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/202.
* O’Donnell, Daniel, Heather Hobma, Sandra Cowan, Gillian Ayers, Jessica Bay, Marinus Swanepoel, Wendy Merkley, Kelaine Devine, Emma Dering, Inge Genee. 2015. “Aligning Open Access Publication with the Research and Teaching Missions of the Public University: The Case of the Lethbridge Journal Incubator (If 'if's and 'and's were pots and pans).” Journal of Electronic Publishing 18 (3): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.309.
* Powell, Daniel James, Raymond G. Siemens, and the INKE Research Group. 2014. “Building Alternative Scholarly Publishing Capacity: The Renaissance Knowledge Network (ReKN) as Digital Production Hub.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/183.
* Powell, Daniel, Raymond G. Siemens, and William R. Bowen, with Matthew Hiebert and Lindsey Seatter. 2015. “Transformation through Integration: The Renaissance Knowledge Network (ReKN) and a Next Wave of Scholarly Publication.” Scholarly and Research Communication 6 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/199.
* Saklofske, Jon. 2014. “Exploding, Centralizing and Reimagining: Critical Scholarship Refracted Through the NewRadial Prototype.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/151.
* Saklofske, Jon. 2016. “Digital Theoria, Poiesis and Praxis: Activating Humanities Research and Communication through Open Social Scholarship Platform Design.” Scholarly and Research Communication 7 (2): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/252/495.
* Saklofske, Jon, and Jake Bruce, with the INKE Research Group. 2013. “Beyond Browsing and Reading: The Open Work of Digital Scholarly Editions.” Scholarly and Research Communication 4 (3): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/119.
* Schreibman, Susan, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth, eds. 2004. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell.
* Shearer, Kathleen, and Bill Birdsall. 2002. The Transition of Scholarly Communications in Canada. 1–13. http://www.moyak.com/papers/scholarly-communications-canada.pdf.
* Siemens, Raymond G. 2002. “Scholarly Publishing at its Source, and at Present.” In The Credibility of Electronic Publishing: A Report to the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, compiled by Raymond G. Siemens, Michael Best, Elizabeth Grove-White, Alan Burk, James Kerr, Andy Pope, Jean-Claude Guédon, Geoffrey Rockwell, and Lynne Siemens. Text Technology 11 (1): n.p. https://web.archive.org/web/20151012065051/https://web.viu.ca/hssfc/Final/Overview.htm
* Siemens, Raymond G., Claire Warwick, Richard Cunningham, Teresa Dobson, Alan Galey, Stan Ruecker, Susan Schreibman, and the INKE Research Group. 2009. “Codex Ultor: Toward a Conceptual and Theoretical Foundation for New Research on Books and Knowledge Environments.” Digital Studies / Le Champ Numerique 1 (2): n.p. http://www.digitalstudies.org/ojs/index.php/digital_studies/article/view/177/220.
* Siemens, Raymond G., and David Moorman, eds. 2006. Mind Technologies: Humanities Computing and the Canadian Academic Community. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
* Siemens, Raymond G., and Kenneth Price, eds. 2013. Literary Studies in the Digital Age. New York: Modern Language Association.
* Siemens, Raymond G., Teresa Dobson, Stan Ruecker, Richard Cunningham, Alan Galey, Claire Warwick, and Lynne Siemens. 2011. “HCI-Book? Perspectives on E-Book Research, 2006-2008 (Foundational to Implementing New Knowledge Environments).” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada / Cahiers de la Société bibliographique du Canada 49 (1). http://web.uvic.ca/~siemens/pub/2011-HCI-Book.pdf.
* Stein, Bob. 2015. “Back to the Future.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 18 (2): n.p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0018.204.
* Stranack, Kevin. 2008. Starting A New Scholarly Journal in Africa. Public Knowledge Project. https://pkp.sfu.ca/files/AfricaNewJournal.pdf
* Vandendorpe, Christian. 2012. “Wikisource and the Scholarly Book.” Scholarly and Research Communication 3 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/src/index.php/src/article/viewFile/58/146.
* Veletsianos, George. 2015. “A Case Study of Scholars’ Open and Sharing Practices.” Open Praxis 7(3): 199–209.