Submissions/Collaborative Methodologies for Scholarly Outputs

This submission is on the wait list for Wikimania 2014.

Submission no. 6002

Title of the submission: Collaborative Methodologies for Scholarly Outputs

Type of submission (discussion, hot seat, panel, presentation, tutorial, workshop): Panel

Author of the submission: Alf7e, Amanda French

E-mail address of submitter: amandaamandafrench.net

E-mail address of person giving the talk if it will be used: adambooksprints.net
Username: Alf7e

Country of origin: USA

Affiliation, if any (organisation, company etc.): THATCamp: The Humanities and Technology Camp; Book Sprints

Personal homepage or blog: http://amandafrench.net

Abstract (at least 300 words to describe your proposal)

Panel members: Phil Barker (JISC/CETIS Learning Technology Group, UK) Jonas Dupuich (PLOS) Rachel Baker (Book Sprints for ICT Research) Dr. Amanda French (THATCamp: The Humanities and Technology Camp)

moderated by Dr Michael Dieter (University of Amsterdam) and/or Adam Hyde (Book Sprints)

Even though Wikipedia specifically prohibits "original research" in its articles, the Wiki Way could surely also be used to produce original research manuscripts. Yet much scholarly material that has been attributed to many authors is not in fact collaboratively produced: research manuscripts are still a result of archaic individualised production tools and processes. Where collective production does occur, it is often inefficient, parallelized production -- i.e., emailing Microsoft Word documents to each other. As a consequence, manuscript production takes months or years, and it is a painful, laborious process. Imagine Wikipedia being written by email and MS Word! So why don't we see more collaborative tools and processes used in the production of research manuscripts? Is it because the default for scholarly writing is still "closed" rather than "open," both for production and for dissemination?

This panel will discuss several methods, tools, and case studies for producing scholarly content collaboratively. What does scholarly collaboration look like? What are the gains? What are the tradeoffs? Is there a future for strong collaboration in the production of research articles, books, and other artifacts? What is the relationship between collaborative production and open dissemination? How can or should the Wikipedia community help?

Some of the methods, tools, and case studies that will be discussed here include various experiments taking place at PLOS (the Public Library of Science); the European-commission-funded "Book Sprints for ICT Research" project, which has sponsored several one-week rapid group writing events; and the popular global unconference THATCamp (The Humanities and Technology Camp). The panel would also welcome contributions from the Wikipedia community for examples of collaboratively-written original scholarship.

Track: Open Scholarship

Length of session (if other than 30 minutes, specify how long): 30 minutes

Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?: Maybe

Slides or further information (optional)

Special requests

Interested attendees

If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with a hash and four tildes. (# ~~~~).

Sjgknight (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC) - can provide input on PLOS Computational Biology's Topic Pages (cf. Jisc case study), have proposed a similar session at Submissions/Wikimedia workflows as prototypes for open research.[reply]
Add your username here.