Editorial process and Intellectual Property policy (April 2013 – present)
¶ 1
Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0
Objectives:
To be considered for our book-in-progress, Web Writing, essays must address teaching and learning in the liberal arts with web-based writing. Guiding questions may include the following, and more: Why should (or shouldn’t) we integrate the web into our writing assignments? How does student engagement and faculty pedagogy change when we share drafts of our ideas and comment online? Which types of digital tools deepen — or distract from — thoughtful learning? What strategies can help the liberal arts, broadly defined, to address these digital-era challenges and opportunities? As the sponsor of this open-access book, the Center for Teaching and Learning at Trinity College (CTL), will support its open peer review and publication in freely-accessible digital formats, possibly in cooperation with a scholarly press. The final product is primarily intended for liberal arts educators, with online examples, tutorials, and exercises that may be shared with student writers.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Overall, this born-digital volume will integrate why questions with online examples and tutorials to illustrate how faculty and students are engaging in this type of work. We welcome essays with first-person perspectives, or co-authored by educators and/or learners, or those that include student-authored content, either anonymous or credited (with permission). Innovative essays that build on collaboration and/or contrasting points of view are encouraged, and contributors may submit co-authored essays or individual pieces written in coordination with other authors. We expect insightful and imaginative writing, supported with rich examples, in a clear and compelling style that makes readers want to learn more. See the ideas & proposals page to intellectually engage with other contributors and build a more cohesive final product. (For a related born-digital book, see Writing History in the Digital Age, which provided the inspiration and general editorial policies for WebWriting.)
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 All commenters and contributors retain the copyright to their own works, but must agree to freely share their content under our Creative Commons license BY-NC, as described below. Authors are encouraged to include links, writing samples, or digital media (such as screenshots, screencasts, images, video) and are responsible for obtaining any copyright permissions. If you are looking for advice on ways to illustrate your essay, post a comment on our ideas & proposals page.
¶ 4
Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
Commenting policy:
All contributors and commenters are required to use their full names. No anonymous remarks will be permitted. Any language deemed inappropriate by the CTL editors will be removed. During the open review period, revisions to essays are not permitted because doing so could break links to readers’ comments.
¶ 5
Leave a comment on paragraph 5 6
Essay selection policy:
All ideas & proposals are welcome, but the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) will select which essays advance to the open peer review and final manuscript, based on our judgment of its quality and relationship to the volume as a whole, as shaped by the context of online commentary. We expect to send “revise & resubmit” instructions to some contributors, and decline to advance others whose topic was addressed more thoroughly elsewhere in the volume. Essays that spark thoughtful commentary are more likely to advance than those which do not. Authors who do not advance to the next round will be notified by private email.
¶ 6
Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0
Intellectual property policy:
Authors must agree to the following statement before submitting a full draft of their essay by August 15, 2013: 1
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 As the author, I am the original creator (or co-creator) of the work submitted and agree to share it under the same Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States (BY-NC) license used by the Web Writing site. I acknowledge that the Creative Commons license allows me as author (or co-author) to retain the copyright of the work while making a non-exclusive agreement for it to be freely shared with others, as long as the original source is cited.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 I will clearly state whether any portion of this essay is under review or has been previously published elsewhere. If any material in this essay has been copyrighted by others, I will obtain written permission from the copyright proprietor and include it with this submission, or clearly explain if and how it falls within fair use guidelines. Also, I warrant that the essay contains no matter that is defamatory or otherwise in violation of the rights of others.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 1 By submitting this essay, I understand that the editors may accept or decline it for inclusion in the Web Writing site. If accepted for the website, I will receive at least two weeks to review the digital draft and make revisions and enhancements prior to Fall 2013 open review and public commentary period. At any time during the open review, an author may request that the editors “close comments” on an essay and remove it from active discussion on the website, which also would eliminate it from further consideration for publication. However, the Creative Commons license for this work cannot be revoked, and a static copy of the essay (with comments prior to closing) will be digitally archived by the editors and will continue to be accessible by the public.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 After the open review period, I understand that the editors may accept or decline my essay for inclusion in the final manuscript for publication by Michigan Publishing. If accepted for the final manuscript, I will receive at least four weeks to revise the essay in response in editorial feedback. I also grant Michigan Publishing the right to publish my contribution in all languages and for all future print and electronic editions, under same Creative Commons license for this site (BY-NC).
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Post questions or comments on this page, or email Web Writing editor Jack Dougherty
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Notes:
- ¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0
- Updated in September 2013 to name Michigan Publishing in place of the Center for Teaching and Learning as the publisher. ↩
I have a longstanding interest in the roles of authors, editors, and reviewer/commenters in open peer review, I’d be interested to know what instructions or particular encouragement (if any) you’ve given your authors as to how to participate in the open review as an author.
Do authors’ own comments (quantity or quality) play any role in the selection? I.e. do you think an author who replies to comments (at all, or in some depth) would have any edge over an author who doesn’t reply or engage in discussion about his/her text in the open review period?
Do you think authors would benefit from an “open peer review how-to”, or do you think they, like commenters, will find their way? It seems to me that authors have a lot more at stake than others (except, perhaps, editors) in “doing open peer review” right.
Great question, Kristen. (For those who may not know, she and I co-edited our first experiment in large-scale open peer review, Writing History in the Digital Age, in fall 2011, and together we figured out much of the process that informs this venture.)
As for instructions/encouragement to authors to participate in the open peer review, I sent this message to each section when their batch of essays went live, a day before the official launch: “Your essays are now public under the ___ section of Web Writing, with more to come. Would you help us get the ball rolling on Monday by commenting on at least one other author’s essay?”
When we officially launched on Monday morning, here’s the relevant text I emailed all contributors (with a link to blog announcement): “Feel free to circulate the announcement above — and a direct link to your essay — via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc. We’re relying on our authors to start the ‘commenting party’ by posting feedback on other essays. Feel free to ask questions, request clarifications, challenge assumptions, offer constructive criticism, or add links to suggested reading. Take advantage of this valuable opportunity for developmental editing before the final book is completed.”
One day into this process, several authors have posted comments on each other’s essays, but most have not at this early stage. No worries – at least they’ve finished their essays, and I’m late in getting my own uploaded to the site.
I’d love to hear thoughts from you (and others) about what a “how-to open peer review” tutorial would look like, and whether it’s necessary or not.
Are authors required to participate in the open peer review in order to advance to the final manuscript? No. To check this, Kristen and I counted each comment and its source after the 2011 review of Writing History in the Digital Age. Looking back at the spreadsheet notes, I see that authors of 24 out of 28 essays posted comments, either on other essays or in response to their own. Of the 4 essays with non-commenting authors, we advanced 3 to the final volume. Kristen and I wrote about how we made these editorial judgements, which certainly were not driven by a mechanical popularity contest (as some highly-commented essays did not advance), which you can read in “Conclusions: What We Learned.”
Do I still recommend that authors participate in the open peer review process? You betcha. As writers, developmental feedback from readers of our drafts is what we crave. Give to others and you’re more likely to get some back.
Moreover, all of the contributors to this edited volume have a stake in raising the quality of the work as a whole, because a stronger and more coherent book is more likely to be read and recommended to others, thereby increasing the odds that broader audiences will find each individual essay. Author participation in open peer review may be an ideal case study of the benefits of altruistic behavior.
I like your encouragement of authors to participate very much, but what I don’t see (perhaps I overlooked it?) is direct encouragement to add comments or to engage with comments on one’s own essay. From my own experience as a commenter, getting a reply makes me comment more often (and, perhaps even more fruitfully), to have a real conversation. A while back I had a little discussion a propos of this with Michelle Moravec with respect to the Subjecting History project (on her “History in the City” blog at http://historyinthecity.blogspot.de/2013/03/whats-public-where-is-open.html.). Michelle writes there that “I really really wanted to pose questions in the comments, [on her own essay] which I do when ‘writing in public’ but didn’t know if this was part of the format of this particular volume.” I found this interesting, since I assumed this commenting on one’s own writing would be a natural part of the open review dialogue, but as you can see Michelle had some doubts, which I’d say may be related to the “format” of the volume, as she describes it, but also the culture as established by the instructions given and the models provided (performed) by editors and others who either set the tone or else (probably in a healthy way) don’t much care what the extant tone is. So I wonder whether open peer review on this model should not only accommodate but also encourage authors asking questions to readers about their own texts. Or is it important that the draft texts speak for themselves, at first pass? Can they even do that once comments (written by anyone, let alone the author) have appeared?
I’ve noticed that the authors in this volume respond differently to the comments. Some people thank the commenter for their insights; others defend or explain their original text. I suppose those differences shouldn’t be surprising.
Kristen, just saw your tweets about open peer review guidelines, and will link to the timely blog post you cited for others to read:
Cristina Costa, “Open Peer Review Is a Welcome Step Towards Transparency, but Heightened Visibility May Also Mean Vulnerability,” Impact of Social Sciences: The London School of Economics and Political Science, September 17, 2013, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/09/17/peerreviewcosta/.
It is interesting to me that some portions of the project continue to be private, taking place behind the scenes. I’m not arguing with the idea of retaining private emails in which authors are notified that their papers are not advancing, as that seems like the soul of courtesy. But it does suggest limits on the process of open peer review that probably have implications for understanding the wider process.