Dear Joseph and Ben,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As we continue our experiment in \u201copen peer review\u201d I take\nup my next usual task, which is to write the authors a \u201crevise and resubmit\u201d letter\nthat attempts to summarize the reader reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Normally, this requires me to parse 5-6 anonymous reports,\nand to indicate which reader suggestions I think you can pursue, which seem\noptional, and which you might disregard. As an editor, crafting these \u201creport\nletters\u201d is by far the most challenging\u2014and yet rewarding\u2014aspect of my job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The open peer review process, however, may tilt the balance\nin the direction of \u201cchallenging.\u201d Not only do I need to guide you through\nseveral reader reports, I must also incorporate over 80 different comments, by\n15+ readers, into this letter. Of course, I could just throw up my hands and\nsay \u201cyou figure it out\u201d, and if open peer review were a regular process, no\ndoubt I might have to. In this case, however, in the name of experimentation, I\nwill do my best to incorporate as many of the peer reviewer remarks as I can in\nthe space of this letter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let\u2019s begin, as I ordinarily would, with the three anonymous\nreader reports. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reader #1 is largely positive, but points to a few\nsignificant lacunae. First, this reader reminds you that you should pay\nattention to gender, especially when it comes to crafting your own origins\nstory. This reader helpfully points you to the work of Sharon Leon (as do\nothers) as a way to account for that in your own article. Related to this is\nthinking through \u201cdemocratization\u201d not only from the demand side\u2014who gets access<\/em>\u2014but\nfrom the supply side as well (reader #3\u2019s \u00b65 agrees). How might the production <\/em>side of open\nknowledge and digital scholarship be democratized? To this end, the reader\nfeels that you shouldn\u2019t just \u201cinclude\u201d the contributions of scholars of color,\nbut really make their contributions a central element in your analytical frame\nand narrative of evolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second reader offers a far sharper criticism. He\/she\nfeels that you \u201csidestep\u201d a crucial set of problems because you \u201cbundle\u201d\u2014I\nwould say \u201clump\u201d\u2014open access sources perhaps more than you should. If you do\nsome \u201csplitting\u201d, this reader suggests, you might discover that different forms\nof \u201copen\u201d sources seem to have distinct democratic possibilities and\nlimitations, depending on the producer, the users, the observers, and their\noverall political economy. Indeed, I myself would be one of those historians\nwho \u201cwelcomes\nOER textbooks yet denounces a requirement for open access journal articles.\u201d It\nis the case that an OER textbook in a highly commodified\/monopolistic market,\nacademic journals, accessible primary source materials, and complex digital\nwebsites all operate with different imperatives, funding needs, and labor\ninputs that make them incommensurate examples, so more \u201csplitting\u201d might be\nadvisable. To this end, this reader\nproposes that you \u201cfollow the money.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is interesting, and may be difficult. As someone who opposes\n<\/em>the universal ideas of \u201copen access\u201d journals precisely because it presumes\nthe uncompensated labor of copy-editors, proof-readers, fact-checkers, and\narticle editors\u2014all those whose labor produces \u201cvalued-added\u201d elements to the\nraw materials of scholarship (and here, I do not<\/em> necessarily include\nmyself)–I would take issue with this reader\u2019s statement that \u201cthe labor of\neditors and copyeditors\u201d is supported by public funds. Certainly, that\u2019s not\nthe case with the AHA\/AHR<\/em>. And, while I take their point that\n\u201cfunding\u201d\u2014for research, graduate assistants, course release, and the like\u2014already\nprivileges scholars at the top of the food chain (especially, although not\nexclusively, at private institutions, not public ones), I see no reason to\ncompound this with the author processing fees that open access journals will\nnecessitate. My own view is that it is the OA advocates who tend to \u201csidestep\u201d\nthe problem of uncompensated labor. Take a look at Jordan Taylor\u2019s insightful\ncomment at \u00b630 for a similar concern. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But that\u2019s just me (and Jordan, I guess). My own very strong\ndisagreement with this particular reader is not really the point here: they\nthrow down an important challenge to you on this score, and I think you need to\nfind a way to address it, one way or another. This reader, clearly an OA maximalist,\nfeels that by \u201clumping\u201d you \u201cgive too much cover to lukewarm moderates [like\nme!] who will praise the American Yawp<\/em> while\nimpeding open access itself.\u201d Do you? How might you avoid this tendency, if you\nwant to? Or do you prefer to double down on the problem of uncompensated labor?\nEither way, it deserves to be addressed more directly, it seems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reader #3 offers more of a \u201cstructural\u201d critique. They feel\nthat in your effort to describe democratic origins (something I always welcomed\nin this piece) and<\/em> measure democratic outcomes you fall between two\nstools. I do not want to make you choose, so do try to \u201cdraw a tighter\nconnection.\u201d Here you might indeed do more to distinguish OER from other\naspects, since it seems that it may have more democratic possibilities\u2014or if it\ndoes, you might explain why. [Again, speaking for myself, I often feel the call\nfor \u201copen\u201d academic journals makes the odd presumption that anyone other than\nprofessional academics would want<\/em> to read them. OER is different]. Here\nagain, like reader #1, you are urged to \u201csplit\u201d a little\u2014don\u2019t conflate OER and\nother genres of OA, don\u2019t conflate digital humanities and digital history, and\nso on. Sound advice, clearly. And don\u2019t limit OER itself to textbooks and AY<\/em>\u2014your\nown experience here may get in the way of you seeing OER more broadly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This reader also throws into question some of your\nassertions\u2014the degree to which DH has in fact been \u201cinstitutionalized\u201d, the\ndegree to which its democratic aspirations have really \u201cfailed\u201d, the degree to\nwhich \u201cinnovation\u201d is inherently neo-liberal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the big question: how to democratize OA even\nfurther, especially without exploiting \u201cvolunteer\u201d labor?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a regular review process, my work would end here, urging\nyou to look for places where these readers converge\u2014around the problem of lumping\nin particular, and the democratization of production, and the definition of key\nterms. But now let me turn to the \u201copen\u201d comments, as best I can. Here I would\nlook, especially, for those remarks that converge on or illuminate some of the\nkey points found in the three reports. And, as you will see, many do\u2014especially\naround the call for you to think more carefully about the terms you use and the\nnature of what, exactly, is under scrutiny here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s start with Randall Miller and Cameron Blevins, who in essence have offered non-anonymized reader reports. Miller, as an outsider (like the readers) pleads for some definitional clarity: what are the \u201cnormal\u201d definitions, past and present? Can you disaggregate processes a bit when it comes to democratization?\u00a0 He also chides you a bit for your Americo-centric views\u2014you need, at least, to acknowledge and explain this, I think. And are you giving enough voice to the \u201ccommunity\u201d side of open access resources and practice\u2014an excellent question! For his part, Blevins (an insider) ratifies the remarks of the anonymous reports: you conflate digital humanities and digital history in an unhelpful way, it seems. Disaggregating them clearly will be the central task of revision; the latter needs to be folded into a more robust discussion of Public History per se<\/em>; indeed, that was definitely Roy R\u2019s starting point, wasn\u2019t it? Elsewhere, Blevins rightly observes that the \u201cconflation of the two means that some of [ your ] discussion lands well off-target.\u201d Perhaps, Blevins notes, you miss the digital history trees for the digital humanities forest. Some examples drawn from digital history might even bolster your argument, and attend to the diversity reader #1 is looking for. Trevor Owens (another quite substantive set of comments from an \u201dinsider\u201d) seconds this, also suggesting that the digital humanities focus leads you astray and that you tend to use fuzzy and undifferentiated notions of \u201copen\u201d, insufficiently defining your terms\u2014a common theme. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me shift now\nto reading the comments paragraph by paragraph, rather than in chronological\norder, and pointing to what I see as especially helpful remarks. (That\u2019s not to\ndismiss the others, which you can read at your leisure, but I do need to\nprioritize or I will never finish this).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b63 It does seem\nthat your swat at Wikipedia is a bit mis-placed\u2014I am not sure we all hate it as\nmuch as you seem to think we do, for instance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b64 Clearly this\nis where the problem of conflation begins\u2014RE both OER and other OA forms, and\nDH vs. DH. So this is where you will want to clarify. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b66 Here is where\nyou will want to think a bit more critically about another term: democracy.\nWhat does it actually mean in this context, and why? \u00b6 7 has the same issue,\nespecially where you \u201clump\u201d a lot of things together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b616 here you\nmight attend to the presumed audience <\/em>for a lot of CHNM projects early\non; this wasn\u2019t just about \u201caccess\u201d, but targeted audiences as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b624 seems to\nconflate \u201copen source\u201d and \u201copen access.\u201d Yet, with all due respect to Trevor\n(who contributes a lot <\/em>here), I think he is off the mark when he says \u201cI\ndon\u2019t have any sense that there is suspicion about the quality of digitized\nprimary sources that cultural heritage institutions around the world have made\navailable.\u201d Quite the contrary. Indeed, the AHR <\/em>publishes lists of open\ndigital primary sources, and the quality of curation, translation, access, and\ndigital legibility across institutions, platforms, and projects varies\nenormously. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b649 Jordan Taylor\nmakes another good point here\u2014you need to consider this as part of the more\ngeneral \u201cdigital\u201d ecosystem of which it is a part\u2014that makes \u201cfinding an\naudience\u201d all the more challenging, doesn\u2019t it? So too in \u00b651, he wisely cautions\nyou against the techno-utopianism of \u201cis as easy as.\u201d In this case, for\nexample, doing an \u201copen peer review\u201d was as easy as posting your article\non-line and inviting people to review it. Guess what\u2014it was not easy!<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00b652 Finally, the\npunch line: not everyone seems convinced by your declension narrative from\nradical participatory democracy to neo-liberal disruptive technocracy.\nPersonally, I am convinced (that\u2019s what makes me somewhat more digi-skeptic\nthan the rest of you). But your critics are not, so you will need to strengthen\nthis narrative line with more evidence, or else abandon it for something else. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To conclude,<\/strong> I suspect that from the authors\u2019 point of\nview this form of peer review is enormously helpful. And I thank all of the\nreaders\u201415 open, 3 anonymous, by my count\u2014for their excellent contributions. Speaking\nas an editor, however, I am less persuaded. Since my job is to summarize the\nreports and incorporate them into a letter offering some direction for\nrevisions, I find this far too labor intensive to be a regular editorial\npractice. I simply would not have the time to manage this with every single article.\nI suppose that if the AHA could hire multiple editors to do this kind of work\non open peer review, it might be possible. In an open access world, I must say,\nthat would take very hefty author processing fees!<\/p>\n\n\n\n I look forward to\nreading the next version of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alex\nLichtenstein<\/p>\n\n\n\n Editor,\nAmerican Historical Review<\/em>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n April 19, 2020<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dear Joseph and Ben, As we continue our experiment in \u201copen peer review\u201d I take up my next usual task, which is to write the authors a \u201crevise and resubmit\u201d letter that attempts to summarize the reader reports. Normally, this requires me to parse 5-6 anonymous reports, and to indicate which reader suggestions I think […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":7,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"bgseo_title":"","bgseo_description":"","bgseo_robots_index":"index","bgseo_robots_follow":"follow","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-47","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/47","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/47\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":111,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/47\/revisions\/111"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}