AO: The analysts do not focus on broader non-organizational macro contexts but note that the organizational infrastructures matter heavily.Read more
AO: The analysts are worried about risks and harms involved in research (1)
AO: “Community peer review is premised on the idea that research is not
AO: Kenner writes: “The need and desire for digital infrastructure—often seen as a format that can extend the reach of our work—creates opportunities for collaboration with experts...Read more
AO: The analysts note that research funders (of humanities projects) are increasingly calling for collaborative research projects, universities in many countries continue to, or
AO: Little discussion of the actual data practices. This is a limitation of their data collection method. They also do not discuss their own data practices.Read more
AO: The analysts focus on computer-based systems within organizations to see if they increase the sharing of “data” and or “information” noting. Specifically, they look at information...Read more
AO: The analysts note that information sharing embeds the notion of a “willingness to share”. They cite other literature that has found that “the more the person believes that
AO: The analysts look at how computer-based collaborative systems (intranets, electronic mail, list serves) increase information activities such as accessing, searching, sharing,
AO: The analysts stress that someone from the community should be hired to conduct this method noting: “Researchers from outside of these communities cannot obtain full or nuanced
AO: The authors notes that “collaboration is truly entangled, developing over time in ways which are complex to track.” They seem to be most interested in how collaborations change
AO: “The increase in open-access journal–university library partnerships (such as in the case of ShareCA and CA’s move to place OJS at Duke Libraries) is a crucial step towards...Read more