Author: Cheryl

Guest Post: Starting an OA journal: The Reading Room

Starting an OA journal: The Reading Room
by Amy Vilz and Molly Poremski

The Reading Room: A Journal of Special Collections is a peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on special collections. At the time of our launch, there was a lack of comprehensive, open access journals for special collections at large, and our journal helps to fill this niche. Furthermore, we believe academic libraries are currently, and for the foreseeable future, focusing on the resources that make them unique: namely, their special collections. Given this environment, we have a large, identified community of readers, authors and peer-reviewers.

Traditionally, a special collections librarian would present research findings or a case study at regional and national conferences before the results were published in a journal, with many times a year or more lapsing between project completion and dissemination via publication. While there’s nothing wrong with print-based journals and the present and publish system per se, we wanted to offer an open-access, online, and free peer-reviewed journal, to hopefully be a bit more accessible and publish articles quickly to increase responsiveness to challenges and successes in our field.

We use Scholastica as our back-end journal platform. It’s cloud-based, there’s nothing to install, the interface is intuitive and easy to use, and it’s cost-effective. You can publish your journal on Scholastica, but we chose to have our Libraries’ Web Management team create a front-end website to showcase each issue. For metrics, Scholastica has a built-in analytics program to gauge information regarding editor performance, acceptance rate, average days to decision, manuscript progress, etc. We use Google Analytics to measure traffic on the in-house public interface.

We applied for funding for Scholastica through our institution, the University at Buffalo. In 2014, UB Libraries offered innovation grants to faculty and staff. Fees for Scholastica are limited to a small cost per unique journal submission. Our grant funding will support the submission of articles and serve as bridge money until the journal can become self-sustaining from database royalties. Current criteria for inclusion in database directories are two to three years of established publication. This seed money gives us the opportunity to test the Scholastica platform and create a back catalog of journal issues enabling us to meet the requirements of disciplinary journal indexes (i.e. Library Literature & Information Science Index) and periodical directories such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A successful transition from Innovation Funding to a self-sustaining income within three years is our goal.

We created the journal for many reasons, one of which was somewhat selfish! We each had articles in mind regarding our special collections, but felt there was no appropriate journal for publication. Our ideas related to the stories our collections tell; this was the impetus for our Narrative Features. Our Narrative Features provide a unique outlet in a peer-reviewed environment. Collections tell stories, stories that are revealed by librarians, curators, and researchers within the reading room. Yet there are limited outlets for these types of articles in a peer-reviewed environment. Examples include unique circumstances relating to the donor or acquisition of materials, significance of documentation within a collection or an institution’s collecting area, or how the format of materials in a collection enhances or inhibits understanding of the collection. We also welcome and encourage interpretive works on collections. Feature articles are meant to offer insight into a collection’s significance (either a discrete collection or collection holdings at large) and address the context within its applicable field or within institutional holdings. We think this sets The Reading Room apart, and indeed, just over half of our article queries and submissions are for these types of articles.

At The Reading Room, we made a conscious effort to expand our submission base, and include articles from those using special collections (researchers) as well as students working with special collections. We did this not only to increase our readership, but the conversation in our field about how our collections are being accessed and used, and broaden the measure of scholarly impact. For example, if a researcher has used unique collection material for their research article, why not publish that article for a special collections audience in a special collections journal? We want to showcase not just how professional librarians, archivists, and curators work with special collections, but how our users and researchers work with special collections. In that way, we believe it gives a better context and measure of the impact of cultural collections.

CFP: American Archivist

reposted from A&A listserv:

Dear Colleagues,

When I became Editor of The American Archivist, I set the goal of making peer review decisions within 90 days of article submission.  I have maintained this goal while expanding the number of peer reviewers for each article from two to three.

While I have not yet been able to meet the goal for all articles, I am close enough to the goal for most articles that I am writing to encourage faculty and students to submit articles for possible publication.  We also have moved the online version of the journal to an attractive new platform hosted by Allen Press.

http://americanarchivist.org/

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.  I look forward to receiving your manuscripts!

Greg

***************
Gregory S. Hunter, Ph.D., CA, CRM, FSAA
Professor
Director, Ph.D. in Information Studies
Director, Certificate of Advanced Study in Archives and Records Management
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
LIU Post
720 Northern Boulevard
Brookville, NY 11548
516-299-2171
516-299-4168 (fax)
ghunter@liu.edu

Certified Archivist
Certified Records Manager
Distinguished Fellow, Society of American Archivists
Editor, The American Archivist

What Does a Journal Editor Do?

I assumed the role of Provenance editor in January 2012. My only experience was peer-reviewing a few articles, but I had expressed my interest in doing more. A friend/colleague was on the SGA Board, and recommended me for the position. I met with the then-Editor and then-SGA President, alerting them to the fact that I most likely wasn’t going to be in Georgia much longer (only a few months away from my project position ending). Because most everything is done over email now, they agreed.

I had some guidance from the previous editor, but he also encouraged me to do what I wanted. It took me about 2 years before I believed I had a handle on everything. That’s not to say that I knew (or know) everything, but the process became smoother. I truly enjoy it, but know there is still much to learn. I consider myself very lucky and am grateful to have this opportunity.

When I started, we weren’t yet using the online system. I used spreadsheets and email folders for tracking, and it was tricky. Just before leaving Atlanta, Kennesaw State University agreed to include Provenance in their digital commons. It helps tremendously, though it still takes a lot of checking and paying attention to details.

My role as editor includes: sending out CFP to various listservs; reviewing all submissions; assigning submissions to peer-reviewers; assessing reviewer feedback; communicating with authors; overseeing a nine member board plus managing editor, reviews editor, and indexer; soliciting articles; keeping up with recent publications for book reviews; creating the final order of content; and copyediting final publication.

Being an editor is not a solo activity. I rely on my board, as they and others peer-review all articles. The associate editor is a peer-reviewer and helps with CFPs and other administrative tasks. The reviews editor coordinates acquiring books, assigning them to reviewers, and editing the reviews. The managing editor formats the journal for publication, works with the printer, coordinates the mailing, and creates the final PDFs. It’s a collaborative activity. And, of course, none of this is possible without the authors.

The bulk of what I do is communicating with authors or potential authors. I receive emails asking if a topic or article is appropriate and I try to be encouraging. As I noted in an earlier post, I believe everyone should have an opportunity to write if they want to. I enjoy working with authors, whether prior to submission or for revisions to accepted articles.

Although it’s a lot of work, I get great satisfaction seeing the final product. Sharing ideas, practices, theories, and anything archival helps archivists learn. We all have so much to share and this is only one outlet to facilitate the exchange of ideas.

CFP: RBM

reposted from the A&A listserv:

Greetings, All!

I hope the start of the fall [semester] has been kind to everyone. Here I am, sending out yet another call for tidbits for the Spring 2016 issue of RBM…

We’re interested in getting some samples of successful social media approaches to cultural heritage collections. I know it’s hard to define “successful”, and I know that many of you are probably doing fabulous things that have yet to be discovered. However, I’m afraid we have to cut it off somewhere!

So if you, your institution, or someone/somewhere you know has received recognition for your activities on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc., please share it with us. We might be able to feature some tidbits of your work in the spring issue. And since we’re trying to do an online supplement to this issue, we might have the opportunity to link to things that wouldn’t function in print.

Please tell us: what you’ve been doing (including hyperlinks and/or screenshots as appropriate), the type of recognition it has received, and what (if any) tangible impact it has made on a specific collection or the cultural heritage/special collections field overall.

Don’t be afraid to toot your own horn. Flaunt your social media savvy!

Since this is smaller stuff, and won’t require much time to review, I’ll set the deadline as February 1, 2016.

As always, please email me at jsheehan@grolierclub.org with questions, comments, or your submissions. I look forward to seeing what fabulous, innovative things you’ve been doing.

All the best,

Jennifer
Jennifer K. Sheehan, Ph.D.
Editor, RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, & Cultural Heritage
Exhibitions Manager
The Grolier Club
47 East 60th Street
New York, NY  10022
phone: 212/838-6690 ext. 2

Inaugural Issue: The Reading Room, A Journal of Special Collections

Reposted from the Archives & Archivists listserv:

My colleague and I are pleased to announce the inaugural issue of The Reading Room: A Journal of Special Collections.  The issue is free to view/download at http://readingroom.lib.buffalo.edu/readingroom/PDF/vol1-issue1/reading-room-vol1-issue1.pdf .

This first issue includes 6 articles that represent the scope and depth of special collections at large:

  • Elizabeth N. Call and Matthew Baker assess the impact of American Protestant missionaries during the Armenian Genocide as documented in The Burke Library at Columbia and other repositories.
  • Elizabeth Knazook illuminates why 19th century books with original photographs are under-represented in special collections.
  • In celebration of our first issue, we include a roundtable discussion of five poets and their interpretation of the art and function of curation: Michael Basinski, Marie Elia, Nancy Kuhl, James Maynard, and Edric Mesmer.
  • Anne S.K. Turkos, Jason G. Speck, and Amanda K. Hawk share their successes and challenges in initiating the digitization of hundreds of football films at the University of Maryland.
  • The influence of political and historical events in Uruguay on the creation of the Simón Lucuix Río de la Plata Library and the circumstances of its accession by the University of Texas at Austin is investigated by María E. González.
  • Rose Sliger Krause’s case study describes efforts at the Northwest Museum of Arts & Culture/Eastern Washington State Historical Society to offer researchers unified intellectual and physical access to archives and museum materials.

Enjoy the issue!
Amy and Molly

Amy Vilz
University Archivist
University at Buffalo

Molly D. Poremski
International Languages and Literatures Librarian

Send Me Your Photos!

I like to post my posts to Facebook to help promote this blog. However, I have no image associated with it so it looks rather blah. I’d love suggestions on photos for the header image. If I get enough, I will rotate through them periodically. I’ve done some general Google searching but nothing struck me. I started searching DPLA and realized, who better to find cool photos than archivists? Images should be related to writing or publishing, but I’m open to suggestions. Post a link in the comments, submit suggestions, or email me at ccoest[@]gmail.com.

Thanks!

The Battle Between Active and Passive Voice

One challenge with scholarly writing is to not write like we speak. It’s easy to do, and sometimes, like this blog, it is acceptable. Passive voice it is one of the most frequent issues I come across with article submissions. I, too, have experienced being corrected by my professors about my use of passive voice. Or: I, too, experienced professors correcting my use of passive voice.

A question posted to the Chicago Manual Q&A points to Purdue OWL and Language Log posts. I find this post particularly amusing. UIUC has a nice brief and clear explanation of different tenses. And UNC also has a good description. As Chicago notes, it’s not an all-or-nothing and some use is acceptable. As many point out, it’s not a grammar but a stylistic issue. That said, it makes for much tighter and clearer writing to use it only when necessary.

Once you notice it, it can be fairly easy (albeit time-consuming) to fix passive voice. Look for uses of was, were, has, have, are, is, was being, is being, has been, have been, paired with a verb. We speak using those words and phrases all the time. In conversation, that’s acceptable. In scholarly writing, it should be limited. Often, you can delete “has” or “have” without losing the meaning: “I have worked at Boise State University” to “I worked at Boise State University.” Uses of “was” or “were” can be changed to the past-tense of the verb: “I was thinking about starting a blog” to “I thought about starting a blog.” It can be hard to decide whether or not to use passive voice. My approach is to take each sentence and think whether there is a different and more concise option.

This takes practice. The more you correct it, the less you will do it later. Once you notice it, you will see it everywhere. That said, don’t let it impede your writing practices. If that’s how you write a draft and doing so helps your flow of writing, don’t stop as it can be corrected later. If possible, correct it prior to submitting for publication. Editors will be appreciative.

CFP: Provenance Audiovisual Special Issue

Provenance recognizes the evolving needs within the profession and is working to address those changes when possible. For example, we published a special issue on advocacy in September 2013 (http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/).

Provenance would like to create a special issue dedicated to audiovisual archives and archivists. Despite two journals dedicated to archival audiovisual topics (http://www.iasa-web.org/iasa-journal and http://www.arsc-audio.org/journal.html), Provenance will take a different approach. What we propose is to create an issue where there may be written content, but the bulk of it would be original audio and visual “articles.” Submissions should be specifically about processes, procedures, projects, collecting, digitizing, providing access, or other aspects about managing audiovisual collections.

Following the model of innovative projects such as “More Podcast, Less Process,” we are seeking alternative means of disseminating research and ideas. Audio and video are powerful tools for demonstrating practices, projects, policies, or other content. We invite you to be creative in how you utilize these formats.

Proposals should be up to 750 words and include an abstract of the project, why an audiovisual/written format is ideal to present the topic, and the type/format of the proposed submission. As this is a new format for Provenance, proposals will be reviewed by the Editors for creativity, clarity of thesis/topic, and appropriateness to audiovisual formats. Editors will provide guidance and additional specifications to accepted authors to ensure a high-quality end product.

Suggested submissions include but are not limited to:

  • virtual tour or review of tool or procedure
  • podcasts
  • video tutorial
  • written article combined with audio or video or procedures

Submissions should not be:

  • recordings of conference presentations
  • entire oral histories or digitally reformatted materials

This will be published as an online-only issue, openly available to everyone, in fall of 2016. We recognize that because this process is new, we want to provide enough time for submission, review, and edits to produce an issue. The suggested timeline is as follows:

September 2015 – send out call for proposals
November 15, 2015 – proposals due
December 2015 – editors select proposals and notify all submitters
May 15, 2016 – deadline for final submissions
May-June 2016 – editorial review of submissions
July 2016 – minor revisions of submissions (if needed)
August 2016 – final review by authors/editors
September 2016 – published online (http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/)

Written submissions can be submitted via the online system: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/. Audiovisual submissions can be emailed or shared through Google Drive/Dropbox to the Editor at provenance@soga.org.

Formats:

  • Audio files should be in .mp3 format; video files in .mp4 format.
  • Contributors can also provide embed codes from YouTube, Kaltura, or others if his/her institution utilizes other platforms.
  • All submissions should include a transcript of the audio or video to increase discoverability.
  • No minimum nor maximum word length for traditional article submissions.
  • Consult with Editors for other options.

Written submissions should adhere to established guidelines: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/policies.html. Audiovisual submissions will not be peer-reviewed in the traditional sense. Because there are no standard guidelines for reviewing audiovisual content, the focus will be on quality of viewing and content. This process will be flexible and is subject to change.

Provenance looks forward to working with you!

Thank you,

Cheryl Oestreicher
Editor, Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists
provenance@soga.org

Heather Oswald
Associate Editor, Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists
hoswald@kennesaw.edu

Jennifer Welch
Reviews Editor, Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists
jwelch30@uthsc.edu   

Peer-Review, Part 1 of Many

One can’t talk about journal publishing without talking about peer-review. When heard, spoken, or read, that term elicits many negative emotions in authors. Fear of rejection, anger at reviewers, frustration with the process, insecurity in reading feedback, to name a few. There’s no way to alleviate that, but there are ways to cope. The Onion recently had an article that captured it well.

It’s not easy to read criticism, but the reviewer’s critique is meant to help an author improve his or her writing. If you read it less as critical and more as assistance to strengthen an article, it’s a little easier. What can be especially frustrating is not knowing how a submission will be evaluated. As each journal has different submission guidelines, each also has a different evaluation process. American Archivist provides their rubric for everyone to look at. In reviewing the information about Provenance, it motivated me to add our evaluation questions. Most journals provide some guidelines but few offer details on the evaluation process. I cannot speak for other editors, but I believe the process should be helpful, not a hindrance to authors. The more guidance provided to authors, the better the submissions will be.

Few people start as publishable writers; it takes years of practice. Right before I defended my dissertation, my chair showed me his latest manuscript which was covered in red markings and comments. At the time, he’d been a professor and writer for 15 years. As he told me, all writers need feedback. Going through the dissertation wringer helped me take feedback as intended: to improve my writing. Two years after I finished my dissertation, I had two peer review articles published, one in Archivaria and one based on my dissertation in Reception. For the latter, one reviewer pointed out that I tended to put my topic sentences at the end of paragraphs instead of the beginning. It was a moment of clarity and great advice that I continue to use in everything I write. My own writing has been much improved not just from the feedback from my own submissions, but through reading reviewers’ reports for Provenance.

Writing is tough, and revising based in feedback can be tougher. To start, an author should read through the reviews and take several days to think through the points before starting any revisions. Some are easy fixes, but some take a lot of work. Try to think objectively and not take anything personally. That’s challenging, as any author puts much effort into writing and it can take many, many hours of labor. The ability to take a step back to think objectively and not personally is a beneficial skill in any publishing process. After a brief time, go through point by point and start revising. It’s important to remember that you are not required to incorporate all the suggestions, but you should offer an explanation to the editor if you don’t. Always keep in mind the critique is for your benefit.

I plan to have several posts about peer-review, and I welcome questions or suggestions of points to address.

The Importance of Submission Guidelines

I received a suggestion to discuss following submission guidelines for journals. While it seems simple enough, I (as have other editors) have received submissions where it’s apparent guidelines were not thoroughly read. There are some flexibility and at times there are minor issues if not followed accurately, but it’s very helpful for editors when submissions adhere to the guidelines.

One of the most obvious, and the most challenging for both author and editor, is citations. Most journals use Chicago style, but library or other programs may use APA or MLA. The percentage of submissions I’ve received formatted in other than Chicago is small, luckily, but I have asked authors to redo citations. It is a tedious process to redo, and I’m sure not enjoyed by author nor editor. I’m most comfortable with Chicago style, as that’s what is used for Provenance, and what I used in my history PhD program. Even though I’ve been using it for years, I regularly use the quick guide to make sure formatting is correct. I know that authors will make errors and that’s okay, as long as overall it follows the appropriate style. Library or other programs may not use Chicago, so if an author is submitting a paper written for a class that creates extra work. It’s well worth investing the time. More about citations in a future post.

Because scholarly journals are peer-reviewed, it’s important that authors not include their name on the submission. This is something fairly easy for an editor to fix, but it is an extra step that can easily be alleviated. Margins, page numbering, type of document (such as Word), how to include illustrations, and length are all easy requirements to adhere to.

Authors have a responsibility to read the guidelines. To my knowledge, no article will be denied if it doesn’t adhere to guidelines, at least for Provenance. However, editors greatly appreciate it when authors follow instructions. My advice is for authors to read the guidelines multiple times as they work on submissions.

In return, journals have a responsibility to authors to provide clear guidelines. Provenance‘s guidelines are few and straightforward. American Archivist not only provides guidelines, but many tips on writing different types of submissions. I frequently refer authors to this site as I find it very helpful. Archival Issues has an extensive style guide. Journal of Archival Organization, Archivaria, Journal of Western Archives, and other journals provide detailed guidelines.

A challenge for authors is that all journals have different requirements. In a quick review of the ones mentioned, all are very different. Provenance has few requirements, while Archival Issues has an extensive style guide. When in doubt, email the editor. I regularly answer questions prior to receiving a submission and I appreciate when authors take initiative to ensure it meets the requirements. These questions also help an editor clarify guidelines; if one person has a question, others probably do too. Previous Provenance guidelines mentioned “embedding” footnotes and I received numerous questions about this. It referenced formatting used long ago, and because of the questions I removed that stipulation. I want the guidelines to be helpful so questions and feedback will help strengthen them for future authors.

Guidelines exist to help both the author and editor. For the author, the help create a solid submission. For the editor, they help with putting the journal together. Authors that closely pay attention to the guidelines make editors happy. In my experience, most submissions have done well but I’ve heard from other editors who have had more challenges. It only takes a few minutes to read through them, especially if over time you submit to multiple journals. The editors will appreciate your efforts.