Call for Reviewers: Practical Technology in Archives

reposted from A&A listserv:

Practical Technology for Archives is a peer-reviewed journal concerning the hands-on aspects of archival work. We are looking for one or two new reviewers. Each reviewer for the journal is asked to review one or two article proposals and one or two article drafts. These reviews are done in a fairly tight timeframe, with only two weeks for each.

If you are interested, please let me know.

Thank you,

Practical Technology for Archives
Randall Miles
Managing Editor
rm527@cornell.edu

CFP: Practical Technology for Archives

reposted from A&A listserv:

Practical Technology for Archives is an open-access, peer-reviewed, electronic journal focused on the practical application of technology to address challenges encountered in working with archives. Our goal is to provide a timely resource, published semi-annually, that addresses issues of interest to practitioners, and to foster community interaction through monitored comments. Submissions may be full articles, brief tips and techniques, AV tutorials, reviews (tools, software, books), or post-grant technical reports. Please visit practicaltechnologyforarchives.org for more information.

The editorial board of Practical Technology for Archives is calling for proposals/abstracts for Issue no.6 (2016:Summer).

The submission timeline is as follows:

Proposals due: March 18
Selections made: April 1
1st drafts due: April 29
Draft reviews: May 13
Revisions due: May 27
Publication: June 10

Submission should be sent to:
Practical Technology for Archives
Randall Miles
Managing Editor
rm527@cornell.edu

New Article: JCAS

reposted from A&A listserv:

The Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies announces publication of Volume 3, Article 3, “A Comparative Study of User Experience between Physical Objects and Their Digital Surrogates,” by Anastasia Varnalis-Weigle, Ph.D. candidate at Simmons College School of Library and Information Science.

While the LAM community has made strides in designing new ways to access digital collections, the question remains: what are users losing in sensory (sight, touch, sound, smell) and emotional experience at the digital level? The author examines this question by enlisting a phenomenological approach consisting of observation and semi-structured interviews with student, faculty, and staff at a large academic institution. Download the article here.

The JCAS is a peer-reviewed, online, open access journal sponsored by the Yale University Library and New England Archivists (NEA). Follow the JCAS on Twitter and Facebook!

Lily Troia, JCAS Social Media Consultant
Dean’s Fellow for Digital Media Outreach
MLIS Candidate ’16
Simmons School of Library and Information Science
lily.troia@simmons.edu
http://simmonsslis.tumblr.com/

Guest Post: Developing a Research Agenda

thank you Eira Tansey for your contribution!

When I was on the academic archivist job market a few years ago, I interviewed at one institution where I was warned during lunch to have a very narrowly focused answer to the dean’s inevitable question about my research agenda. I was strongly advised to make it clear that I had a tightly-defined research agenda, that my research interests weren’t all over the place, and that I was aiming for high-profile titles in which to publish my work. The only problem was that at the time I was searching for my first professional position, and as a paraprofessional I had only just started dipping my toe into publishing — all I had in print with a chapter in Kate Theimer’s book on description. Furthermore, my graduate program did not heavily emphasize or acculturate students into pursuing publishing opportunities. I don’t recall how I answered the question during my meeting with the dean (however I do remember his bone-crushing handshake!), but the broader question of “What is my research agenda?” is a question where my answers are rapidly evolving.

I lucked out and ended up at an institution that is a far better fit than the previously-mentioned one for a multitude of reasons. At my institution, librarians have faculty status and we have multiple paths to tenure (see our criteria: http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/libraryfaculty/docs/criteria2005.pdf). Some library faculty choose to build their tenure case (and preceding reappointment and promotion applications) around publications, others choose different routes. Since I started two years ago, I have prioritized building up my record around “publishing or creative works.” Unlike some institutions that clearly articulate how many articles are required for a successful tenure bid, or specifications on journal rankings, our criteria is very open-ended. There are pros and cons to this. On the one hand, it allows generous flexibility in choosing experimental publishing outlets (new interdisciplinary open-access title with funky journal design layouts? sure, why not!). On the other hand, because we don’t have clear guidelines, there are fewer objective benchmarks to be evaluated against.

I should pause here to describe what I mean when I say a “research agenda.” I don’t believe you have to have faculty status, professional status, or even a full-time job working in archives to have a research agenda. You don’t have to know statistical methods or have grant funding (although obviously the more you have of both, the more you can do!). But you do have to have an idea worth exploring, more than some superficial things to say about it, and the ability to eventually sit down, tune out distractions, and write. As far as I can discern, a “research agenda” is a broad scope of work in various stages across one’s career that has interconnecting intellectual tissue underneath what might look like many unrelated interests. When I think of well-known archivists and imagine their research agendas, I think of how certain archivists are associated with certain areas of archival theory and practice (e.g., Rand Jimerson on archives and social justice, Terry Cook and Helen Samuels with appraisal, Mark Greene with processing and collection development, etc).

When I first started getting serious about committing to professional writing, I chafed against the idea of a research agenda. It seemed so restrictive, and I have so many boundless interests, why not move from topic to topic, even if they’re completely unrelated? But as I’ve accrued some publications on my CV, I’m beginning to see the wisdom of targeting my focus towards a certain direction for the foreseeable future. To contribute something worth publishing, one should be familiar with the literature written on that subject. Depending on the topic, this could mean a lot of writing — and then you have to figure out where your contribution fits into that landscape. It is a lot of work to review literature on an existing subject (https://archivespublishing.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/how-do-i-learn-everything/), and I’m beginning to see one of the greatest arguments for having a focused research agenda: you don’t have to reacquaint yourself with a whole new body of knowledge every time you begin a new project.

I should note here that I think this process of writing about a bunch of different topics, and then finding one’s calling towards a specific area is fairly common. Certainly, it echoes the many college students who have undeclared majors for a long time, or how many young professionals switch career fields. For fun, I looked at the CVs of some well-known archivists, and you can certainly see how over time, their output begins to coalesce around a few main topics (for example, Mark Greene http://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/vitas/m-greene-vita.pdf).

Right now I’m feeling the call to explore the intersection of archives, the environment, and climate change. I feel compelled to build a research agenda around this in a way I haven’t felt about other topics. This is occurring while my other “scattered focus” writing projects are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have a whole range of issues I still care about (privacy! erasure and marginalization of archival labor! everything ever to do with appraisal! public records laws!), and every day I think things like “What we really need is a comparative study of unionization among archivists! WHY ISN’T ANYONE WRITING ABOUT THIS? I WANT TO READ ABOUT IT! Should I work on this?!?!?!” so I’m at a juncture where I feel a little twinge of sadness at the idea of not trying to write about everything unexplored. It doesn’t help that I have a “future ideas to pursue” list of dozens of half-baked ideas I add to on a semi-regular basis. Mostly I just try to be vocal about the topics I think are unexplored within archives-land and trust that someone, at some point, will feel inspired to write all the articles I know I could never manage on my own, but that I so desperately want to read.

How have you decided what to write about? Do you “write what you want to read”? Do you enter the conversation like a game of double dutch (credit for this to Jarrett Drake: https://snaproundtable.wordpress.com/2015/12/17/on-the-job-training-publishing/)? Has your research focus shifted as you grow as a writer?

New Article: JCAS

reposted from A&A listserv:

The JCAS announces publication of Volume 3, Article 2, “Archiving Governance in Palestine,” by Caitlin M. Davis, University of New Mexico. This paper provides a preliminary investigation of the material-semiotics of archives in Palestine, exploring the peculiar ways in which the form and content of archival documents, architectures, and circulatory networks actually help to engender—not just reflect—some (new) realities of governance.

Download the article here.

The JCAS is a peer-reviewed, online, open access journal sponsored by the Yale University Library and New England Archivists (NEA). Follow the JCAS on Twitter and Facebook!

Best,
Lily Troia, JCAS Social Media Consultant

Lily Cristina Troia
Dean’s Fellow for Digital Media Outreach
MLIS Candidate ’16
Simmons School of Library and Information Science
612.516.6060
lily.troia@simmons.edu
http://simmonsslis.tumblr.com/

Finalizing a Journal Issue

Putting together a journal issue requires a lot of steps and details. As I finish my last issue of Provenance, I thought people might be interested in steps required to finalize an issue.

The editor facilitates the peer-review process, assigning submissions to reviewers. Once those reviews are complete, the editor takes that feedback to register a decision. For Provenance, it is accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, and declined. Submitters receive that notification along with the reviewers’ feedback. Generally, this happens throughout spring and summer, with the most submissions received around the end of July due date. Once it is known which articles are selected for publication, then the bulk of an editor’s job begins.

All articles need some editing. There is always a mix of minor, some, and major editing needed. There’s generally 1-2 articles that only need a few minor edits, mostly technical with an occasional clarification. Next are articles that require a thorough editing, primarily technical with perhaps a few questions/clarifications. Last, there are articles that go through several drafts before being publication ready. These authors have solid and strong ideas, but need to rewrite/rework paragraphs or sections, reorganize, the article, incorporate additional research (generally only one or two articles or books to support their statements), or heavier copyediting. The latter, of course, is often hard and stressful for the author, but my ultimate goal is to bring out the best in their writing.

This back and forth with authors for edit can go on for several weeks. What I do as editor is check grammar, punctuation, footnotes for proper citations and formatting, credit/citation for photographs, charts in black and white (only our cover is in color), proper use of quotes, section headings, clear articulation of arguments and evidence, and so forth. I want to retain the authors’ voices and do my best not to rewrite, though I will sometimes offer suggestions. For example: if there is a confusing section I will note that and ask for clarification; I’ll ask for citations if they were not included; or ask for reduction/expansion of thoughts or arguments.

Generally, I make a first pass for all these possibilities and return to the author with tracked changes and comments. The author will then return it with further edits and respond to comments. I try to communicate that most are just suggestions. I have had authors clarify why they don’t want to make a suggested change and I honor those requests. Then, I ask the authors to sign publishing agreements and provide short biographies. I also make sure I have addresses for non-SGA member authors.

After the content is more or less final, then I will start formatting to adhere to Provenance standards, meaning The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition. Across all articles, I make formatting changes for consistency such as title/author headings, section headings, use of numbers, citation format, font size, paragraph spacing, etc. This goes for the articles, reviews, and any other content (like editor’s notes). It’s very gratifying to see all of that come together.

When this is complete, I decide on the table of contents. It’s subjective, but my goal is to make the reading flow well. As Provenance publishes any topic related to archives, it’s seldom that two articles are on the same topic (at least in my tenure). Sometimes it’s easy, but with the current issue which will have 7 articles, it was hard to decide.

I also do both the front and back matter. The front matter includes picking a cover photo, updating the editorial board list, and the table of contents. The cover image is sometimes easy and sometimes hard. If an article includes photos, I try to use one of those. Last year there were no photos, so I worked with an author to create an image. The 2011 issue included original artwork. As a teaser, what will be on the upcoming issue is my favorite yet. It was provided by a professional photographer who graciously allowed us to use it at no charge. Regardless of where the image comes from, it directly ties into one of the articles. The back matter is the easiest: updating the SGA board list and information for contributors.

Editors of some journals write an editor’s note for each issue. I’ve written a few, but not for every issue. I did choose to write one this year, as it is my last issue. I previously wrote ones for the special issues completed. That is entirely up to the editor.

At last, finalizing the issue is getting closer. Once I have all of this complete, I send it to the managing editor for markup. She will fix any technical issues I may have missed, format it in Publisher, and assign page numbers. After that is complete, individual PDFs are sent to the authors for one final review. At this stage, only minor corrections are completed. I review the entire issue one more time and also give any corrections.

Once all the authors approve their articles, the managing editor will fix anything necessary then work with the printer. She coordinates the printing and mailing. She works with SGA to compile a mailing list that includes members and non-member authors. We decide on a number to print, as two copies go to the SGA archives and we want to have a few extra for individual purchase or replacement. We go into the printers’ queue, so we never quite know how long it will take. But generally 4-6 weeks later, it arrives in the mail. It’s always a happy day when I see the result of the work of so many people.

New Journal: Manuscript Studies

http://mss.pennpress.org/home/

From the website:

Manuscript Studies, is a new journal that embraces the full complexity of global manuscript studies in the digital age. It has been conceived with four main goals in mind. First, to bridge the gaps between material and digital manuscript research; second, to break down the walls which often separate print and digital publication and serve as barriers between academics, professionals in the cultural heritage field, and citizen scholars; third, to serve as a forum for scholarship encompassing many pre-modern manuscripts cultures—not just those of Europe; and finally to showcase methods and techniques of analysis in manuscript studies that can be applied across different subject areas.

Manuscript Studies is now accepting submissions. See Author Guidelines for more information or email Lynn Ransom, Managing Editor, at sims-mss@pobox.upenn.edu.

Business inquiries should be sent to Penn Press at:

University of Pennsylvania Press
Journals Division
3905 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-4112
Phone: 215-898-6261
Fax: 215-746-3636
journals@pobox.upenn.edu

2016 Subscription Rates, Semiannual

Students: $20
Individuals: Print and online $40
Individuals: Online only $32
Institutions: Print and online $90
Institutions: Online only $78
($18 will be added for shipping to nonUS addresses)

To place an order, use the Subscribe link or call 215-573-1295.

Online Access

Full-text content is available at this website through Project Muse. Current subscribers should select the Login link in the top right menu bar to activate their online account and create a user profile. Once the activation process is complete, select the Online Access link from the right menu bar to access content. This link will appear only after you have been validated as a current subscriber.

How Do I Learn Everything?

As I noted in a previous post, a challenge potential authors face when writing is “others know more than I do” or “I don’t know enough about a topic.” We read tons in grad school, but who remembers everything? How do the “experts” become experts? There’s so much out there, it’s impossible to read it all.

Of course, graduate school is the first introduction to scholarship. However, it’s easier to focus on getting through the semester and forgetting what you when starting classes the next semester. Students have to read so much that it’s overwhelming to try to think of the resources post-grad school. I know I remember very little about what I read in library school. After graduation, who wants to spend their free time reading archives books and journals? It’s good to take a break. But it’s hard to get back into reading a full issue of a journal, pick up a book, etc.

So how does one start? It depends on what your ultimate goals are. One way is to read material that relates directly to your job. When I had my first processing position, I read about hidden collections and other articles about processing. Reading about what you do helps the knowledge stick because you can apply it. You could also read about what you aspire to do. Building a core knowledge may help in an interview.

Writing and reading book reviews are also a good way. Some journals put out a call, but if you’re interested directly contact reviews editors to let them know of your interest. You may not always get your first choice, but reading anything is helpful. Alexandra Orchard wrote a post here recently explaining the American Archivist reviews portal. Remember, reviews need not be solely for books. The SNAP issue of Provenance has great reviews about conferences and other resources. If you come across any resource, ask a reviews editor if you can review it.

One way I learned about various resources was through teaching graduate classes. It prompted me to look at a wide variety of books and journals to find appropriate and informative reading for the students. Not everyone has an opportunity to create a syllabus, but you could use that idea. For example, if you weren’t able to take a class on digital forensics, start searching and skimming articles to build your own reading list. Or, look for syllabi online. Use Google to search for syllabi and limit to site:.edu. I frequently used that strategy to find sources for classes I taught.

It’s daunting to think about reading books and articles to keep up. One could spend hours every day reading and still not keep up. However, reading reviews, scanning tables of contents, reading abstracts, or just skimming the first few pages can be a good introduction. Then, you might remember the source and read it in full later if you need/want to. It can give you a breadth of knowledge, or at least an awareness of what is out there.

This is also a good strategy when embarking on a research and writing project. Trying to read every word written on a topic would be either impossible or take too long. Start with a few sources and use the footnotes to read a few other related items. Look at a book index or TOC to read about specific topics of interest. Then write about it. Even if your goal isn’t publication, writing out your thoughts can help. Don’t try to remember everything. Instead, focus on synthesizing ideas, practices, and theories.

Also, don’t limit yourself to scholarly sources. There are so many blogs, presentations, and other online writing that possibly synthesized the information for you. SAA provides access to some past conference recordings. More Podcast, Less Process provides interviews where archivists share their experiences. Read reports and other publications from organizations such as OCLC and CLIR.

There is so much out there and it’s hard to know where to start. Becoming an “expert” takes time. And, truly, few people know everything about all aspects of archives. So start slow, pick one or two topics you want to learn about, and dig in. Over time, through reading, attending conferences, work experience, and talking with colleagues, you will build great knowledge.

And if you have other tips please share in the comments!

SNAP Twitter Chat about Publishing

Last week I participated in a SNAP Twitter chat (#snaprt, @SNAP_Roundtable). I’ve participated before, but it’s been a while. SNAP does a great job of hosting the chats and having prepared questions. There aren’t many opportunities for such interaction to discuss publishing and I appreciate that this topic comes up every so often for discussion. Most of the conversations I have are one-on-one and occasionally speaking to groups. I’m always happy to participate in these discussions, as are others involved in publishing. From my perspective, I don’t always know who wants these conversations (beyond SNAP) so I encourage others to just ask! I’ve worked hard to make myself accessible, but I know that other editors, authors, or others involved in publishing will also participate. So don’t be afraid to ask.

There’s always so much that comes up during these chats. I won’t be able to recap everything, but I want to touch on a few of the topics. I suspect many people outside of SNAP have the same questions so I hope you find this helpful.

How do I know what’s interesting to others?; it’s already been done. Understandably, when one is new to the profession it is hard to know what to write about and whether others will want to read it. It takes time to catch up on where scholarship is. I’ve encouraged people to write about their interests or where they see gaps. No one knows every article or book written, and that’s where a good editor comes in. Many submissions to Provenance cited scholarship I didn’t know about. However, often I and the peer-reviewers recommend additional articles if we believe it necessary. No matter if you are new or seasoned, there is the question whether others will find it interesting. So, talk to your peers, coworkers, friends, colleagues, and ask. Or email an editor and ask. Pick a topic, read a few articles, and think about it. Then write and submit. The only way you will know for sure is if you submit and accept the feedback. There’s been a bunch of new journal issues (just browse the most recent posts) so start there. Read more in a previous post.Others know so much more and I don’t want to BS. That sentiment is appreciated. The longer I was an editor, the easier it was to spot a graduate course paper submission. I don’t say that as a bad thing, because grad school is about generating and discussing ideas, learning about the profession, and engaging with scholarship. When I was writing my dissertation, I frequently felt what most grad students do – that I’ll look dumb if I forget that one book, that one article, where my committee would think “How could she not know about that?” But you know what, that seldom happens. If you do appropriate research, you become the expert and you’ll find the resources. Don’t try to read every word of everything; start by reading book reviews and abstracts. Chances are, you’ll miss something and a good editor will provide it for you. And absolutely don’t BS. As long as you can provide evidence for your argument, are clear and articulate, don’t use a lot of colloquialisms, and are logical, you’re more than halfway there. The best way to learn as much as others know is through writing and research. How do you think they became experts?

Turning a conference presentation into an article. Do it! As you prepare for a presentation, keep track of your sources, write an article alongside your presentation. But please, don’t submit only the text of your presentation. Remember, writing for publication is different from reading your ideas in front of an audience. Several times, I followed up with conference presenters and suggest they submit to Provenance. So think about it before you present and you can have a solid draft or full article for submission.

Revise and resubmit is hard. Yes, and honestly, it seldom gets easier. I did write a post about this a while ago. And this question reminded me that I meant to write more (hence the part 1 of many), so I will get back to that at some point. But if any of you want to share your experiences, whether good or bad, I welcome all perspectives and guest posts. And, as noted also below, a blog post is a great way to start writing.

Write to non-archivists. This part was particularly interesting to me. We are not limited to writing to each other. Yes, that strengthens our profession and engages each other. But what about librarians, users, historians, and others? Bringing non-archivists into our writing sphere will help us understand our users more as well as raise awareness of the archival profession. Do you collaborate with donors, faculty, users, or anyone else you can co-author with? What about asking researchers to write about their experience? When I taught classes, I always try to find non-archivist perspectives. One article I used multiple times was Joan Zenzen’s “Administrative Histories: Writing about Fort Stanwix National Monument” (sorry, I wish it was open access but is available through JSTOR or request through interlibrary loan). And a excellent book is Kate Eichhorn’s Archival Turn in Feminism. Can’t help but enjoy a book written by someone who reveres archivists. In other words, think outside the box. Also, you are not limited to archives publications. Write for disciplinary journals, library journals, digital humanities journals, government resources, or whatever falls within the scope of your interests.

Some general tips:

  • don’t let your profession define what you write
  • book reviews and blogs are a great place to start
  • write with a publication in mind instead of squeezing it into requirements
  • find a writing group

It was a great conversation and lots of great ideas came up, both about writing and topics of interest. I also keep thinking about what else we need to do to continue these conversations. Don’t forget, I welcome suggestions for topics. I thank all of you for reading this blog but I see it as only one way to share experiences. So let’s keep the conversations going in whatever ways we can!

New Issue: Archival Issues

reposted from the A&A listserv:

On its way to you?

Yes, if you are a member of the Midwest Archives Conference, or a subscriber to its journal, the latest issue is on its way by postal mail. AI also is available on line, but with a one year/one volume embargo for non-members.

Dan Noonan leads off the new issue with a provocative question about collecting one potentially voluminous group of records, college and university syllabi: “Does Size Matter in the Digital Age?” The Ohio State University electronic records/digital resources archivist makes a strong case for the feasibility and the value of this effort.

Chiu-yen Lin, deputy director-general of the National Archives Administration in Taiwan, ROC, reviews archival theory and the practices of four national archives programs. Her findings direct readers “Toward a Holistic Model for the Management of Documents, Records, and Archives.”

Two Canadian authors, Amanda Oliver (Archives Society of Alberta’s Flood Advisory Programme) and Anne Daniel (Western University), examine the depiction of archivists in forty-three films, most from the past twenty-five years. They conclude that, “Although some movie archivists possess the stereotypical qualities identified in the literature review, they overwhelmingly demonstrate unexpected qualities and behaviors….”

The issue concludes with reviews of eight books touching on domestic topics as varied as extensible processing, leadership of historical enterprises, managing donors, and digital preservation. Four reviewed books bring an international perspective on the archives of dictatorship, cultural heritage information, archiving ethnicity, and French philosophy.

Archival Issues welcomes manuscripts for consideration at all times during the year. Please contact John Fleckner, chair, editorial board, for more information: flecknerj@si.edu