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.

Open Access Part 2

A few weeks ago I wrote about open access. Upon further reflection, what I did not address are defunct journals; I only looked at active ones. It’s quite a project to find defunct journals, much less whether they are available online. However, these journals also deserve mention as it is not just the current journals that contribute to our scholarly history.

I decided to do a little digging. My search was minimal and I know I did not find all of them, so please let me know of others. While some of these journals may be forgotten, if we can find them in print that can lead to advocating for making the content available.

I started by searching WorldCat. I used “archives” and “library” as keywords and limited to serials, which yielded nearly 4,000 results. I found a subject heading for Archives–Periodicals, which brought the number down to about 2,600. Of course, many were not archival scholarly journals but here’s a few that I found:

Available online:
The Archivist (Public Archives of Canada): https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/publications/archivist-magazine/index-e.html
The Canadian Archivist: http://archivists.ca/content/canadian-archivist

Available in print:
Pennsylvania Archives
Archives (British Records Association)
Ms. Archivist

This exercise allowed me to find current journals I wasn’t aware of, including African Journal of Library, Archives, and Information Science, Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, The Indian Archives, and Journal of the South African Society of Archivists (now added to the Journals list).

I’d love to hear about other journals that are no longer in print or are not open access. Perhaps if we identify these, we can figure out ways to advocate to make them available online.

CFP: Practical Technology for Archives

[from the 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.5 (2015:Winter).

The submission timeline is as follows:
Proposals due: September 25
Selections made: October 9
1st drafts due: November 6
Draft reviews: November 20
Revisions due: December 4
Publication: December 18

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

Publishing Events at SAA in Cleveland

Next week I hope to see you in Cleveland! I am always happy to chat with anyone who has article ideas or questions about publishing. You’ll find me wandering around, hanging out at the Bookstore, the Write Away! Breakfast, and the Let’s Do Lunch “Archives for Libraries.” I’ll resume regular posts after SAA.

It was my attendance at a Write Away! Breakfast in 2011 where I started to get to know SAA staff and others involved with publishing. I had a taste of publishing having just co-authored my first article for Archival Outlook about taking the ACA exam (also published in the ACA newsletter). I had recently become a peer-reviewer for Provenance. Most importantly, I started to realize my passion for publishing.

Conversations at and after that first breakfast led to connecting with others to submit a program proposal about publishing (unaccepted, unfortunately). Continuing that conversation led to an appointment to the SAA Publications Board. That led me to gain invaluable knowledge of how publishing works, meet amazing people, and receive wonderful opportunities. Since then, I compiled and wrote an introduction for the SAA Sampler: Archival Advocacy and am now writing the third edition of the Archival Fundamental Series book on Reference and Access.

Networking doesn’t guarantee publication, of course, but it definitely helps you find other people who are interested, who can advise, and who can support you as you enter the world of publishing. You just never know when an opportunity will arise!

Here are events that you can attend:

Bookstore: 8-5:30 Wed, 7-5:30 Thur-Fri, 7:30-10am Sat. Meeting Room 19.

New members, students, and First-Timers are encouraged to meet in the Networking Cafe/Bookstore from 8-8:45 Thur.

Let’s Do Lunch (brown bag; registration required, email Anne Hartman at ahartman [at] archivists.org, in the subject line, indicate: “American Archivist Discussion Group” OR “Archives in Libraries Discussion Group”): 12:15-1:30 Thur. (Note: I don’t know if there are seats left)

Bookstore, Toast to Authors: 2:45-3 Thur. Join in hoisting a glass of lemonade to those who have contributed to SAA publications — journal, magazine, books, modules, and case studies—in the past year.

Write Away! Breakfast: 7:30-8:15 Fri. An informal discussion with Publications Editor Chris Prom, The American Archivist Editor Greg Hunter and Reviews Editor Amy Cooper Cary, and SAA staff Teresa Brinati and Anne Hartman on how you can contribute to the professional literature.

“Office Hours” in the Exhibit Hall: 12:30-1:45 Fri. An opportunity to chat with The American Archivist Editor Greg Hunter, Publications Editor Chris Prom, and Dictionary Working Group Chair Rosemary Pleva Flynn.

Open Access

I received a request to discuss “the fact that so many archives journals are not available to many archivists because they do not eventually become open access” (thank you for submitting a topic!). This is a challenging topic, not just in archives journals but scholarly publishing in all fields.

In 2014, I finished a two-year project to put the back issues of Provenance and Georgia Archive online. This was in progress when I became Editor in 2012 and went back several years (see my article in Archival Outlook for details and history). Since both went online and including the 2013 special issue on advocacy, there have been about 30,000 downloads/views of articles and full issues. The numbers are gratifying and indicate that archivists desired, and use, this resource. Archivaria went online in 2006, American Archivist in 2007, and AA published “Open-Access Publishing and Transforming of the American Archivist Online” in 2011. This article has a great overview of the complexities and definitions of open access. And Hathi Trust has some content available.

In particular, I want to briefly comment on point 5 (p. 487). With Provenance, we paid to digitize the back issues. Though not an exorbitant amount, it was a factor. We were very lucky and I’m eternally grateful to Kennesaw State University, who agreed to host the journal free of charge through their digital commons. Costs are not just hosting (annual subscription with Bepress), but also design of the interface, which they also didn’t charge us for. Academic institutions are often in the best place to provide this service, which means that small, non-profit, and/or non-academic affiliated institutions have an extra challenge to figure out open access.

Lastly, there are the costs of human labor to initiate as well as sustain the journal. I can’t say how many hours Kennesaw staff put in, and though I didn’t track closely I estimate I put in at least 300 hours (volunteer) to get the journals online. As noted in my AO article, this was contact with the vendor, quality control on all the files, and creating metadata. I spent a lot of time correcting skewed pages, cropping, and saving individual articles for better access. At over 600 PDF files and thousands of pages, it took several months. Though both journals have been available for more than a year, I still make behind-the-scenes tweaks (and correcting spelling errors) on a regular basis and am continually learning how to navigate the system. It’s been a great experience and I’m glad to have the opportunity, but it definitely takes time and commitment. It was more than 10 years from when it was first proposed by a previous editor until completed last year.

The submitted question prompted me to go through the list I compiled and do an unscientific analysis. Having never explored these journals with the specific point to see if back issues were available, I am surprised, and pleased, at how many provide access to back issues. However, I did not go through to see specific dates of embargoes, therefore I don’t know precisely the amount of access. The above question didn’t provide specific examples of what he/she was looking for, so if I’ve overlooked something let me know.

Several new journals purposely opted for open access: Archive Journal, Archival Practice, Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies, Journal of Western Archives, Practical Technology for Archives, The Reading Room: A Journal for Special Collections, and SLIS Connecting. Others created an online platform for back and current issues (see list, and let me know if any journals are missing), and just this past June IASA made their journal and bulletin available. The majority provide access to back issues, though often recent issues are embargoed. I found that The Moving Image is available in JSTOR, recent issues of Archives and Manuscripts is available through Taylor & Francis, though one has to have a subscription to access those databases. Archives and Records and COMMA (both international journals) are pay or subscription only. Some journals restrict access as a member benefit; if one pays to belong to an organization, access to the journal is one of the perks. Academic archivists and students are more likely to have access to some or all of these through their institutions, but that leaves out non-academics. That is an unfortunate, and detrimental, example of the digital divide within our profession. I wish I had suggestions on how to reconcile that.

I agree, having all content, especially back issues, is a resource we all desire and can benefit from. Reading literature helps us grow as archivists and have a deeper knowledge of our profession. I do understand the business side of it too. What I don’t agree with are the companies or journals, like Elsevier, that ask authors to pay to have their content open access, and it seems to be a trend in science journals (read an explanation in Nature). In my opinion, that’s unethical and goes against the purpose of scholarship. As we are in the business of providing access to information, I’m glad that (to my knowledge) library and archives journals are not likely to go that route.

Publishing, in general, is in transition in our digital age. It has been for a while and in my opinion I think it will be some time, if ever, before it settles down. E-books, self-publishing, open access journals, institutional repositories, and so forth are transforming the options to disseminate information. I do hope that more journals provide open access to back issues, and someday current, and that we continue our practices of sharing information.

Who is Qualified to Publish?

As I have conversations with archivists, I’ve repeatedly heard variations of this question and comments: am I qualified? who will be interested in what I write? others know more than I do so who will read my writing? I’m not sure I have anything to say. Many people, including me, have these thoughts. In graduate school, we read numerous articles and books and see those authors as authorities. In return, it’s hard to see ourselves as an authority, therefore develop an insecurity that we are not qualified.

Restricting authors to an idea of “qualifications” discourages writers. Instead, I prefer the question: do I want to publish? There are variables, such as tenure-track positions having a writing requirement. But if one truly has the ambition to write, I say go for it.

When I was in library school and even into my PhD program, I did not expect to become a published author, much less an editor. However, once I started, I found myself enjoying it. As a tenure-track archivist, I am required to publish to achieve tenure. I, too, questioned whether or not I was “qualified.” Because peer-reviewers read articles without knowing the author(s), they evaluate based not on the author’s qualifications or prior writing experience, but instead based on how well one constructs an argument and supports it. (more about peer-review in a future post)

I encourage anyone to submit for publication. While I of course solicit for Provenance, I suggest authors review the various journals (see list) to find one that best suits their topic. Especially, review previously published articles to see if theirs fits within the scope of the journal. There are an increasing amount of journals, therefore an increasing amount of opportunities to write.

The qualified question most often comes from students or newer professionals. My response is that without new voices, the literature can get stale or repetitive. Publishing should be ongoing conversations about a variety of topics, as well as a platform for new ideas. Our profession continually evolves and as such, so should the literature. So try to not think of whether or not you are qualified, but why you want to publish and how your ideas/experiences can benefit other archivists.