skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: History Can Be Open Source: Democratic Dreams and the Rise of Digital History
Abstract In an ongoing commitment to experimentation, the AHR invited an “open peer review” of a submitted manuscript, “History Can Be Open Source: Democratic Dreams and the Rise of Digital History,” by Joseph L. Locke (University of Houston–Victoria) and Ben Wright (University of Texas at Dallas). Given that Locke and Wright argued for the coexistence of transparency alongside formal academic peer review, subjecting their submission to an open review made sense. The peer review process itself tested the propositions about the democratization of scholarship they put forth in their submission. Their article appears in a new section of the AHR, “Writing History in a Digital Age,” overseen by consulting editor Lara Putnam (https://ahropenreview.com/). The maturation of digital history has propelled historians’ embrace of open educational resources. But, this article argues, open access licensing is not enough. Digital history’s earliest practitioners promised not just more accessible digital materials, but a broader democratization of history itself. This article therefore moves beyond questions of technological innovation and digital access in the rise of digital history to engage more fundamental and intractable questions about inequality, community, and participatory historical inquiry.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1827951
PAR ID:
10397741
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
The American Historical Review
Volume:
126
Issue:
4
ISSN:
0002-8762
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1485 to 1511
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, PeerJ Computer Science)
    null (Ed.)
    This article describes the motivation, design, and progress of the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). JOSS is a free and open-access journal that publishes articles describing research software. It has the dual goals of improving the quality of the software submitted and providing a mechanism for research software developers to receive credit. While designed to work within the current merit system of science, JOSS addresses the dearth of rewards for key contributions to science made in the form of software. JOSS publishes articles that encapsulate scholarship contained in the software itself, and its rigorous peer review targets the software components: functionality, documentation, tests, continuous integration, and the license. A JOSS article contains an abstract describing the purpose and functionality of the software, references, and a link to the software archive. The article is the entry point of a JOSS submission, which encompasses the full set of software artifacts. Submission and review proceed in the open, on GitHub. Editors, reviewers, and authors work collaboratively and openly. Unlike other journals, JOSS does not reject articles requiring major revision; while not yet accepted, articles remain visible and under review until the authors make adequate changes (or withdraw, if unable to meet requirements). Once an article is accepted, JOSS gives it a digital object identifier (DOI), deposits its metadata in Crossref, and the article can begin collecting citations on indexers like Google Scholar and other services. Authors retain copyright of their JOSS article, releasing it under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. In its first year, starting in May 2016, JOSS published 111 articles, with more than 40 additional articles under review. JOSS is a sponsored project of the nonprofit organization NumFOCUS and is an affiliate of the Open Source Initiative (OSI). 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, Isis)
    Many researchers insist that computational methods will transform the historical profession, while an equally large number reject these claims as unwarranted hype. In this study, we attempt to place the debate in historical and social context. The article is divided into three parts. The first part offers a brief review of computational history. We ask whether the “computational turn” bears any resemblance to quantitative history, and how it fits within the digital humanities. The second part describes our recent attempts to apply computational methods to an existing project in the history of science using a standardized workflow. We demonstrate that each step of the workflow adds another layer of subjectivity. The third part reflects on what computational methods mean for the historical profession. We systematically review the positive aspects of computational history (open access, interdisciplinary collaboration, and new perspectives) as well as the negative aspects (inequality, fragility, and the threat of automation), and we offer prescriptions based on our experiences. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Social Epistemology)
    ABSTRACT STS scholarship has produced important insights about relationships between the roles of peer review and the social construction of knowledge. Yet, barriers related to access have been a continual challenge for such work. This article overcomes some past access challenges and explores peer review normativities operating in the new discipline of Engineering Education. In doing so, it contributes new insights about disciplinary development, interdisciplinarity, and peer review as a site of knowledge construction. In particular, it draws attention to an aspect of peer review not previously discussed – how peer review normativities are shaped by disciplinary origins. A content analysis of peer review documentation revealed that a hyperfocus on methods, which can be traced back to disciplinary origins, continues to be a guiding normativity. However, interviews with editors revealed that they do not acknowledge that normativity. Implications of those findings and their misalignment are discussed, as are contrasts with the history of other disciplines. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Instructional science)
    Citizen science programs offer opportunities for K-12 students to engage in authentic science inquiry. However, these programs often fall short of including learners as agents in the entire process, and thus contrast with the growing open science movement within scientific communities. Notably, study ideation and peer review, which are central to the making of science, are typically reserved for professional scientists. This study describes the implementation of an open science curriculum that engages high school students in a full cycle of scientific inquiry. We explored the focus and quality of students’ study designs and peer reviews, and their perceptions of open science based on their participation in the program. Specifically, we implemented a human brain and behavior citizen science unit in 6 classrooms across 3 high schools. After learning about open science and citizen science, students (N = 104) participated in scientist-initiated research studies, and then collaboratively proposed their own studies to investigate personally interesting questions about human behavior and the brain. Students then peer reviewed proposals of students from other schools. Based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of students’ artifacts created in-unit and on a pre and posttest, we describe their interests, abilities, and self-reported experiences with study design and peer review. Our findings suggest that participation in open science in a human brain and behavior research context can engage students with critical aspects of experiment design, as well as with issues that are unique to human subjects research, such as research ethics. Meanwhile, the quality of students’ study designs and reviews changed in notable, but mixed, ways: While students improved in justifying the importance of research studies, they did not improve in their abilities to align methods to their research questions. In terms of peer review, students generally reported that their peers' feedback was helpful, but our analysis showed that student reviewers struggled to articulate concrete recommendations for improvement. In light of these findings, we discuss the need for curricula that support the development of research and review abilities by building on students’ interests, while also guiding students in transferring these abilities across a range of research foci. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; (, The advance journal)
    Peer mentoring circles for women faculty are beneficial to the personal and professional development of the participants and can increase the retention of women in academia. Here, we discuss the history and evolution of faculty peer mentoring circles as part of ADVANCE at Ohio State University, Murray State University, and South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. The three institutions used the same framework, and adapted their peer-mentoring programs for their local circumstances. We describe a brief history of faculty peer mentoring programs and how each institution monitored outcomes. We summarize their successes and challenges based on participant feedback, surveys, and attendance. We share lessons learned across the three institutions, including the need to pay attention to power dynamics, how to structure cohorts, topics for discussion, and the role of facilitators. This article contributes to the peer mentoring literature by sharing the perspectives of three institutions that used the same general model but differed in details of local adaptation. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email