Most Downloaded CORE Deposits in March 2019

a group of red and purple jellyfish

The most CORE deposits with the most downloads in March cover topics ranging from Portlandia to collective nouns.

  1. Oscar Martinez-Peñate, El Salvador Sociología General. Book.
  2. Nicholas Rinehart, “Black Beethoven and the Racial Politics of Music History.” Article.
  3. Ayesha Majid, “Marketing strategy of Lenovo laptops.” Report.
  4. Brigitte Fielder, “Animal Humanism: Race, Species, and Affective Kinship in Nineteenth-Century Abolitionism.” Article.
  5. Ilana Gershon, “Media Ideologies: An Introduction.” Article.
  6. Titus Stahl, “What is Immanent Critique?” Article.
  7. Elton Barker and Joel Christensen, A Beginner’s Guide to Homer. Book.
  8. Eleanor Courtemanche, “Satire and the ‘Inevitability Effect’: The Structure of Utopian Fiction from Looking Backward to Portlandia.” Article.
  9. Mansur Khamitov, Matthew Thomson, Xin (Shane) Wang. “How Well Do Consumer-Brand Relationships Drive Customer Brand Loyalty? Generalizations from a Meta-Analysis of Brand Relationship Elasticities.” Article.
  10. Hanna de Vries, “Collective nouns.” Book chapter.

Humanities Commons Groups Month Week 4!

Welcome to week four of the Humanities Commons Group Month! We’re dedicating this time with you to explore groups features, network, and build online community. Each week features a quick challenge (only 5-10 minutes required of your time) to help you familiarize yourself with groups and develop your online presence. As you complete each challenge, share your progress with the larger HC community by tweeting your work to us at @humcommons and using our hashtag, #HCGroups. That way, we can answer questions, direct folks to your work, and keep the conversation going.

If you’ve already missed the first three weeks, never fear! All of our challenges are explained in this blog, so just look back to earlier blog posts to see what you missed.

Week 4 Challenge

Make a new CORE deposit that gets shared to your group(s). Let folks know in the group discussion or via social media!

This challenge lasts from Friday, March 22nd, until Thursday, March 28th. To complete our fourth challenge, first navigate to the Humanities Commons CORE Repository by clicking the Core Repository tab. Once there, click the free button marked Upload Your Work. This will take you to the New CORE Deposit application page. Complete the application by providing all needed information. Near the middle of the form, you will be offered the opportunity to select up to five groups of which you are a member. Your upload will be deposited into the CORE section of the groups you select and members of the groups you list will be notified of your upload.

Once you’ve uploaded the deposit, share your upload with the group by starting a new discussion post in one of your groups (see Challenge 3 for tips on group discussion posts) or sharing it on social media. If you go to your upload’s page, you should see an option to share it on your Facebook or Twitter account. Don’t forget to also share your upload with us via Twitter using our hashtag so we can let our followers know all about your wonderful work!

Week 4 Group Admin Challenge

Advertise your group! Share it via e-mail, social media, in-person conversations, etc.

Take a few minutes this week to spread the word about your group. Maybe create some challenges of your own for members to complete or post a new discussion question and invite your social media followers or colleagues to join in the group activity. Don’t forget to also share your group with us via Twitter using our hashtag so we can help you to spread the word!

Week 3 Solutions

Get stuck last week? Or missed the challenges announcement? Not to worry, you can still complete them this week! Here they are (you can also find them on the blog post dedicated to Week 3), with instructions.

Week 3 Challenge

Post a new discussion post. Let at least three people know about it.

This challenge will last from March 15th to the 21st. To complete our third challenge, first navigate to the Groups area of Humanities Commons by clicking the Groups tab. Find a group you’re already a part of or join a new one and click onto that group’s page. Once there, click on the Discussion tab of the group’s navigation bar (just below the group’s header image). After you’ve reached the Discussion page, click on the green button labeled Create New Topic and type your new post into the text box.  There are many options you can choose to customize this discussion post. For example, you can select to be notified of any follow-up replies by email, or you can choose to post the same comment to multiple groups by using the checklist at the bottom of the page.

Once you’re done typing in your message and selecting from the many options, click the green button labeled Submit. Congrats! Your discussion post should now be live! Share the post with three people by copying and pasting your post’s link to social media. Please also share your new post with us on Twitter so we can share it with our followers!

Week 3 Group Admin Challenge

Show or hide a menu item for members. For example, if your group doesn’t use one of the group features, you can remove it from the menu to decrease clutter!

To complete this challenge, first go to your group’s page. Select Manage from the group’s navigation bar; then, click on the Settings button. Scroll down to see the option to hide or show menu items. Don’t forget to click Save Changes after you’re happy with your selection, or else it won’t be saved.

screenshot of the group admin settings page where one can hide menu items or change the default landing page.

If you ever change your mind about whether you’d like the menu item to be visible or hidden, you can always return to this page and change it back. Read more about these new options for groups in our recent blog post.

 

Customize your Groups!

intersecting pedestrian crossings with people walking

We’ve introduced some new options to customize a group’s interface. Group admins now have the option to hide features that aren’t relevant to the group in Manage → Settings.

In addition, group admins can change the default landing page for their group from “Activity,” if they wish.

For instance, if a group wants a place to have discussion and collect syllabi and teaching materials deposited in CORE, the group admin might hide Events, Docs, and Files and make “Discussion” the landing page.

screenshot of the group admin settings page where one can hide menu items or change the default landing page.

Group admins will still see the hidden menu items, greyed out. A group member who is not an admin will not see the greyed out items.

group menu bar with "files" greyed out

Humanities Commons Groups Month Week 3!

Welcome to week three of the Humanities Commons Group Month! We’re dedicating this time with you to explore groups features, network, and build online community. Each week features a quick challenge (only 5-10 minutes required of your time) to help you familiarize yourself with groups and develop your online presence. As you complete each challenge, share your progress with the larger HC community by tweeting your work to us at @humcommons and using our hashtag, #HCGroups. That way, we can answer questions, direct folks to your work, and keep the conversation going.

If you’ve already missed the first two weeks, never fear! All of our challenges are explained in this blog, so just look back to early blog posts to see what you missed.

Week 3 Challenge

Post a new discussion post. Let at least three people know about it.

This challenge will last from March 15th to the 21st. To complete our third challenge, first navigate to the Groups area of Humanities Commons by clicking the Groups tab. Find a group you’re already a part of or join a new one and click onto that group’s page. Once there, click on the Discussion tab of the group’s navigation bar (just below the group’s header image). After you’ve reached the Discussion page, click on the green button labeled Create New Topic and type your new post into the text box.  There are many options you can choose to customize this discussion post. For example, you can select to be notified of any follow-up replies by email, or you can choose to post the same comment to multiple groups by using the checklist at the bottom of the page.

Once you’re done typing in your message and selecting from the many options, click the green button labeled Submit. Congrats! Your discussion post should now be live! Share the post with three people by copying and pasting your post’s link to social media. Please also share your new post with us on Twitter so we can share it with our followers!

 

Week 3 Group Admin Challenge

Show or hide a menu item for members. For example, if your group doesn’t use one of the group features, you can remove it from the menu to decrease clutter!

To complete this challenge, first go to your group’s page. Select Manage from the group’s navigation bar; then, click on the Settings button. Scroll down to see the option to hide or show menu items. Don’t forget to click Save Changes after you’re happy with your selection, or else it won’t be saved.

screenshot of the group admin settings page where one can hide menu items or change the default landing page.

If you ever change your mind about whether you’d like the menu item to be visible or hidden, you can always return to this page and change it back. Read more about these new options for groups in our recent blog post.

Week 2 Solutions

Get stuck last week? Or missed the challenges announcement? Not to worry, you can still complete them this week! Here they are (you can also find them on the blog post dedicated to Week 2), with instructions.

Week 2 Challenge

Respond to a discussion post that somebody else began.

To complete this challenge, navigate to the Groups area of Humanities Commons, and either find a group you’re already a part of or join a new one. Once you’re in the group, click on the Discussion tab of the navigation bar (by default, it’s right next to Activity, the main page for most groups). Once there, respond to one of the discussion topics! Or, if there aren’t any, make a discussion topic of your own (that’s jumping ahead a bit to week 3, but you won’t lose points, promise!). Topics can be anything related to the group’s purpose: a pressing issue in a given field, a call for papers, an announcement of a major publication, etc.

Week 2 Group Admin Challenge

Change the group photo or cover image. If you like the one you already have, feel free to switch it back!

To complete this challenge, navigate to a group that you are an administrator for. Next, click Manage in the navigation bar. Once on the Manage page, you can click on Photo or Cover Image in order to change these elements of your group. Do the process again to change it back to the old Photo/Cover Image!

Humanities Commons Groups Month Week 2!

We are now in week two of Humanities Commons Groups Month, a month dedicated to groups features, sharing work, networking, and building community. Each week features a quick challenge (only 5-10 minutes!) to familiarize you with groups and develop your online presence at the same time. Once you complete the challenge, share your progress with everyone with #HCGroups and tagging @humcommons! That way we can answer questions, direct folks to your work, and keep the conversation going.

Week 2 Challenge

Respond to a discussion post that somebody else began.

To complete this challenge, navigate to the Groups area of Humanities Commons, and either find a group you’re already a part of or join a new one. Once you’re in the group, click on the Discussion tab of the navigation bar (by default, it’s right next to Activity, the main page for most groups). Once there, respond to one of the discussion topics! Or, if there aren’t any, make a discussion topic of your own (that’s jumping ahead a bit to week 3, but you won’t lose points, promise!). Topics can be anything related to the group’s purpose: a pressing issue in a given field, a call for papers, an announcement of a major publication, etc.

Week 2 Group Admin Challenge

Change the group photo or cover image. If you like the one you already have, feel free to switch it back!

To complete this challenge, navigate to a group that you are an administrator for. Next, click Manage in the navigation bar. Once on the Manage page, you can click on Photo or Cover Image in order to change these elements of your group. Do the process again to change it back to the old Photo/Cover Image!

Week 1 Solutions

Get stuck last week? Or missed the challenges announcement? Not to worry, you can still complete them this week! Here they are, with instructions.

Invite three new members to a group.

Navigate to one of your groups. Check to see if you have the Send Invites menu item. (Group admins can limit who has the option to send invites, so you may not see it on all groups.) From the Send Invites page, you can invite existing Humanities Commons members to join the group.

The Send Invites screen

Alternatively, as long as the group is not a hidden group, you could send potential group members a link to the group via the Commons, e-mail, or social media.

Group Admin Challenge: Set a welcome message for your group that all new members will receive.

Navigate to a group where you are an administrator. Once there, click Manage on the navigation bar. Next, click the Email Options button. On that page, you can set a welcome e-mail that will go out to all new members who join your group!

Introducing Humanities Commons Groups Month

In March 2019, Humanities Commons will host HC Groups Month by posting various challenges and encouraging tips on our Twitter account, @humcommons. By the end of the month, participants will have a better understanding of how they can take full advantage of the many benefits that HC groups offer.

Why should you take part in HC Groups Month?

Groups are an important feature of Humanities Commons because of their incredible networking potential. By participating in HC Groups Month, you’ll not only learn how to better utilize HC groups, you’ll put your learning to work immediately. This means that your work within the challenges will work for you: you’ll grow your digital network and hopefully make vital connections with other scholars in your field. This can help you grow your digital presence and share your work with a wider audience.

While building your network on HC groups, you’ll find many other benefits:

  • Find support for your work. Each HC group has a “documents” feature, which allows you to share and co-edit documents. This is a great way to ask for feedback on work-in-progress. Additionally, HC users can choose to share their CORE uploads with specific groups. Once shared, you can again ask for feedback, or simply sit back and bask in the knowledge that your work will receive a larger readership than had you not shared it with a group or uploaded it to CORE.
  • Fruitful discussions had at conferences no longer have to end there. You can create a group for a specific conference or society, allowing you to continue conversations held at conferences and share presentations and papers. This will also allow other scholars who were unable to attend the conference to read the work presented and take part in these important discussions.
  • Find the right type of group for you. Each group fulfills a specific purpose for a specific group of people. For example, you might want to support a particular network that currently has very little digital presence. Or, you may want to create a group for one of the courses you’re teaching or a workshop you’re leading. You might also want to create a group for a society or organization. HC allows group creators and members a number of personalization options. As a creator, you decide how public your group will be. As a member, you are in control of how many notifications and/or emails you receive from the group.
  • Enjoy advantages from the listserv model. During our opening Twitter chat announcing HC Groups Month, one HC user mentioned how much she enjoyed using HC groups over listervs because of the streamlined discussions and searchability of HC groups. It can be difficult to locate past conversations hosted in an emailed listserv; however, on HC groups, all discussions are easily located and neatly archived. Similarly, all documents and CORE uploads shared with HC groups are easy to find. By shifting your conversations from a listserv to an HC group, you won’t even lose your ability to post by email: group members can conveniently post discussion topics and replies by sending an email.

Ready for HC Groups Month?

Us, too! We look forward to hosting you on Twitter as we work through our groups-based challenges. Our calendar is below:

WEEK 1 (March 1-7): Invite 3 new members to a group you’re in.

WEEK 2 (March 8-14): Respond to a discussion post that somebody else began.

WEEK 3 (March 15-21): Post a new discussion post. Let at least 3 people know about it.

WEEK 4 (March 22-28): Make a new CORE deposit that gets shared to your group(s). Let folks know, in the group discussion or via social media!

End of Month (March 29-31): Help us add to our list of best practices for generating participation in groups. 

As you complete the challenges, share your progress! If you’re on Twitter, tweet with #HCGroups.

Extra! Group Admin Challenges

If you are already a group admin, or want to become one with a new group of your own, here are some extra challenges for admins!

WEEK 1 (March 1-7): Set a welcome message for your group that all new members will receive.

WEEK 2 (March 8-14): Change the group photo or cover image. If you like the one you already have, feel free to switch it back!

WEEK 3 (March 15-21): Show or hide a menu item for members. For example, if your group doesn’t use one of the group features, you can remove it from the menu to decrease clutter!

WEEK 4 (March 22-28): Advertise your group! Share it via e-mail, social media, in-person conversations, etc.

End of Month (March 29-31): Help us add to our list of best practices for generating participation in groups.

HC Groups Month begins on Friday, March 1st. Be sure to follow us on Twitter (@humcommons) so you don’t miss out on anything. Give us a shout out using our hashtag, #HCGroups, so we know you’re ready to grow your digital network using HC groups!

February’s Most Downloaded CORE Deposits

aerial view of a basketball court

The most downloaded CORE deposits in February 2019 included work on Beethoven, Homer, and Arundhati Roy:

  1. Nicholas Rinehart, “Black Beethoven and the Racial Politics of Music History.” Article.
  2. Oscar Martinez-Peñate, El Salvador Sociología General. Book.
  3. Nikos Tsivikis, “Πού πάνε οι πόλεις όταν εξαφανίζονται; Ο οικισμός της πρώιμης και μέσης βυζαντινής Μεσσήνης.” Conference proceeding.
  4. Luís Henriques, “A atividade litúrgico-musical da ermida de Nossa Senhora dos Remédios: Expressão de uma identidade nobiliárquica da cidade de Angra nos séculos XVI e XVII.” Article.
  5. Elton Barker and Joel Christensen, A Beginner’s Guide to Homer. Book.
  6. Rita Felski, Introduction to Critical and Postcritical Reading. Syllabus.
  7. J.P. Alperin , C. Muñoz Nieves, L. Schimanski, G.E. Fischman, M.T. Niles & E.C. McKiernan. “How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion, and tenure documents?” Article.
  8. Hanna de Vries, “Collective nouns.” Book chapter.
  9. Shazia Sadaf, “Colour Play in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things.” Article.

And tied for tenth:

Scholars, It’s Time to Take Control of Your Online Communities

-Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Director of Digital Humanities at Michigan State University, Project Director for Humanities Commons

A couple of years ago, I got a bit fed up with the ways that certain for-profit networks were purporting to provide scholars with opportunities to share their work openly with one another, and I decided that it was time to mouth off about it a bit: about the fact that their “.edu” address was deceiving many into believing that they were an academy-driven initiative, about the ways their uncertain business model endangered the future of the work being shared there, about the damage that network was doing to genuine open access.

Not long after, Sarah E. Bond issued a direct call to action: “It is time to delete your Academia.edu account.”

And many scholars did, taking their work to networks like Humanities Commons. And they told their friends and colleagues to do so as well. Since that time, Humanities Commons has come to serve more than 16,500 scholars and practitioners across the humanities and around the world. Those members are building their professional profiles, depositing and sharing work via the repository, and creating a wide range of websites to support their portfolios, their classes, and their other projects.

But where we’ve been less successful has been in attracting groups of scholars to engage in active discussion and collaboration. The Commons has a robust groups structure, permitting communities of a range of types and sizes — from private committees to public subfields, and everything inbetween — to host threaded discussions, to share files, and more besides. But that feature of the network remains somewhat underutilized, despite the extent to which many scholars today want to be able to communicate and collaborate with one another online.

The heart of the issue, I’m pretty sure, is that those scholars already have communities that seem to be functioning pretty well for them, a ton of them on Facebook. And the problem is, as I noted in my original Academia-not-edu post, is the gravity that such existing groups exert, especially when, as with Facebook, everybody is already there. (Or so it often seems, at least. People who are not on Facebook might be quick to tell you how annoying it is when we assume that everyone can be reached that way.)

If it’s hard to convince individual scholars to change their ways of working and take up more equitable, open, and transparent systems, it’s all but impossible to convince groups of scholars to do so.

And yet: it’s time.

Part of the argument I made for abandoning Academia.edu in favor of non-profit, scholar-governed alternatives, alternatives that were not out to surveil or data-mine their users, was based on my assessment that “everything that’s wrong with Facebook is wrong with Academia.edu, at least just up under the surface, and so perhaps we should think twice before committing our professional lives to it.” The inverse is even more true: everything that’s wrong with Academia.edu is wrong with Facebook, and then some.

I’ll leave it to Siva Vaidhyanathan to delve into the details, but it should be apparent from recent headlines that Facebook is at the root of a tremendous amount of personal unhappiness, violent conflict, and political turmoil today. The company has routinely sold its users’ data to advertisers, to companies, and to highly damaging political agents like Cambridge Analytica. Facebook engages in deep surveillance of users and their activity both on the network and elsewhere on the internet, an activity that is not just being exploited by corporations but also by governments. Given that Facebook’s entire business model depends on selling us — our presence, our information, our clicks — to other entities, every interaction we engage in there supports that model, whether we like it or not.

Most of us know this already, and yet we use the network anyway, even if begrudgingly. Our distant family members and friends are there, and we don’t know how we’ll keep up with them otherwise. And our scholarly communities, too: there are active discussion groups on Facebook that we’d miss if we left. So we watch our privacy settings and try to be careful with what we share — and yet no amount of such prophylaxis can really protect us from malfeasance. Assuming that our ostensibly private groups are actually private is setting ourselves up for abuse.

On top of which, working in proprietary spaces like Facebook does ongoing damage to the scholarly record; we cannot control, preserve, or migrate the archives of our discussions as desired.

It’s extremely difficult to move an entire group of people, I know, but I hope that some of you might be willing to try. There are other non-profit scholarly networks grounded in academic values available out there, of course, but if you’re in or adjacent to the humanities, I hope you’ll consider moving your discussions to Humanities Commons. And if you’re not in the humanities, maybe come join us anyhow? We want to open the network up to all fields in the near future, and your involvement would help us chart a path toward doing so.

Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Open Peer Review

A central goal for Humanities Commons has always been to provide humanities scholars with a platform for communicating, sharing work, and collaborating. Beyond simply facilitating these processes––a significant task in itself––we strive to innovate on them, pushing for scholarship that is more open and engaged with communities. Often, this means rethinking the assumptions and practices that produce our work.

It was this desire to reimagine scholarly practice that led us to host a Twitter chat last month titled “Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Open Peer Review.” Twitter chats are synchronous social media events where moderators guide discussion of a topic using a particular hashtag. At the set time, everyone logs in to Twitter and follows the hashtag, answering questions and responding to each other’s thoughts as they’re shared through tweets. The goal of this Twitter chat was to generate community discussion of emerging peer review structures that are open, meaning the authors and reviewers of a work know who each other are and communicate about the work, usually with the facilitation of an editor or editorial team. While what this exactly looks like varies from publication to publication, most journals and organizations using open peer review put the author and the reviewers in contact with each other using a digital platform, allowing reviews to make comments and the author to respond to them in the process of revising the work for publication.

As the handful of questions and tweets below reveal, the discussion of open peer review covered many aspects of scholarly communication and how review contributes to clear and effective scholarship. Open peer review is a significant departure from traditional peer review, often described as double-blind or single-blind peer review (ableist terms that Cheryl Ball points out could be replaced with “double anonymous” and “anonymous”). Whereas double anonymous or anonymous peer review can often seem opaque, exclusionary, and even arbitrary, especially to early career scholars, open peer review makes the review process about a conversation that focuses on improving the work. As several participants argued, particular values and guidelines should shape that conversation with an emphasis on community and mentorship.

The tweets below are just a small sample of the Twitter chat. To view the rest of the chat, as well as check out more resources about open peer review, search for the chat’s hashtag, #OPReview, on Twitter.

  • Q1: What does open peer review look like in your experience? Which practices and tools are involved? #OPReview #Q1

 

  • Q2: Which values should guide open peer review? How should these values be enacted and communicated? #OPReview #Q2

 

  • Q3: How does open peer review affect the quality of reviews? Of the final publication? #OPReview #Q3

 

  • Q4: What are the limitations of open peer review? What are the barriers to more journals and scholarly communities adopting it? #OPReview #Q4

 

  • Q5: What are the future potentials of open peer review? How could it be improved in the future? #OPReview #Q5

 

The Twitter chat generated lively conversation about the values of scholarship, and collectively imagined what it would look like to publish our work as the result of open, transparent, and ongoing conversations between scholars. Of course open peer review isn’t a cure-all, and there are a number of institutional considerations (tenure, power, and workload, to name only a few) that limit what peer review can be and do. Still, open peer review can be one tool for research and scholarship that is more accessible and inclusive. This Twitter chat is not the last word on open peer review–far from it. Rather, it’s a point in an ongoing conversation that we can and must have together as we work to build the institutions and research practices that can sustain our communities.

Thanks to Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Cody Mejeur for moderating the chat. Kathleen is Director of Digital Humanities and Professor of English at Michigan State University. Her most recent book, Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University (John Hopkins University Press, 2019), argues for a mode of scholarly engagement that emphasizes listening over speaking, community over individualism, and collaboration over competition. She is also project director of Humanities Commons. Cody is a PhD candidate in English at Michigan State University specializing in new media, narrative theory, queer and feminist studies, and digital humanities. They have published on games and education, representation in games, and the narrative construction of reality. They are currently graduate lab lead for the Digital Humanities & Literary Cognition lab at MSU and work with the LGBTQ Video Game Archive, founded by Adrienne Shaw at Temple University.

Most Downloaded in CORE, January 2019

an assortment of letters for a press

The most downloaded work in CORE in January 2019 ran the gamut, from Led Zeppelin to letterpress.

  1. Oscar Martinez-Peñate, El Salvador Sociología General. Book.
  2. Nicholas Rinehart, “Black Beethoven and the Racial Politics of Music History.” Article.
  3. Ayesha Majid, “Marketing strategy of Lenovo laptops.” Report.
  4. Shazia Sadaf, “Colour Play in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things.” Article.
  5. Matthew Kirschenbaum, ENGL 759C BookLab: How to Do Things with Books. Syllabus.
  6. Brigitte Fielder, “Animal Humanism: Race, Species, and Affective Kinship in Nineteenth-Century Abolitionism.” Article.
  7. Daniel Sherer, “Heidi on the Loos: Ornament and Crime in Mike Kelley’s and Paul McCarthy’s Heidi (1992).” Conference proceeding.
  8. Titus Stahl, “What is Immanent Critique?” Article.
  9. Ilana Gershon, “Media Ideologies: An Introduction.” Article.
  10. John Brackett, “Examining Rhythmic and Metric Practices in Led Zeppelin’s Musical Style.” Article.