Roopika Risam puts forth an argument that digital publication is not merely a new platform in which to carry out traditional academic actives. Rather, Risam proposes three ways in which digital scholarship is distinct from print, fundamentally shifting the values potentially underlying the academy: (1) it tends towards more collaboration (2) it is an iterative process, rarely considered "finished", and (3) it is frequently more public. Risam notes that these new principles do not guarantee dramatic shifts in the academy, and there are efforts to systematize these features in order to make digital scholarship more closely reflect the principles in print scholarship. Yet, it is emphasized we are at a point in time where we have the opportunity to be clear enough about the ways digital scholarship differs from print scholarship in order to decent and uplift these qualities rather than try to transform them to better resemble print scholarship.

This very short, yet engaging piece challenges us to think more critically about the opportunities and implications stemming from open access principles.

Founding editor and previous co-editor of the open access journal Feminist Media Studies provides an in-depth account into her experiences engaging with feminist, open access processes. Lisa McLuaghlin spends a great deal of time discussing the implications of hierarchies in (academic) publishing and the political implications of editorial boards. Also engaged throughout the article is a conversation about diversity within academic publishing. She emphasizes how Feminist Media Studies does not have a very diverse authorship despite the journal's intention and specific policies and editorial policies that are intended to encourage non-English speakers to publish in the English journal. This reflection on feminism and open access demonstrates what these fields have accomplished, while also indicating how far we still have to go. Overall, the article provided many insights from someone on-the-ground in regards to feminist, open access initiatives.

This article provides a brief historical contextualization of different forms of peer review. It does well to highlight not only pros and cons of the various processes, but it also discusses the positions from which these pros and cons come form. For example, gender is discussed, revealing that women frequently advocate for anonymous peer review due to the sexism they encounter leading to their work not being published. Another aspect that the authors engage with is how the technologies available shape the forms that peer review takes.

Being an Assistant Editorial Board Member with Stance as an undergraduate was one of my first experiences with the publishing process and is, in part, why I became so interested in the topic of publishing. When this unit came up, I immediately thought of the journal, but I wasn't sure if they were open access.... Glad to realize they are!

Rheingold's video this week got me to thinking about the critical thinking pedagogies that were used by my undergraduate professors. This article demonstrates an in depth glance on what critical thinking pedagogy can look like. While seemingly tangential to open access as a whole, I think Rheingold's discussion of literacies is rather important, and if open access is a successful movement it will need to be equipped with critical thinkers and actors.

This article employs queer theory and challenges the notion of fitting emergent open access practices within current frameworks of academic success. While I was partially surprised by some of the assertions made early on in the article regarding open access journals being perceived as not as valuable as more traditional journal models, I think in part I may just hang out in academic circles that gravitate towards open access (hence... this course). But, I am very compelled by the conclusions made by Gurfinkel. That is, rather than trying to figure out how to systematize open access models to be respected within current academic standards, open access (as informed by queer theory, in this article) challenges us to investigate and question our standards in a more radical way. For example, in open access peer review models or post-publication review, the notion of a "peer" and thus who are considered credible and worthy sources of knowledge--and consequentially, what "knowledge" is-- are put into question. So, more than trying to figure out how to systematize and make more "legitimate" open access models, Gurfinkel wants us to ask what about the academy currently excludes open access models from being meaningful and legitimate practices in the first place.

This is over a year old, but the archived lifestream should be fruitful with insights and skills.