• Blog Stats

    • 24,800 hits
  • Advertisements

11/5 Skype workshop with ODH Program Officer Jen Serventi

UODS will sponsor a Skype workshop/meeting with NEH Office of Digital Humanities Senior Program Officer Jennifer Serventi in the McKenzie Collaboration Center, 175 McKenzie, from 10am-noon on Friday November 5.  Jen will queue up a PowerPoint on NEH grant programs, go through it with UO us over Skype, leaving ample time for questions (about an hour).

We’ll then devote up to 60 minutes to general discussion about the NEH review process (in particular, the Office of Digital Humanities).

*****

Follow Jen Serventi on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jenserventi

Follow NEH Office of Digital Humanities on Titter: http://twitter.com/NEH_ODH

NEH on Facebook? Yep: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Washington-DC/National-Endowment-for-the-Humanities/131252093552454?v=wall

Share this information with interested colleagues and graduate students.

Advertisements

UO Open Access Week 10/15-22

Open Access Week 2010

Open  Access LogoJoin the University of Oregon Libraries as we participate in an international celebration of Open Access, Oct 14-22, 2010. We’re highlighting a series of new services provided by the UO Libraries that support Open Access.  For more details of UO initiatives to support Open Access see http://libweb.uoregon.edu/scis/sc/uoopenaccess.html.

Week at a Glance

Friday
Oct 15
3:30pm-5pm
Keynote speaker:  Kevin L. Smith, Duke University: “Why Open Access Works and Copyright Doesn’t”
Friday, Oct 15, 3:30pm
Knight Library Browsing Room
Monday
Oct 18
1pm-1:30pm
OA Week kickoff videocast
Harold Varmus (director, National Cancer Institute) and Cameron Neylon (author of “Science in the Open”) are featured speakers in this short video highlighting the benefits of open access.
Screening in the Knight Library Collaboration Center
Tuesday
Oct 19
1pm-2:30pm
Electronic Theses and Dissertations at the UO
1:00pm ETDs at UO, an Overview, Ann Miller
1:30pm How to Prepare and Submit an ETD, Nargas Oskui
Knight Library Collaboration Center
Wednesday
Oct 20
1pm-2:30pm
New Library Services Supporting Open Access at UO
1:00pm Open Access Repositories, Karen Estlund
1:30pm OA Publishing Grants from the UO Libraries, Dean Walton
2:00pm UO Libraries as OA Journal Publisher, JQ Johnson
Knight Library Collaboration Center
Friday
Oct 22
1pm-2:00pm
Retaining Your Rights: Negotiating Publisher Copyright Transfer Agreements, JQ Johnson
Knight Library Collaboration Center Continue reading

A useful screencast from H. Rheingold on ‘tuning’ resources for research

Thanks again, Howard Rheingold! Take advantage of some of the tools that Howard discusses in this short screencast:

http://screenr.com/Content/assets/screenr_1116090935.swf

Oregon Petrarch Open Book earns a Digital Humanities Start-up grant

Romance Languages Professor Massimo Lollini’s labor of love and scholarship, the Oregon Petrarch Open Book (OPOB), has won a Digital Humanities Start-up grant from the Office of Digital Humanities.  The Level II grant of $49,978 will support development of a more interactive database-driven website for OPOB.

OPOB is built around Petrarch’s 14th century collection, the Canzoniere.  The ODH award will fund an open-sourceware rebuild of OPOB’s digital assets and tools, and strengthen the groundwork for international collaboration among scholars and institutions around this central work of world literature. In OPOB, a scholar may read a poem in the original, examine a Renaissance commentary, compare a series of different translations, analyze contemporary rewritings, and finally, explore multimedia assets associated with the poem.

Lollin writes, “We call OPOB the ‘open-book’ initiative, partly in homage to the open source software movement whose tools we will be using (Drupal, PHP, MySQL), and partly in reference to the way computer-mediated communication (CMC) technology and online professional networking has opened up new ways of building academic communities. But mostly we call it ‘open’ because our approach articulates new interdisciplinary paths for teaching and learning in Romance Languages and Literatures, Comparative Literature, Linguistics, and Translation Studies.

“In designing a system around the idea of the open book, the Canzoniere is the perfect text. Not only is it the most influential collection of poetry in the European tradition, but it is constructively and profitably read as a work-in-progress and as an unfinished text; Petrarch continued to produce different versions of his collection and shift the order of the poems until his death in 1374. The last version of the manuscript, as  printed today, merely reflects the last of his edits and ignores the fragmentary nature of the different versions emphasized by its original Latin title, Rerum vulgarium fragmenta, or Collection of Fragments in the Vernacular.

Lollini argues that the idea of a text as an ongoing and emerging project is muffled by the very nature of a printed book. To view and understand a text’s development and its many possible iterations, it is necessary to see the parts in different orders, see the connections between the parts, the drafts, and the future incarnations of the text. This is only possible through the use of digital technology thanks to hypertext and its ability to make the relationships between textual components visible and explicit.
Continue reading

Twitter mixdown 2 on webcast of congressional hearings on open access: Jen Howard

  1. Take two on the congressional hearings on public/open access to results of federally funded research. These are by Jen Howard (http://twitter.com/JenHoward), who has written about this in 2009  the Chronicle (http://chronicle.com/article/Congressional-Hearing-Over/1153)
  2. Notice that after the publishers testify, most of the subcommittee leaves–before the open access advocates speak (#15-14).
  3. Read from the bottom up (#22).
  4. [END}
  5. Lipman’s statement was brief but strongly argued that the NIH policy has been a success.
  6. Next up is David Lipman of NIH.
  7. Another interesting theme here: whether the general public is able to use specialized sci lit. 
  8. Sharon Terry of Genetic Alliance says we should be focusing on both.
  9. Good q from Clay: how is access to data diff from access to journal articles based on that data and should we be focusing more on data?
  10. Witnesses also making the point that publishers don’t pay for peer review.
  11. Chairman Clay asking if OA affects peer review. Roberts et al assuring him it does not.
  12. David Shulenberger of APLU now testifying in support of public access.
  13. Nobel laureate Richard Roberts makes case that access to sci lit is critical to progress in research.
  14. Most of the subcommittee isn’t here to hear these witnesses. I know this is common but it’s still odd to see.
  15. Next up is a panel of witnesses from the sciences.
  16. Is there a new IP protectionism at play here? I’m wondering. 
  17. Also hearing many fears about piracy and the world wanting to steal U.S. intellectual property. 
  18. [2/2] and the later published results of that research (eg journal articles).
  19. Most interesting theme so far is publishers’ attempt to distinguish between fed-funded research [1/2]
  20. Govt really needs to start allowing people to use laptops at congressional hearings.
  21. Democracy takes time.
  22. Waiting for House subcommittee hearing on public access to fed-funded research to begin.

Congressional Hearing on Public (Open) Access to Federally Funded Research 1: a mixdown of Timothy Vollmer’s tweetfeed on the webcast 7/29/10

  1. What follows is a Twitter feed  by Timothy Vollmer (http://twitter.com/tvol) on the 7/29/10 webcast of  “Public Access to Federally-Funded Research” held today by the Information Policy, Census and National Archives Subcommittee (of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) in Congress.
  2. For “Public Access” substitute “Open Access” to get a sense of what open access advocates are up against in commercial research publishers.
  3. How to read this: start at the bottom (#22) and scroll up.
  4. [End]
  5. Lipman: there’s been doubling of use of pubmedcentral since 2008
  6. Rep Clay: why doesn’t NIH just link to articles on publishers’ websites? Lipman: archiving & access is ensured by libraries, not publishers
  7. Dr David Lipman from NIH National Library of Medicine: Canada and UK have open access infrastructures similar to biomedcentral
  8. Maxwell: access only if you can afford it, or access only for experts is limiting–we need broad democratic access to make new discoveries
  9. Rep Clay: will open access have negative affect on peer review? Witnesses: No. And, peer reviewers are not paid across the board 
  10. Nancarrow: public access promotes creative reuse of content 
  11. Catherine Nancarrow from PLoS: we’ve proven open access is high quality and financially sustainable
  12. Dr Shulenburger from Assoc. of Public and Land Grant Universities: those students with least access are at community colleges (50% in US)
  13. colamarino: it’s hard to tell our research funders that they’ll have to pay again to see the published results 
  14. Dr Colamarino from Autism Speaks: families have access to info, but not the most scientifically rigorous because it’s locked up
  15. Maxwell: making info more accessible and available can increase return on investment, reduce redundant research
  16. Elliott Maxwell from center for economic development: rise of Internet has lead to greater openness. this openness is crucial for innovation
  17. Sharon Terry from Genetic Alliance: not only scientists and academics need access to scientific info: patients, parents, students need it
  18. Roberts: public access to publicly funded research would be beneficial to students at all levels 
  19. Dr Roberts from New England Biolab: without comprehensive access to the literature, it’s impossible to know where the cutting edge is.
  20. Now when the pro open access witnesses begin their testimony, all members save the chairman have left the hearing. 
  21. Rep Maloney: We need more IP protection. We can’t even protect a song, much less a cure for cancer. 
  22. the members (present) of this subcommittee have the only a cursory grasp on how scholarly publishing and peer review actually works
  23. [Start]

Research and Instructional Technology blog

UO Research Technologist and UODS member Sean Sharp has commenced a blog, Research and Instructional Technology (http://ufolio.uoregon.edu/rit/). Have a look. We’re adding it to our links and encourage our readers to do the same.