Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Nice state history, if you can get it: Exploring open access and digital object identifier (DOI) registration in current U.S. state history journals

Hi Zeromonk (and OhanaUnited, as it looks like you created this review page), I just wanted to check to see if there'd been any movement on this article's reviews as it's been about 14 months from first submission and 10 months since the submission was acknowledged. If there's anything I can do to assist with this process, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you for your work on this! Kindly —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)^{t c} 19:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis I will follow-up on this item with the Humanities board. However, I am less familiar with the Humanities journal than with Science and Medicine journals so I can't promise I will get an answer right away. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OhanaUnited, I know you're quite active with the WikiJournals and thought you might know who best to turn to in any case. Thanks much! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)^{t c} 20:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis and OhanaUnited: I'm so sorry, this fell off my radar due to personal circumstances during the pandemic! I have emailed a reviewer this morning and hopefully there will be news on this soon. Zeromonk (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeromonk, it's no trouble at all. Thanks so much! Kindly —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)^{t c} 14:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Reviewing in progress! Zeromonk (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best, thanks Zeromonk! —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)^{t c} 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeromonk: Do you know when will the second reviewer provide their comment by? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: Keeping you in the loop. Zeromonk just informed me that she had another round of declined invites for the second peer reviewer of your article. We'll keep working at it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: Thanks for the update! The first reviewer offered some very insightful (but substantial) suggestions for improvement so I haven't gotten much of a start on implementing anything so that R1 and R2 are reviewing the same manuscript. —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)^{t c} 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review 1[edit source]

reviewer-annotated pdf

Review by Eleanor Shaw , University of Manchester
These assessment comments were submitted on 10 Jan 2023, and refer to this previous version of the article

While open access to historical scholarship is a worthy subject of investigation, this article needs significant revision before it can be published. It takes for granted the importance of its topic and needs to justify it with evidence. It also features a misunderstanding of the publication options available to professional historians working on state level history that needs to be corrected. I have summarised the main issues below and have included a detailed annotated word document.

• The structure of the article does not work for me. If you are committed to maintaining a scientific style of structure, which I as a historian and with an eye to the humanities focus of this journal would try to avoid, the repetition in the introduction needs to be reduced, and instead should be replaced by a justification of why state history journals are of importance, why they should be a priority for open access measures, and how you propose this should be achieved considering the significant financial burden involved. I also would strongly recommend combining the results and discussion section, the results are not complex enough to warrant a separate section in my opinion, and your discussion would be richer for it. If you are willing to abandon the scientific article structure, a simple introduction including a short discussion of your method, followed by sections on open access combining a discussion of the goals, issues with, and your findings would be appropriate, you could include sections along the same lines on DOI, etc. followed by a conclusion would in my opinion work better.

• The article assumes that historians working on state history would only be able to publish in that state’s history journal, or other regionally focused journals. This is not the case, professional historians almost always work on specific location case studies, this in no way limits them to publishing in regional or state level history journals, there are numerous general history or specific disciplinary history journals which regularly publish work on specific locations, whether state or regional. Why then, are state history journals of importance, who are they of importance to, and what evidence do we have of how they are used and by whom, and therefore why should they be the focus of this article, and why should they be a priority for open access?

• Open access is assumed to be a self-evident good in this article. While I think we can all agree that reduced barriers to information is generally a noble goal, open access is a very specific kind of access, and it is, as are all things, political. Access to both primary and secondary sources specifically for historians will always be limited to some degree, due to the nature of our work, and therefore a justification for why state history journals in particular should be open access is needed. The different types of access, including different types of open access, need to be explored more in-depth, and an awareness of the potential issues with open access demonstrated. I recommend the following reading: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465/full https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/push-open-access-making-science-less-inclusive Similarly citation is not a neutral phenomenon, while again tracking citations may be useful on an individual level for scholars, it does not follow that citation is a simple measure for quality, or that citation is the only way in which work may be of use. I recommend a more considered discussion of citation, and recommend these readings to start: https://doi.org/10.1002/fea2.12038 https://doi-org.manchester.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1339022 • I’d like to see you provide more evidence for the usefulness of DOI’s and the impact that their inclusion has on both scholarship and access. Again while we can agree that long term access and ease of use are important, you need evidence to back this up.

• The method is not clear to me, were there only 48 current state history journals that fit your inclusion categories? Or did you chose these 48 based on further specific characteristics? How many state journals are there? I have a number of questions about your inclusion and exclusion criteria that are listed in the comments on the word document. Overall insufficient justification is given for the exclusions and each one needs to be more fully explained.

• There are at least two incidences where I have questioned the relevance of the provided citation to the point being made. Please review these and ensure that your citations are supportive of the point you are making.

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 05:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (to include if published)

[i]

Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Nice state history, if you can get it: Exploring open access and digital object identifier (DOI) registration in current U.S. state history journals

Contents

Article information

Checking in[edit source]

Peer review 1[edit source]

Navigation menu

Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Nice state history, if you can get it: Exploring open access and digital object identifier (DOI) registration in current U.S. state history journals

Article information

Checking in[edit source]

Peer review 1[edit source]

Navigation menu

Search