Annotation | Chris Aldrich

Read Collaborative Community Review on PubPub by Heather Staines

In preparation for Peer Review Week, I wanted to take a closer look at some of the collaborative community review experiments that have happened recently on PubPub. Finding new ways to harness engagement in scholarly communications is a goal of the Knowledge Futures Group, and inline annotation is a technology that I rely upon every day to organize my thoughts and track my online reading. I reached out to the authors of three forthcoming MIT Press books that have undergone this type of review during the last year. I was excited to learn about their experiences and to share some of their observations here.

A short text “interview” with the authors of three works that posted versions of their books online for an open review via annotation.

These could be added to the example and experience of Kathleen Fitzpatrick.

“Criticism is a marker of respect and an acknowledgement that others see in us the ability to learn.” they noted. ❧

quote from Catherine D’Ignazio, Assistant Professor, Emerson College, and Lauren Klein, Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, authors of Data Feminism.
Annotated on June 21, 2021 at 07:57AM

He notes that authors of such projects should consider the return on investment. It take time to go through community feedback, so one needs to determine whether the pay off will be worthwhile. Nevertheless, if his next work is suitable for community review, he’d like to do it again. ❧

This is an apropos question. It is also somewhat contingent on what sort of platform the author “owns” to be able to do outreach and drive readers and participation.
Annotated on June 21, 2021 at 05:12PM

Bookmarked Conversations in the cloud (voicethread.com)

Amazing conversations about media

Mentioned by Lysandra Cook at I Annotate 2021.

Looks like a fun tool to try out.

Bookmarked Digital Social Reading public bibliography (Zotero | Groups)

This is a public bibliography collecting the works published on the topic of "Digital Social Reading".

It is a work-in-progress maintained by Federico Pianzola with contributions by Simone Rebora, Peter Boot, and Berenike Herrmann.

Around half of the records have complete abstracts or descriptions in metadata and are tagged according to the categories described in the article Rebora et al. (2020), "Digital Humanities and Digital Social Reading."

Some records may be incomplete.

If you would like to contribute to the library adding new records or tagging existing ones, please contact federico.pianzola@unimib.it

Owner:Federico Pianzola

Registered: 2019-11-01

I’ve been following this bibliography on Zotero for a while. It’s definitely some good stuff.

Bookmarked Jenea Cohn's Writing by

Jenea Cohn (Jenae Cohn)

Writing I explore emergent questions about how technology impacts the ways that we read, write, and communicate, particularly in higher education. How do we read deeply in digital spaces? Reading on a screen is a different experience than reading off of paper. But is it necessarily worse, more distr...

Her book Skim, Dive, Surface:Teaching Digital Reading looks particularly interesting.

Read Making Our Mark: 2021 Innovator in Residence to Focus on Creative Notetaking (The Library of Congress)

The strike-throughs, underlines, doodles, and marginalia made by historical figures in their personal papers at the Library of Congress give researchers a more intimate sense of who they were. These markings sometimes shed light on the story of how a work was made or received. Researchers can understand more about the creative process, opinions and musings of people throughout the centuries by understanding these historical markings that are often, literally and figuratively, in the margins. Artist and educator Courtney McClellan is inspired by this tradition of mark-making, and today the Library of Congress announced her appointment as 2021 Innovator in Residence.McClellan’s project, Speculative Annotation, will invite Americans to join this historical lineage of annotators by creatively engaging with a curated collection of free to use items from the

ᔥ I Annotate 2021 in I Annotate 2021 | Program (06/19/2021 16:10:21)

Bookmarked on 2021-06-20 at 7:19 PM; Read on 2021-06-21 at 5:22 PM

doodles ❧

aka drolleries

Annotated on June 21, 2021 at 05:19PM

These markings sometimes shed light on the story of how a work was made or received. Researchers can understand more about the creative process, opinions and musings of people throughout the centuries by understanding these historical markings that are often, literally and figuratively, in the margins. ❧

In addition to looking in the margins, one must also look at contemporaneous copies of both printed and privately held (or collected) commonplace books to cast a wider net on these practices.

Annotated on June 21, 2021 at 05:21PM

The project will be available in summer 2021 on labs.loc.gov. ❧

Return to this project in July 2021 to see it in action.

Annotated on June 21, 2021 at 05:22PM

Read A Year in Marginalia by Sam Anderson (The Millions)

The writing I enjoy doing most, every year, is marginalia: spontaneous bursts of pure, private response to whatever book happens to be in front of me. It’s the most intimate, complete, and honest form of criticism possible — not the big wide-angle aerial shot you get from an official review essay, but a moment-by-moment record of what a book actually feels like to the actively reading brain. ❧

This is a phenomenal way to do a look back at a year in reading. I’ll have to consider how to pull it off for myself this year.

Annotated ‘What I Really Want Is Someone Rolling Around in the Text’ by Sam Anderson (nytimes.com)

The practice, back then, was surprisingly social — people would mark up books for one another as gifts, or give pointedly annotated novels to potential lovers. ❧

This could be an interesting gift idea. Definitely shows someone that you were actively thinking about them for extended lengths of time while they were away.

It’s also sort of founding example for the idea of social annotation given that most prior annotation was for personal use. (Though Owen Gingerich has shown that early annotations were copied from book to book and early scribes added annotations to texts for readers as well.)

It also demonstrates the idea of proof of work (in this case love “work”), which is part of the reason that social annotation in an educational setting using tools like Hypothes.is is worthwhile. Students are indicating (via social signaling) to a teacher that they’ve read and actively engaged with the course material.

Of course, unlike the example, they’re not necessarily showing “true love” of the material!