Navigating new horizons: Openness, blogs, and media studies
by Josephine Diecke and Kai Matuszkiewicz
Introduction
In 2023, UNESCO published the results of a recent survey on the global development of open science.[1] This shows that although open science practices are increasing worldwide, there are still considerable differences between different regions and disciplines, which can be attributed to ‘existing socio-economic, technological and digital divides between countries’.[2] According to the report, these inequalities result from the unequal distribution of resources and can only be remedied through a cultural change in the discipline and an increased focus on collective-collaborative work.[3] Overall, the results can be summarised as a silver lining on the horizon, but further steps and efforts are needed to achieve a (possible and more) golden future in which everyone can participate in science in the same way, without discrimination against socially- and culturally-constructed categories such as race, class, gender, including professional status and affiliation.[4] To us, this image seems appropriate as an introduction, as it describes the situation of the transformation of media studies and its disciplinary culture through open science, which affects working and publication practices and, against the background of increasing integration into international contexts, raises questions about the location of media studies in the academic world and thus also the open science movement.
Open science typically refers to the movement advocating for transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility in scientific research in general.[5] Open scholarship, a concept often used as a synonym for open science, encompasses a broader range of particular academic activities beyond the natural sciences and promotes similar principles of openness and transparency, including making research data, methods, and findings openly available to the public and fostering collaboration and inclusivity in scientific endeavors; it extends these practices to all scholarly disciplines, including the humanities, social sciences, and the arts. Aligned with the ‘NECS – Statement on Open Scholarship’[6] and the goals of the scholarly interest group Open Media Studies within the German Society for Media Studies,[7] our understanding of open media studies – the attempt in media studies to reflect on and practice openness – emphasises both open science and scholarship practices, which underscore a commitment to transparency and collaboration within media studies for the benefit of scholars and the broader public. Hereafter, we primarily refer to the widely used term open science, while acknowledging that open scholarship practices are inherently included in our understanding of the term.
The advent of open science practices in media studies, the associated international connectivity, and the opening up of working practices are contributing to a change in media studies publication culture that is manifesting itself in many ways. Where research projects no longer lead to a concluding monograph but are continually accompanied by publications that reflect the results of the work and present them for discussion as work in progress, publication hierarchies are changing and publication formats are diversifying. This not only entails a re-evaluation of journals compared to books (as has long been the case in other academic disciplines), but also brings new academic publication forms and infrastructures to the fore. For example, preprint archives such as MediArXiv and disciplinary repositories such as media/rep/ are being created to make publications available in open access[8] and, in the course of an increased focus on scholar-led diamond open access, not only are new academic journals being founded but academic blogs are also finding their way into the range of media studies publication formats. Due to their media-specific nature, these are particularly suitable for conducting current research discourse in a low-threshold manner and without a major time delay, thereby expanding the opportunities for participation in this discourse.
In the following, we will look at the Open Media Studies Blog (OMS Blog) as a case study for this form of open access publication practices in media studies.[9] The OMS Blog was founded in 2018 by Sarah-Mai Dang and Alena Strohmaier and has been published by them together with the authors of this article since 2021. The blog sees itself as a discourse platform for all aspects of openness and open science in media studies and follows a ‘lived’ open science approach.[10]This approach guides the conceptual understanding of the blog as well as the resulting and associated editorial practices. For this reason, our contribution takes a decidedly praxeological perspective that views our publishing practices as media practices.[11]
Here, we understand research practices (such as academic publishing) fundamentally as media and data practices.[12] We define the resulting practices as broadly as they are understood in the UNESCO Recommendations on Open Science.[13]This is manifested in our own policy, which is based on the statements of the media studies associations relevant to us.[14] We understand the blog as a ‘socio-technical system’ that results from our editorial activities and the technical infrastructure, so that we consider both aspects and their interdependencies below.[15] Accordingly, we will delve not only into the manifestation of our open science philosophy in the acquisition and management of contributions, the development of new formats, and the expansion of publication avenues, but also into its intertwining with the selection of specific technical infrastructures. We aim to unravel how these choices, in turn, shape the (inter-)disciplinary orientation of our endeavors.
In terms of its objective, the article presents the blog’s program and subjects it to critical self-reflection, as well as its development and orientation. It discusses the role of the platform concept and how it differs from a static website. We also reflect on the potential of this approach and the experience we have gained with it. Of particular interest here are the (new) demands on publications and the changing roles of all those involved in the publication process, which are (re-)negotiated in the field of tension between technological possibilities and traditional publishing habits in the socio-technical system of a media studies blog. To this end, the first part of the article deals with the conceptual level of open access publishing in media studies through the OMS Blog, before subjecting our editorial practices to critical self-reflection in the second part. Both sections deal with the interconnectedness between the open access movement in general and the media studies open access movement in particular and how we constantly renegotiate this relationship in our work on the blog.
Open access publishing in media studies through the lens of OMS Blog: Concepts, debates, questions
Debates about open access publishing in media studies are often closely linked to questions about how science communication in media studies and other humanities and social sciences disciplines is changing as a result of the shift towards open science and the transformative processes that accompany it.[16] This not only establishes a connection to interdisciplinary discourses on science communication and open science,[17] but also enables a disciplinary perspective on these.[18] As a result, traditional ways of academic publishing are being called into question, so that publishers no longer appear to be the only option for the production and distribution of academic publications (even if they are still important players due to the reputation attributed to them). They are being joined by libraries as publishing institutions, for example, or even academia itself, which is increasingly becoming the focus of media studies and science policy under the term ‘scholar-led publication’.[19] It is therefore not surprising that media scholars are seizing this opportunity and creating blogs in order to realise scholar-led open access publishing in media studies. Examples of this are Catherine Grant’s blog Film Studies For Free, Dietmar Kammerer’s blog Filmwissenschaft.umsonst (inspired by Grant’s work), or Sarah-Mai Dang’s blog oa books, which is the forerunner of the OMS Blog.[20]
With the takeover of publishing activities by academics, however, they are also taking on a new role, the reflection and implications of which are now the subject of conferences.[21] In addition, the organisation of open access in media studies faces the challenge that open science infrastructures are generally derived from disciplinary cultures (such as the natural sciences) that are only partially compatible with the working and publication practices of media studies.[22] This manifests itself in problematic bibliometric practices of merely quantifying media studies research output and extends to science policy funding instruments that cannot be reconciled with the publication culture of media studies. If article processing charges (APCs) are not levied by media studies journals, but at the same time are at the center of the major publication funding strategies, and book processing charges (BPCs) play only a subordinate role in funding but are of immense importance for media studies publishing culture, the question of sustainable funding for open access publishing in the humanities and social sciences becomes all the more urgent.[23]
Open science in all its dimensions (and not least open access) is of fundamental importance for media studies, as it demands general accessibility to information and research results and processes and makes it possible to utilise the potential inherent in the digital transformation of the discipline. The associated questioning of established media studies working practices can therefore be seen as a problem, but it can also be seen in a positive light and as an opportunity to rethink research, teaching, and scholarly communication in media studies. The OMS Blog is committed to this approach and accordingly understands open science as a reflective foil in a double sense, which questions established disciplinary working practices against the background of open science as well as critically examining open science for its disciplinary suitability for media studies. Accordingly, we understand open science on the OMS Blog not as a ‘checklist’ to be worked through – consisting of open access, open data, open source, open educational resources, open peer review, and many more – but as an occasion for discourse on theoretical, methodological, or science policy issues which attempts to think through media studies, media culture, methods, practices, and infrastructures in the sense of opening up media studies. This opening includes various aspects, including the challenge by traditional publication habits like a focus on book or printed publications, as well as the emergence of new formats such as academic blogs.
Even if challenges that need to be addressed in this context have already been mentioned in addition to the circulating debates on open access or the potential that lies in open access, it is important to take a closer look at these in order to make the problem horizon clearer, against the background of which open access publishing in media studies is taking place. For example, surveys such as those conducted by the AuROA project show what positions humanities scholars and social scientists take towards open access and what role preconceptions about open access and also traditional publication structures play here.[24] In addition, in German-language media studies, for example, there is currently a canon-critical debate about the supposed classics of the discipline, which is ultimately also a debate about new and old publication channels and formats.[25] Thus, canons often consist of publication lists with books and book contributions and a questioning of the canon or the idea behind it not only invites a differentiation in terms of content (social, cultural, or gender), but also in terms of publication. We are therefore currently in a discursive negotiation process in which traditional publication habits and formats are rubbing up against their critical reflection. However, the question of the publication method is often not reflected on or problematised to a sufficient extent, so that the debate on the opening up of media studies threatens to get stuck on a self-performative contradiction if it continues to follow the well-trodden paths in terms of publication.
So we have to ask ourselves fundamental and self-critical questions: How can we seriously discuss the problematic publishing practices of some (major) publishers if we also publish with them, believing that this is the only way to advance our academic careers?[26] How can we redress inequalities through open data if we are simultaneously feeding ‘data cartels’ that offer us this (aggregated) data and related tools and services for money?[27] Do we as a discipline ensure to a sufficient extent that an open and free (academic) culture does not just benefit a few, but really benefits everyone and does not just continue to center the privileged?[28]
In our view, academic blogs offer interesting opportunities to address the problem areas in media studies raised by these questions. They enable scholar-led academic publishing beyond commercial publication service providers and thus open up opportunities for participation in the media studies discourse – not least for early career researchers.[29] A publication such as the OMS Blog not only integrates authors into the media studies discourse and thereby creates a sense of belonging to the media studies community, but also creates a connection to the humanities and social sciences blogosphere.[30] This consideration is also reflected in the change of platform explained below, which has led to the OMS Blog being published exclusively on the humanities and social sciences metablog Hypotheses since 2023.[31] The use of a scholar-led infrastructure as a platform is intended to protect the blog as an academic publication organ against a loss of control.[32] This also offers the advantage that academic discourse on scholar-led platforms can be freer and more open and offers academia the opportunity to experiment creatively with new publication formats in these publication environments that are more conducive to dialog. Ultimately, this also means exploring new roles of academic publishing in media studies that are opened up by a scholar-led publishing diversification of media studies and that differ from those produced by a publishing industry designed for standardisation. We therefore see a blog such as the OMS Blog not only as a platform that invites scholarly exchange, but also as a field of publishing experimentation whose scope is geared solely to the needs of scholarly publishing culture. This also has consequences for our acquisition strategy, as will be explained in the following section.
In order to keep the experimental field of OMS Blog thematically open, we deliberately understand open science (or open scholarship) on the blog in a broad sense (as explained above) and want to expand this understanding in the future. For example, the prerequisites for open science in the Global South are to be given greater consideration and their media-infrastructural prerequisites reflected on more intensively. For example, even supposedly low-barrier standards can present hurdles and prevent openness if they are based on seemingly self-evident premises such as a permanent power supply, which for various reasons cannot be taken for granted everywhere. It is also necessary to take a closer look at the formalisation and standardisation of infrastructures, which play a major role in open access and open science. For example, the inclusion of media studies journals in indexes such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) often fails simply due to formal criteria that the editorial teams are not aware of or that result from normative settings based on the publication cultures of other disciplines (for example, a minimum number of publications per year).[33] This not only encourages us to reflect on the relationship between open science and open scholarship from a media studies perspective,[34] but also to think more about the mediating function of academic information infrastructures for science communication. Ultimately, however, this not only touches on the question of how media studies positions itself in this field, what it is oriented towards, or can even serve as an orientation itself, but also has far-reaching consequences for the discipline’s self-image and working practices. Due to its format and thematic focus, we consider the OMS Blog to be a predestined discourse platform for such discussions.
The following section reflects on our editorial practices over the last five years, in which over 100 blog posts have been published – individually, in three special series, and one short series. We reflect on various formats, point out lines of development, and provide a praxeological insight into a media studies publication practice that is not only in motion at the macro level, but also at the micro level of a media studies publication organ that attempts to be a mirror, forum, and field of experimentation at the same time.
Editorial practices and self-reflection: Our core values related to (living) openness
The editorial practices of the OMS Blog provide a compelling case study for examining open science through a praxeological perspective. Adopting an operative lens in the following section, our aim is to explore the intersections of openness with financial, technical, social, political, and strategic elements, gaining insights into the boundaries involved. This exploration involves incorporating arguments from the blog and individual posts to provide a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of openness within the OMS Blog context. Furthermore, the examination of the blog’s surrounding social and technical infrastructure concludes with an outlook on our understanding of a platform for lived and living open science in contrast to a static and closed online environment. The topics and debates addressed in our blog posts offer a good starting point for getting familiar with the community that both shapes and is shaped by the content on the blog.
Topics and debates
The history and development of the OMS Blog have been influenced by a diverse understanding and consideration of openness. This can be attributed to varying interpretations of the term, its application in media studies, and the individual perspectives of each blog editor. The shared foundation and core values of our personal understanding of the term and its role in open media studies is outlined in our ‘Leitgedanke’, as mentioned above.[35] Living open science through the OMS Blog in a transparent manner means, to us, facilitating discussions about aspects of openness on the blog itself through a variety of topics and formats.
The most covered topics can be seen as an outcome of a dynamic exchange among editors, authors, and readers who submit their own proposals, respond to calls for proposals, or engage in direct requests. Encouraged to articulate their insights, they actively contribute to the ongoing evolution of what is described as the epitome and result of the digital transformation within the realm of media studies. This evolution unfolds amidst the ever-increasing digitisation of both the global landscape and our specific field.
Our core values are mirrored in the range of topics addressed on the blog. The most recurrent discussions can be identified by examining the frequently used keyword tags. These include terms directly associated with open science, open scholarship, and open media studies, such as: ‘open access’ (31 mentions), ‘openness’ (20 mentions), and ‘open science’ (12 mentions). Additionally, blog posts often delve into a spectrum of categories reflecting the broader interests of our editors and authors. These encompass debates related to: ‘Methoden’ (methods, 19 mentions), ‘Publikationen’ (publications, 17 mentions), ‘Wissenschaftskommunikation’ (science communication, 13 mentions), ‘Forschungsdaten’ (research data, 10 mentions), ‘Forschungsdatenmanagement’ (research data management, 9 mentions), ‘Lehre’ (teaching, 8 mentions), and ‘Best-Practice-Beispiele’ (best practice examples, 8 mentions).
In addition, our three previously published special series ‘Digitale Methoden’[36] (digital methods, 12 mentions), ‘Forschungsdaten’[37] (research data, 10 mentions), and ‘Digitale Tools’[38] (digital tools, 6 mentions) are interspersed throughout. These series cover a variety of text types such as theoretical, methodological or praxeological reflections, empirical findings, research notes, thought experiments, interviews, personal comments, experience reports, and practical examples from research and teaching.[39] A special series consists of thematically related short contributions that are published over an extended period and in succession.
Apart from the frequently employed keywords by our authors, the community’s interests are reflected in the most visited posts. These primarily delve into topics such as a methodologically diverse exploration of digital media, prominently featured in the special series ‘Digitale Methoden’.[40] Additionally, practical suggestions for fostering an open and research-driven approach to course design,[41] along with the advocacy for transparent sharing of open educational resources,[42] have garnered the most attention from our readers. Yet, the critical scrutiny of open access practices and publication platforms has also captured the community’s awareness.[43]
As outlined in our style sheet,[44] we encourage authors, whenever feasible, to not only delve into the blog’s primary topics but also to connect with one another by adopting previously discussed perspectives. A recent illustration of this approach was a short series focusing on the practical aspects of open access publishing, presented from various viewpoints.[45] This series culminated in a panel discussion at the 2022 conference of the Gesellschaft für Medienwissenschaft in Halle (Germany), the insights of which were encapsulated in a concluding blog post.[46] This initiative also served as an experiment to evaluate the blog’s capacity to function as an accessible medium for exchanging and interacting with opinions both online and offline.
Formats and infrastructure
A significant aspect of the blog is its affiliation with the Gesellschaft für Medienwissenschaft (GfM), the German Association for Media Studies. This connection is particularly pronounced through its involvement with the GfM special interest group Open Media Studies (‘AG Open Media Studies’),[47] a venture conceptualised and co-founded by the OMS Blog founders Sarah-Mai Dang and Alena Strohmaier, in collaboration with Adelheid Heftberger, Thomas Waitz, and Simon David Hirsbrunner. Present collaborations are exemplified by reciprocal linking on respective websites and are characterised by sustained engagement. This engagement encompasses active participation in workgroup events, contributions to the GfM annual conferences,[48] and the creation of blog posts that seamlessly align with the thematic focus of these collaborative initiatives.[49] A further significant connection to the GfM involves the initial utilisation of the online technical infrastructure of the GfM publication organ, the Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft (ZfM). This platform hosted the blog from 2018 until the relaunch of the ZfM website in 2022, and published all posts until 2023.[50]
In light of our reflections on open access and open science practices, we recently decided to transition our initial web presence from the ZfM infrastructure to Hypotheses. Motivated by its non-commercial nature and its commitment to providing a free service for academic blogs in the humanities and social sciences since 2009,[51] this German platform, offered by OpenEdition in collaboration with the Max Weber Foundation, consolidates blogs to enhance visibility and ensure content archiving.[52] Supported by community management, it unites language-specific portals and their associated blogs on WordPress, featuring ongoing plugin development. This move not only reflects our commitment to open science but also signifies our eagerness to embrace new formats and engage with diverse communities.
One of the strongest incentives to move away from static websites was our desire to experiment with alternative publishing formats and explore what Jeroen Sondervan, Jean Francois Lutz, and Bianca Kramer termed ‘experimental publishing platforms’.[53] The purpose of corresponding infrastructures are characterised as follows:
The underlying technical (open) infrastructure of such platforms enables communities to build and establish new publishing models, that for example disintegrate the publishing functions, or offer new open science workflows like, amongst others, open peer review, replicability, modularity, machine-readability, pre-registration of hypotheses and methods, transparency and ease of accessing methods, validation and re-usability of data and inference. These new ways of publishing research, designed as they are specifically around the needs of research and researchers rather than for readability or income-generation, should be able to change the incentive system of publication to favour any or all aspects of good research practice.[54]
This approach resonates with us and serves as the answer to questions about the publication formats we have previously pursued, the reasons behind them, and their current trajectories. We initiated our journey with individual blog posts that needed to be formally integrated into the ZfM’s Drupal CMS, influencing the style sheet. Soon after, the desire emerged to publish thematically-connected special series, a venture we have successfully undertaken three times. We are also open to exploring other serial formats, extending beyond single posts but not reaching the extent of an entire series. This flexibility is possible due to our independence from a fixed publication schedule. The longing for a more extensive exploration of a subject or research question in the form of a series continues to captivate us. Currently, inspired by the dynamic environment on Hypotheses and the Mittelalter-Blog,[55] we are conceptualising and developing ideas for the publication of a rolling collective volume (‘rollender Sammelband’). However, we approach this alternative format with care, recognising that its potential must be meaningfully realised. Therefore, we invite submissions from interested authors, valuing the thoughtful exploration of diverse topics and formats connected to open media studies.
Through this transition, we aim at introducing a bigger variety in the pluralism of publication formats. This extends to our evolving understanding of what constitutes a publication, particularly in light of the growing prominence of data-driven research. We anticipate exploring and reflecting on digital methods through formats such as data papers, data visualisation, and research data. Additionally, we aim to implement a sustainability strategy, focusing on aspects like long-term storage, emulation, and software. We eagerly await future submissions on these subjects and, whenever feasible, plan to experiment with innovative formats. Another aspect of this strategy involves the additional preservation of our published blog posts through the media studies online repository media/rep/.[56] This platform offers additional aggregators like BASE and adlr.link,[57] further contributing to our commitment to sustainable and widespread connections with broader humanities peer groups, with the goal of democratising science communication.
Finally, the OMS Blog goes beyond its blog posts by actively sharing additional elements, metadata, and information to enhance the overall experience. The blog’s foundation is guided by a central principle, as articulated in the ‘About the blog’ (‘Über das Blog’) section, emphasising a distinct philosophy that shapes its content. The inclusion of relevant keywords (‘Schlagwörter’) ensures discoverability and categorisation of content, contributing to a more organised and accessible knowledge repository. Notably, the blog maintains a permanent call for postings, fostering continuous engagement and contribution from the community. Additionally, the integration of social media platforms such as Twitter/X, Mastodon, and Facebook, signifies a deliberate shift towards a team-centric approach, steering away from individual accounts. Looking ahead, the blog envisions a streamlined process for sharing news, prompting a need for collaborative strategy discussions – deciding the frequency and nature of shared information, including considerations for reposting content from other sources. The ongoing commitment to refining these practices reflects the blog’s dedication to effective communication and community engagement.
In lieu of a conclusion: Decision-making and outlook
To facilitate the gathering, organisation, and deliberation of ideas, posts, and decisions, we rely on two pivotal tools. First, we engage in asynchronous communication through Mattermost, a communication service hosted at Philipps-Universität Marburg. Additionally, our second key tool involves participating in monthly editorial meetings, which can occur either in person or online. During these sessions, we consistently introspect on the openness of our decision-making process, discuss our expectations from authors and guest editors, and assess the information shared on the blog. This self-questioning process aims to ensure alignment with FAIR and CARE principles,[58] along with specific accessibility criteria in technical and social terms.
One of the most recent discussions revolved around the fact that our peer group primarily communicates in German, with a few posts also available in English. The current question at hand is whether we should broaden our audience and invite potential contributors by encouraging posts in additional languages.[59] However, addressing this issue alone does not tackle the broader challenge of overcoming exclusionary mechanisms. We operate and publish within an environment shaped by Western technological and academic practices. The crucial question arises: do these infrastructures inherently support other practices and contexts? Should we adjust our infrastructure and workflows to accommodate a more diverse range of potential authors and research fields, or is it more pertinent for us to actualise our projects and vision while maintaining transparency through statements on the blog?
Another aspect to consider is the question of which positions and debates we aim to emphasise on the blog. We are currently deliberating on whether it suffices to potentially provide space for a variety of perspectives through an inclusive attitude of ‘everyone and everything welcome’, or if we should actively navigate through pre-selection. Furthermore, how can we genuinely achieve a state of plurality when certain academic players and positions dominate over others? Through the blog, we aim to consider how strongly the publication culture is shaped by certain power mechanisms and how this can be actively transformed, with our help, for the better of all. In addition to engaging in substantive discussions about various roles in the academic publishing system, we strive to dismantle common hierarchies by offering accessible and fast publishing routes for authors and editors at various academic levels.[60] It is crucial for us to continually question what is considered ‘normal’ and how we can avoid closed science and pseudo open access. One of our recent lessons learned, for example, is that we want to use our ecosystem on Hypotheses more effectively in the future to circumvent certain problematic publication paths from third-party providers that authors and editors may have missed with us. Nonetheless, we recognise our roles, along with those of our authors and guest editors, as part of an ongoing negotiation process: How does each party define openness, and how is this manifested in our blog?
Another alternative approach with the OMS Blog has been to provide authors the choice of publishing content anonymously. However, the feasibility of an open discussion on a critical topic finding its way to a publishable post is also contingent on time and, eventually, financial resources. For example, there have been instances where we intended to showcase certain cases on the blog, but these plans were not realised in the end. Embracing a culture of openness also means encouraging members of all academic levels to share their ideas with us. Conversely, if we or the authors are not convinced of the results, or if circumstances require a decline due to personal or professional reasons, it is more important for us not to (have to) push them toward qualitatively and ethically questionable outcomes. Instead, we aim to establish and maintain longer-lasting connections, creating a network of authors who consider publishing with us as their first choice whenever they have a topic related to open media studies in mind. This strategy promises a more open and sustainable approach to open science, open scholarship, and open media studies, not exclusively driven by publication pressure but operating within an understanding of ‘for the benefits of scientists’ as envisioned by UNESCO.[61]
Authors
Josephine Diecke is Assistant Professor of Film Studies at University of Zurich. She has conducted extensive research on the history of film color technologies, moving image preservation, and digital methods for computer-assisted text and video analysis. Her expertise stems from her work as a research associate on the Filmcolors project (University of Zurich), as the academic coordinator of the Digital Cinema-Hub project (Philipps-Universität Marburg), and as a film lab technician for various service providers. She holds a Ph.D. from University of Zurich with a thesis on the color film processes Agfacolor and Orwocolor. She is also co-editor of Open Media Studies Blog.
Kai Matuszkiewicz is a postdoctoral researcher and coordinator of the media studies repository media/rep/ at the Institute for Media Studies at Philipps University of Marburg. His work focuses primarily on digital media, methods, and infrastructures. Among other things, he deals with open science, digital humanities, (research) data and (research) data management, media didactics, game studies, as well as media production and reception. He is co-editor of Open Media Studies blog and co-spokesperson of the Open Media Studies working group of Gesellschaft für Medienwissenschaft.
References
Arbeitskreis Kanonkritik. ‘Welcher Kanon, wessen Kanon? Eine Einladung zur Diskussion’, Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2022: 159-171; http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/18119.
AuROA. Publizieren und Open Access in den Geisteswissenschaften: Erkenntnisse aus dem Projekt AuROA zu den Stakeholdern im Publikationsprozess. Essen, 2022, https://projekt-auroa.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/AuROA-Publizieren-und-Open-Access-in-den-Geisteswissenschaften.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2024).
Barlow, A. The rise of the blogosphere. Santa Barbara: Praeger. 2007.
Burkhardt, M., Geenen, D., Gerlitz, C., Hind, S., Kaerlein, T., Lämmerhirt, D., and Volmar, A. (eds) Interrogating datafication: Towards a praxeology of data. Bielefeld: transcript, 2022; http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/19165.
Dang, S. ‘Publish Less, Communicate More! Reflecting the Potentials and Challenges of a Hybrid Self-Publishing Project’ in Shaping the digital dissertation: Knowledge production in the arts and humanities, edited by V. Kuhn and A. Finger. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2021: 129-150.
Dang, S., Diecke, J., Matuszkiewicz, K., and Strohmaier, A. ‘5 Jahre und 100 Posts später.
Die OMS-Redaktion zur neuen Phase des Open Media Studies Blog’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 5, 22 September 2023: https://zfmedienwissenschaft.de/online/5-jahre-und-100-posts-spaeter (accessed on 19 January 2024).
David, L. ‘OPEN COURSE WARE — Eine Gedankenskizze zur Hochschullehre von Lisa David’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 2, 9 January 2019: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20237.
Eickelmann, J. ‘DIGITALE MEDIEN UND METHODEN — Jennifer Eickelmann zu Diffraktion als Methode’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 3, 30 April 2020: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20269.
Fischer, G. ‘Die Kunst, sich selbst zu verlegen’, 3 May 2023: https://irights.info/artikel/kunst-sich-selbst-zu-verlegen-banales-publizieren/31886 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
Fox, J. et al. ‘Open Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 71, No. 5, 2021: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab029.
Grüntjens, J. and Schaper, S. ‘Forschungspraktiken sind Medienpraktiken – Jennifer Grüntjens und Sabrina Schaper zu einer mediendidaktischen Perspektive auf hochschulisches Forschen, Lehren und Lernen in einer Kultur der Digitalität’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 5, 3 August 2022: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20311.
Heimstädt, M. and Dobusch, L. ‘PREDATORY OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS: AUSWEG OPEN PEER REVIEW? – Eine Einschätzung von Maximilian Heimstädt und Leonhard Dobusch’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 1, 24 July 2018: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20257.
Heise, C. Von Open Access zu Open Science: Zum Wandel digitaler Kulturen der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation. Lüneburg: meson press, 2018.
Höper, J., Eichler, J., and Linneweber, J. Open Access disziplinorientiert und nachhaltig ermöglichen: Finanzierung von Open-Access-Publikationen in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Ein disziplinorientierter Ansatz. Bielefeld: wbv. 2023: https://doi.org/6004955.
Inderst, R. ‘DIGITALE MEDIEN UND METHODEN – Rudolf Inderst über Close Playing’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 3, 11 February 2020: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20263.
Knöchelmann, M. ‘Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?’, Publications, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2019: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065.
Krake, P. et al. ‘The Vienna Principles. A Vision for Scholarly Communication in the 21st Century’, 2016: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.55597.
Lauer, G. ‘Datentracking in den Wissenschaften. Wissenschaftsorganisationen und die bizarre Asymmetrie im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem’, o-bib, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2022: 1-13; https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/5796.
Lippincott, S. Library as publisher: New models of scholarly communication for a new era. 2017:https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9944345.
Matuszkiewicz, K. and Dang, S. ‘Open-Access-Transformation in der Medienwissenschaft – Ein Bericht von Kai Matuszkiewicz und Sarah-Mai Dang’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 5, 9 December 2022: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20322.
Niebling, L., Raczkowski, F., Reinerth, M., and Stollfuß, S. ‘DIE MEDIENWISSENSCHAFT IM LICHTE IHRER METHODISCHEN NACHVOLLZIEHBARKEIT – Laura Niebling, Felix Raczkowski, Maike Sarah Reinerth und Sven Stollfuß für ein Methoden-Handbuch Digitale Medien’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 2, 11 September 2019: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20256.
Palmberger, M. ‘DIGITALE MEDIEN UND METHODEN – Monika Palmberger über digitale Tagebücher als “Media of Care” und Narrative der Flucht’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 4, 8 February 2021: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20295.
Pilipets, E. ‘DIGITALE MEDIEN UND METHODEN – Elena Pilipets über den methodischen Umgang mit visuellen Plattform-Inhalten und Internet-Memes’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 4, 12 January 2021: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20293.
Reagle, J. ‘Free as in sexist? Free culture and the gender gap’, First Monday, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2012:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i1.4291.
Regier, R. ‘The Institutionalized Racism of Scholarly Publishing’, A Way of Happening, 9 June 2018:https://awayofhappening.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/the-institutionalized-racism-of-scholarly-publishing/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
Ropohl, G. Allgemeine Technologie: eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing, 2009.
Scholar-Led.Network. ‘The Scholar-Led.Network-Manifesto’, 19 September 2022: https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7079936.
Schröter, J. ‘DIGITALE MEDIEN UND METHODEN – Jens Schröter zur Medienarchäologie der digitalen Medien’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 3, 22 July 2020: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20276.
Schüttpelz, E. and Gießmann, S. ‘Medien der Kooperation: Überlegungen zum Forschungsstand’, Navigationen – Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturwissenschaften, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015: 7-55; http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/1424.
Šimukovič, E. ‘Eine Erfolgsgeschichte? Open Access zwischen kollektivem Handeln, (un-)sichtbaren Infrastrukturen und neoliberalen Verwandlungen’, Talk, Open-Access-Tage 2019: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3482831.
Slavcheva, A. ‘OPEN-ACCESS-FINANZIERUNG – MISSION (IM)POSSIBLE? – Adriana Slavcheva zu Open-Access-Finanzierungsmodellen für die Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 5, 10 August 2022: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20312.
Sondervan, J. ‘Open Science and Open Media Studies – Questions on a culture in transition’, Open Media Studies Blog, Vol. 1, 29 October 2018: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/20283.
Sondervan, J., Lutz, J., and Kramer, B. ‘Alternative Publishing Platforms’, preprint, 21 April 2022: https://doi.org/10.21428/996e2e37.3ebdc864.
Swauger, S. ‘Open access, power, and privilege. A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”’, College & Research Libraries News, Vol. 78, No. 11, 2017: 603-606;https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18434 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
UNESCO, ‘Open Science Outlook 1. Status and Trends around the World’, UNESCO, 2023: https://doi.org/10.54677/GIIC6829.
UNESCO, ‘UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science’, UNESCO, 2021: https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546.
Walkowski, N. Beyond the flow: Scholarly publications during and after the digital. Lüneburg: meson press, 2019.
Wilkinson, M. et al. ‘The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’, Scientific Data, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016: https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
Xia, J. Predatory publishing. Routledge: New York, 2022.
[1] In this article, we refer to the broad understanding of open science as set out by UNESCO as a working definition: ‘[O]pen science is defined as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society […]’. UNESCO 2021, p. 7.
[2] UNESCO 2023, p. 3.
[3] However, it should not be assumed that the realisation of open science will automatically lead to an improvement in science as a whole, as open science itself may contain excluding practices or premises that certain scientific (working) cultures accept as standard, but which cannot always be directly transferred to others, such as the Global South (see Fox et al. 2021). However, there are already initial efforts within the open science movement that are putting the appropriateness of openness to the test. For example, the CARE principles deal with (research) data that must be protected for ethical reasons. See https://www.gida-global.org/care (accessed on 6 May 2024).
[4] In the form outlined, it is of course an ideal concept that cannot be implemented in practice in such a way that it can do equal justice to all those involved, but in our view it is suitable for outlining a far-reaching vision of future (open) academic working contexts due to its comprehensive claim.
[5] UNESCO 2021.
[6] https://cms.necs.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/version_2_draft_necs_statement_on_open_science_and_scholarship.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[7] https://gfmedienwissenschaft.de/gesellschaft/ags/openmediastudies (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[8] https://osf.io/preprints/mediarxiv (accessed on 19 January 2024); https://mediarep.org/home (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[9] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[10] Both concepts play a central role in the work of the blog – this is not only because the term open science is viewed critically in the humanities, leading to the growing importance of alternatives such as open scholarship or simply openness (see Sondervan 2018). Additionally, openness holds significance for media studies as it enables the exploration of aspects or practices that extend beyond the traditional academic realm, yet remain relevant to the field.
[11] Schüttpelz & Gießmann 2015.
[12] Grüntjens & Schaper 2022; Burkhardt et al. 2022.
[13] UNESCO 2021.
[14] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/leitgedanke (accessed on 19 January 2024); see for example the corresponding statement of NECS on Open Scholarship: https://cms.necs.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/version_2_draft_necs_statement_on_open_science_and_scholarship.pdf(accessed on 19 January 2024).
[15] Ropohl 2009.
[16] Heise 2018; Walkowski 2019.
[17] Krake et al. 2016.
[18] Dang 2021.
[19] Lippincott 2017; Scholar-Led.Network 2022.
[20] https://filmstudiesforfree.blogspot.com/ (accessed on 19 January 2024); https://filmwissenschaftumsonst.wordpress.com/ (accessed on 19 January 2024); https://www.oabooks.de/blog/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[21] Fischer 2023.
[22] On the relationship between open science and the humanities, see also Knöchelmann 2019.
[23] Höper et al. 2023.
[24] AuROA 2022.
[25] Arbeitskreis Kanonkritik 2022.
[26] One example of this is publications that are not freely and openly accessible in open access and can only be read with a corresponding affiliation. This ultimately excludes independent scholars and non-academics (see also Šimukovič 2019). Predatory journals are another major problem in this field, but they hardly play a role in the media studies publication culture, which does not charge APCs (see also Xia 2022).
[27] Lauer 2022.
[28] Reagle 2012; Swauger 2017; Regier 2018.
[29] In the German-speaking funding landscape in particular, blogs represent one of the few opportunities for media studies to implement diamond open access publishing.
[30] Barlow 2007. Parts of this blogosphere are, for example, the Mittelalter-Blog or the Soziologie-Blog. https://mittelalter.hypotheses.org/;https://soziologieblog.hypotheses.org/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[31] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/ (accessed on January 19 2024). The reason for this change is that we want to experiment more with digital publication formats and their possibilities, as explained below. See also Dang et al. 2023.
[32] One example of the takeover of academic service providers by commercial actors is Knowledge Unlatched. https://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/ (accessed on 19 January 2024). COPIM is a project that consciously thinks about and avoids this problem and can thus show new ways forward for open access. https://copim.pubpub.org/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[33] https://doaj.org/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[34] Sondervan 2018.
[35] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/leitgedanke (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[36] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/tag/sonderreihe-digitale-methoden (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[37] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/tag/sonderreihe-forschungsdaten (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[38] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/tag/sonderreihe-digitale-tools (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[39] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/leitgedanke (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[40] Schröter 2020; Pilipets 2021; Niebling et al. 2019; Inderst 2020; Eickelmann 2020; Palmberger 2021.
[41] Grüntjens & Schaper 2022.
[42] David 2019.
[43] Heimstädt & Dobusch 2018.
[44] https://mediastudies.hypotheses.org/files/2023/08/OMS-Blog_Stylesheet_final.pdf?customize_changeset_uuid=501234db-2b0a-41e5-b0bb-d2255b142aec&customize_autosaved=on&customize_messenger_channel=preview-18 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[45] Slavcheva 2022.
[46] Matuszkiewicz & Dang 2022.
[47] https://ag-openmediastudies.de (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[48] Panel ‘Mental Workload 2.5: Open-Access-Transformationen in der Medienwissenschaft – Arbeitsprozesse mit Zukunft?’: https://gfm2022.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/programm/ (accessed on 19 January 2024); Panel ‘“Open by Default”? Wo machen uns Rhetoriken von “Openness” als Medienwissenschaftler_innen abhängig?’: http://gfm2023.de (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[49] Matuszkiewicz & Dang 2022.
[50] Dang et al. 2023.
[51] https://hypotheses.org/about-hypotheses (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[52] https://de.hypotheses.org/ueber-hypotheses (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[53] Sondervan & Lutz & Kramer 2022.
[54] Sondervan & Lutz & Kramer 2022.
[55] https://mittelalter.hypotheses.org/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[56] https://mediarep.org/collections/95537b69-40ea-4d28-8faf-8f7fb19db98c (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[57] https://www.base-search.net/; https://katalog.adlr.link/ (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[58] Wilkinson et al. 2016; https://www.gida-global.org/care (accessed on 19 January 2024).
[59] However, there are also historical and pragmatic reasons for concentrating on German-language contributions. The blog has a close (and personal) connection to the Open Media Studies working group of the German-speaking Society of Media Studies (GfM) and therefore focuses primarily on this community.
[60] This includes not only directly approaching researchers, especially early career researchers – who should be offered publication opportunities regardless of their (institutional) contexts – but also critically reflecting on publication hierarchies in which blogs and other newer publication formats are disadvantaged compared to journals or books.
[61] UNESCO 2021, p. 2.