Rebecca Kennison

Point & Counterpoint: The Purpose of Institutional Repositories: Green OA or Beyond?

Institutional repositories (IRs) have a conflicted history in terms of purpose. Although always closely associated with the open access movement, in particular open access to the published research through self-archiving (“Green” OA), an approach long championed by Stevan Harnad (e.g., Harnad, 1999) and others, some of the most influential and visionary early essays on IRs speak of them as providing infrastructure for the stewardship of a wide range of institutional output (Lynch, 2003) and as a new way for libraries to support publishing functions (Crow, 2002). And while many libraries have concentrated on green OA to fill their IRs—with or without mandates, always with mixed success— many more have slowly but surely built successful, thriving IRs by providing stewardship of and access to the grey literature, the theses and dissertations, the undergraduate research, and the research data produced on their campuses. In fact, we would argue that libraries are better placed to implement green OA resolutions and mandates when their IR is already well populated and well used with other critical institutional content. An IR should focus on the “I”—on the output of the institution, created by individual researchers producing much more than published peer-reviewed articles.

Clothes Make the (Wo)man: Marlene Dietrich and "Double Drag"

SUMMARY Dietrich, like Madonna, has been called gender-bendingand androgynous, but Dietrichs on- and offscreen fluidity of gender identity, as reflected in her adoption of the “double drag,” upsets the traditional dichotomy encoded more generally as that of male or female and more particularly as that of the butch or femme.

Back to the future: (re)turning from peer review to peer engagement

Key points Scholarly communication – with the exception of traditional (e.g. blind and double‐blind) peer review – prizes the open exchange of ideas. The aim of peer review should be engagement, not judgement. Reviews that improve the quality of a work and thus advance the field are not merely service to the community, but contributions to existing scholarship, and need to be rewarded accordingly; an open and transparent review process is the first step in enabling such reviews to be properly recognized.

Toward a scalable and sustainable approach to open access publishing and archiving for humanities and social sciences societies: a proposal

The proposal we offer here (and in the more extensive ‘white paper’ proposal on which this article is based) tackles head‐on the open access (OA) business models that have proven particularly problematic for implementation of OA in the humanities and social sciences (HSS). Our proposal suggests all tertiary institutions contribute to systemic support of the research process itself, including its entire scholarly output. A bold rethinking of the economics of OA by way of partnerships among scholarly societies and academic libraries funded by an institutional fee structure based on a student‐and‐faculty per‐capita sliding scale, our plan is nevertheless intentionally incremental. Our proposal focuses first on HSS and primarily in the United States, but just as research and scholarship are increasingly global and collaborative, our plan is not bound by discipline or national borders, but can be adopted by all those looking for a more equitable and sustainable OA model.