WALKOWSKI

SCHOLARLY

FLOW

BEYOND

THE

PUBLICATIONS

DIGITAL

Beyond the Flow

Beyond the Flow: Scholarly Publications During and After the DigitalNiels-Oliver Walkowski

Bibliographical Information of the German National LibraryThe German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche ­National­bibliografie­(German­National­Bibliography);­detailed­ bibliographic­information­is­available­online­at­http://dnb.d-nb.de

Published­in­2019­by­meson­press,­Lüneburg.www.meson.press

Design­concept:­Torsten­Köchlin,­Silke­KriegCover­image:­Yuichiro­Haga­(www.flickr.com/photos/infinity-d/6781064978)The­print­edition­of­this­book­is­printed­by­Books­on­ Demand,­Norderstedt

ISBN­(Print):­­ 978-3-95796-160-0ISBN­(PDF):­ 978-3-95796-161-7ISBN­(EPUB):­ 978-3-95796-162-4DOI:­10.14619/1600

The­digital­editions­of­this­publication­can­be­downloaded­freely­at:­ www.meson.press

This­publication­is­licensed­unter­CC­BY-SA­4.0­(Creative­Commons­Attribution-ShareAlike­4.0­International).­To­view­a­copy­of­this­license,­ visit:­https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Contents

Introduction ­11

[ 1 ] Cyberpublishing  27The­ACM­Publishing­Plan ­27The­Roaring­90s ­29The­Modular­Article ­33Publication­Formats­Along­the­Path­of­Modular­Articles ­40

[ 2 ] World Wide Publishing  45Position­of­Points­in­Infrastructure­and­Virtual­ Publishing­Environments ­45Programmatic­Framing­and­Organisational­Self-Awareness ­48Early­Theoretical­Evaluations­of­Digital­Publications ­49

[ 3 ] Publishing 3.0  53The­Open­Laboratory­Book ­54Aggregations ­62Workflow­Publications ­65Semantic­Publications ­79Liquid­Publications ­95Enhanced­Publications ­103Nano-Publications ­117Automated­Publications ­128Unbound­Books ­130Single-Resource­Publications ­138Transmedia­Publications ­143

[ 4 ] Publishing-Com Bubble  159Hybrid­Publications ­160Scaling­Digital­Publication­Concepts ­168Data­Papers ­180Self-Contained­Publications ­191Putting­Digital­Publications­Into­Context ­204

[ 5 ] Post-Digital …  209A­Less­Random­Definition­of­the­Digital ­209Topological,­Typological­and­Mathematical­Knowledge ­216Representation­Strategies,­Intermediality­and­Their­ Relationships ­224Representing­in­Times­of­Calculated­Calculation ­230The­Three­Epistemological­Effects­of­Calculated­Calculation ­238Publications­Beyond­Cold­Technology­and­Pure­Theory ­245

[ 6 ] … Publishing  251Concepts­of­Social­Aspects­in­Digital­Publications­and­What­ They­Miss ­251The­Ambiguous­Issue­of­Heterogeneity ­267Publication­Formats­as­Domain­Driven­Discourse­Objects ­274Fundamental­Tensions­between­Publication­and­ Communication ­290Publications­in­Terms­of­Communication ­306

Conclusion ­333

A P P E N D I X

Acronyms ­349References ­351

DIGITAL PUBLISHING

MODELING

MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS

POST-DIGITALITY

For the last twenty-five years, research on so-called digital publications was aimed at reconfiguring established modes of scholarly communication. Interest in the field is driven by the idea that the advent of digital technologies can solve a variety of past problems of scholarly publications, thereby constructing a conceptual space for negotiation of past and future. Issues at stake are epistemological commitments to strategies of production and representation of knowledge, as well as different understandings of the impacts of technology. The field thus shapes how we refer to scientific knowledge in the light of digital technologies. The present contribution examines how related research developed scenarios of the past and future of scholarly communications. Built on this enquiry, an alternative, more ecologically informed approach to understanding the changing landscape of scholarly publications is proposed. An attempt is thus made to put new light on a variety of conflicts that have dominated this research field throughout its existence.

IntroductionIn­the­year­2006,­Owen­published­The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization.­The­goal­of­this­work­was­to­find­answers­to­the­question­of­“how­the­ongoing­process­of­digitization­has­impacted­on­the­substance­of­formal­scientific­communication­as­reflected­in­the­scientific­article”­(15).­There­are­several­elements­in­this­quote­that­are­worth­discussing.­To­begin­with,­it­draws­attention­to­the­fact­that­an­idea­exists­which­presumes­that­the­digital­representation­of­the­main­method­of­communication­in­science­—­scholarly­publications­—­could­have­a­greater­impact­on­such­methods,­beyond­just­representing­them.­While­the­term­digitization­suggests­that­articles­are­merely­digitized,­the­whole­of­the­sentence­reveals­a­pos-sibility for the representation to apply its own set of changes to the thing represented.­The­process­of­digitization­is­no­longer­a­one-way­relation-ship,­and­the­digital­form­more­than­just­a­container.­Another­interesting­aspect­is­the­very­relationship­between­the­scientific­article­as­an­object­and­scientific­communication­as­a­practice.­The­quote­calls­to­mind­that­the­object­happens­to­be­not­just­an­object­within­this­practice,­but­that­the shape of the article is an expression of the regularities of scholarly communication,­in­the­same­way­as­the­qualities­of­articles­facilitate­and­shape­specific­forms­of­scholarly­communication.­This­relationship­makes­it­possible­to­respond­to­the­question­of­potential­changes­in­scholarly­communication,­by­having­a­look­at­what­happened­to­the­article­form­after­articles­were­digitized.­The­final­facet­to­be­highlighted­is­an­assumption­that­seems­reasonable­under­the­aforementioned­circumstances:­if­digitization­changed­the­substance­of­scientific­communication,­would­such­changes­reflect­a­certain­substance­of­the­digital­form?

In­the­above­discussion­of­the­dimensions­of­Owen’s­quote,­the­basic­shape­of­a­research­field­was­outlined­that­formed­nearly­twenty-five­years­ago­under­the­notion­of­digital scholarly publishing or digital scholarly pub-lications.­There­is­always­a­lot­of­contingency­in­the­attempt­to­set­a­starting­point­for­a­slow­transition.­However,­this­stimulates­the­debate,­and­for­the­abovementioned­context­there­are­a­bunch­of­reasons­to­define­the­year­1995­as­a­crucial­year­for­something­that­could­be­called­the­transition­from­Electronic Publications to Digital Publications.

Electronic­publishing­was­primarily­about­burning­articles­on­CD-ROMs­and­putting­print­versions­of­articles­online.­The­form­of­the­article,­its­main­features,­had­not­been­modified.­Neither­did­those­digital­copies­make­use­of­more­advanced­possibilities­of­digital­technologies,­as­com-prehensively­discussed­by­Hitchcock,­Carr,­and­Hall­(1996),­Alsop,­Tompsett,­

12 Beyond the Flow

and­Wisdom­(1997),­as­well­as­Peek­and­Pomerantz­(1998).­In­this­sense,­Hitchcock­describes­the­time­before­1995­as­“the­calm­before­the­storm,”­with the term storm referring to more serious attempts of completely rethinking­what­a­publication­may­be­in­the­light­of­digital­technology.­Thus,­the­shift­between­Electronic­Publishing­and­Digital­Publishing­was­the­shift­from­trying­to­represent­something­under­new­conditions­to­an­attempt­to­let­these­new­conditions­change­the­thing­itself.­In­other­words,­it­refers­precisely­to­the­phenomenon­Owen­intended­to­evaluate­years­later.

Besides­this­line­of­arguments,­there­is­also­a­quantitative­measure­sup-porting­the­claim­of­a­shift­in­this­period.­A­look­at­the­Google Ngram1 results­for­the­use­of­the­terms­“electronic­publishing”­and­“digital­pub-lishing,”­for­instance,­shows­a­decline­for­the­first­term­after­1995,­while­the­second­term­receives­initial­attention­between­1994­and­1996.

Finally,­there­is­an­incident­that­well­serves­the­purpose­of­having­something­like­a­symbolic­event­marking­this­shift.­1995­was­the­year­in­which­Denning­and­Rous­published­their­well-cited­paper­on­“The­ACM­Electronic­Publishing­Plan.”­Besides­its­number­of­citations,­this­paper­is­significant­because­it­calls­for­a­radical­rethinking­of­the­extent­up­to­which­digital­technologies­should­renew­publications.­It­proclaims­that­“publishing­has­reached­a­historic­divide”­(69),­demanding­that­publishers­seriously­consider­these­changes­“if­the­system­is­to­survive”­(72).

Denning­and­Rous­made­some­very­precise­suggestions­how­the­structure­and­form­of­publications­may­change­if­digital­scholarly­publishing­is­understood­as­something­more­than­moving­historical­publications­into­a­new­technological­environment.­One­of­the­most­concise­statements,­however,­can­be­found­in­Nentwich’s­2003­work­Cyberscience,­in­which­he­argues­that­“hypertext­and­hypermedia­will­gradually­become­the­standard­ways­of­representing­academic­knowledge”­(270).­This­general­claim­is­a­very­good­example­for­the­issue­Owen­wanted­to­put­to­the­test.­It­stresses­key­features­of­digital­technologies,­and­assumes­that­these­features­will­provide­the­new­dominant­structure­for­scholarly­publications.

The­idea­that­the­main­topic­of­academic­publishing­should­be­the­mod-ification­of­the­publication­format­and­structure,­so­that­they­are­in­line­with­the­demands­and­opportunities­of­digital­technologies,­started­a­mas-sive­discourse­on­forthcoming­revolutionary­changes.­In­the­introduction­to­his­study,­Owen­(2006,­5–7)­offers­an­impressive­summary­of­nearly­twenty­statements­from­all­over­the­field­of­scholarly­publishing,­proclaiming­

1­ The­Google Ngram Viewer­can­be­accessed­at:­books.google.com/ngrams.

Introduction 13

“the­electronic­publishing­revolution”­(Hunter­2001),­“a­revolution­in­the­communication­of­research”­(Friend­1998,­163).­Treloar­(1999,­25)­detected­“revolutionized­…­attitudes­towards­communication­as­well­as­our­ability­to­communicate­ideas­and­research­results.”

Fourteen­years­have­gone­by­since­Owen’s­analysis­of­the­discourse­accompanying­the­“digitization”­of­publications.­It­does­not­come­as­a­sur-prise­that­during­that­time­a­lot­of­new­developments­took­place­around­the­notion­of­digital­scholarly­publications.­These­developments­have,­nonetheless,­not­changed­anything­about­the­general­impression­in­the­field­that­the­abovementioned­revolutionary­changes­are­yet­to­come.­Remarks­such­as­those­gathered­by­Owen­continue­to­frame­research­and­developments­until­today.­Accordingly,­Shotton­(2009)­gives­his­account­of­the­topic­under­the­headline­of­a­“Coming­Revolution­in­Scientific­Journal­Publishing.”­Peroni­(2014a,­7)­continues­to­perceive­in­2014­that­“scholarly­authoring­and­publishing­are­undergoing­a­revolution.”­Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015,­3),­in­far­more­general­terms,­repeat­the­insight­that­the­“digital­revolution­has­facilitated­the­development­of­new­modes­of­knowledge­dissemination­…­as­well­as­new­forms­of­communication.”­Still,­after­decades­of­investment,­research,­and­debate,­Assante­et­al.­(2015)­feel­that­the­“time­for­a­Change­in­Scholarly­Communication”­has­come,­while­Sofronijević­(2012,­252)­sees­himself­“on­the­verge­of­a­revolution­…­in­the­area­of­communication.”­Bartling­and­Friesike­(2014)­aim­“Towards­Another­Scientific­Revolution,”­driven­mostly­by­leaving­behind­the­traditional­pub-lication­model,­and­De­Roure­(2014b,­237)­“calls­for­an­overnight­revolution”­that­should­lead­to­“The­Future­of­Scholarly­Communications.”­The­con-stellation­of­a­coming­revolution,­the­occurrence­of­which­moves­forward­as­new­steps­towards­digital­publications­are­taken,­thus­can­be­seen­as­a­constant­feature­of­the­field.

In­contrast­to­this­situation,­people­such­as­Esposito­(2013)­state­that­the­“The­Digital­Publishing­Revolution­Is­Over.”­With­the­focus­on­a­specific­subtopic­of­digital­scholarly­publishing,­Herb­(2017)­writes­in­“Open­Access­Between­Revolution­and­Cash­Cow”­that­in­the­year­“2016­it­must­be­noted­that­the­hopes­of­open­access­advocates­for­a­revolution­will­be­disappointed.”­What­seems­to­be­a­more­recent­critical­reaction­to­the­phenomenon­described­in­the­last­paragraph­is­in­fact­a­similar­con-comitant­of­the­history­of­digital­publishing.­A­study­of­the­impressions­and­expectations­of­researchers­about­the­impact­of­digital­technologies­on­scholarly­publications­conducted­by­Eason­et­al.­summarized­in­1997­already:

The­growth­in­academic,­refereed­journals­may­well­remain­modest­….­There­also­appears­to­be­little­reason­to­expect­a­growth­in­

14 Beyond the Flow

multi-media­content.­…­Hypertexts­are­the­possible­exception­but­there­has­been­little­enthusiasm­so­far­for­developing­these­….­(Eason­et­al.­1997,­81)

In­1998,­Peek­and­Pomerantz­(1998)­published­the­results­of­a­detailed­analysis­of­changes­scholarly­journals­had­undergone­in­the­previous­decade.­In­quite­a­strong­statement­they­conclude­that­“at­a­first­glance,­it­may­appear­that­the­history­of­electronic­scholarly­publishing­…­is­littered­with­the­corpses­of­failed­efforts”­(339).­With­respect­to­Owen’s­own­over-view­of­the­revolutionary­expectations­in­the­field­of­digital­publications,­he­remarks­more­generally­at­the­end­of­his­survey:

The­“revolution”­in­scientific­communication­that­is­supposed­to­be­caused­by­information­and­communication­technologies­has­often­been­compared­to­the­so-called­“Gutenberg­revolution.”­But­as­we­have­seen,­that­revolution­is­more­myth­than­reality­as­far­as­science­and­the­media­of­scientific­communication­are­concerned.­(Owen­2006,­210)

Most­recently­Kaden­and­Kleineberg­(2017,­1)­summarized­the­results­of­a­research­project­investigating­Future Publications in the Humanities by remarking­that­“[es]­lässt­sich­die­grundsätzliche­Erkenntnis­festhalten,­dass­eine­konsequente­Digitalisierung­des­geisteswissenschaftlichen­Pub-lizierens­bisher­ausbleibt.”2

To­make­a­point,­it­could­be­emphasized­that­in­the­history­of­digital­scholarly­publishing,­a­narrative­that­always­sees­a­revolution­coming­goes­along­with­the­proclamation­of­a­failed­revolution,­or­one­that­will­never­happen.

The last three quotes all came from evaluations of certain states of scholarly­publications­in­the­past.­The­authors­were­less­involved­in­the­design­or­the­implementation­of­new­publication­forms­than­the­“rev-olutionaries”­were­before.­There­are,­however,­plenty­of­statements­in­this­research­field­resembling­the­observations­of­Peek­and­Pomerantz,­Esposito­or­Herb­in­their­own­peculiar­way.­Throughout­the­whole­history­of­digital­scholarly­publications,­stakeholders,­trying­to­introduce­sub-stantial­changes­to­what­scholarly­publications­look­like,­complain­that­despite­all­these­attempts,­no­standards­for­new­publication­formats­have­emerged.­This­does­not­mean­that­they­do­not­recognize­their­own­contributions.­These­contributions,­however,­have­produced­a­messy­and­

2­ “the­general­fact­could­be­recorded­that­a­resolute­digitization­of­publishing­in­the­humanities­fails­to­appear”­(author’s­translation)

Introduction 15

heterogeneous­landscape­instead­of­new­reliable­formations­in­scholarly­publishing,­and­the­ones­that­appear­most­frustrated­about­this­fact­are­these­specific­stakeholders­themselves.­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)­remark­that­innovative­approaches­to­scholarly­publications­are­“poorly­integrated”­(155)­because­stakeholders­do­not­want­to­focus­on­common­solutions­(167).­It­is­not­surprising­that­in­2003,­Kennedy­(2003)­regrets­that­there­is­no­standardized­way­to­produce­digital­publications.­The­same­regret,­however,­appears­again­and­again,­up­to­the­present.­Hence,­Adriaansen­and­Hooft­(2010)­express­their­unhappiness­with­the­fact­that­no­supporting­tools­for­digital­publications­exist­—­because­there­is­no­common­procedure­for­their­creation.­This­situation­is­considered­a­consequence­of­the­fact­that,­more­generally,­there­is­no­standard­for­digital­publications­in­academia­(8).­In­a­similar­fashion,­Bardi­and­Manghi­(2015a)­lament­the­lack­of­any­standardized­framework­for­the­installation­of­new­publication­forms­in­scholarly­publishing.­Bardi­and­Manghi­(2014,­265)­remark­that­digital­publications­are­“a­rich­but­foundationless­realm”­that­finally­needs­“some­kind­of­common­understanding”­(240).­In­fact,­five­years­earlier,­Sierman,­Schmidt,­and­Ludwig­(2009)­already­worked­on­such­an­understanding.­They­even­called­for­the­use­of­a­specific­standard­which­would­support­all­aspects­of­this­understanding.­But­as­they­announce­this­standard,­they­undermine­it­in­an­almost­fatalistic­remark,­asking:­“but­who­knows­if­this­standard­is­the­way­of­the­future”­(160).­Candela­et­al.­(2015,­1760)­assert­that­“journal­editors­do­not­yet­have­a­shared­and­consolidated­strategy”­regarding­core­elements­of­digital­publications­formats.­“As­a­con-sequence­of­this­state­of­affairs­and­the­lack­of­standards­in­this­area,­there­is­great­heterogeneity”­(1752).

All­the­abovementioned­authors,­and­others­too,­have­tried­to­introduce­or­support­the­standardization­process­of­digital­publications­that­is­supposedly­the­key­factor­in­broader­adoption.­Each­new­attempt,­never-theless,­refers­to­the­general­situation­of­digital­publications.­This­pattern­has­been­there­for­a­considerable­amount­of­time,­suggesting­that­it­is­a­constant­of­the­history­of­digital­publications­so­far.

As­mentioned­above,­there­is­not­just­regret­but­also­frustration.­This­frus-tration might not come as a surprise in a situation where revolutionary events­are­expected­but­do­not­seem­to­occur,­at­least­not­in­the­way­they­are­expected.­It­is­articulated­in­complaints­about­how­much­current­scholarly­publications­available­in­digital­environments­are­allegedly­a­copy­of­publications­from­the­era­of­the­printing­press.­In­1998,­Singh­et­al.­(1998,­sec. Online­Journals­Today)­write­that­“most­of­them­[digital­scholarly­pub-lications]­are­essentially­a­static­visual­form­of­their­counterpart­hard-copy­

16 Beyond the Flow

journal”­and­publishing­“has­not­kept­pace­with­the­changing­research­technology”­(sec. The­Need).­Still,­in­2014,­De­Roure­(2014b,­233)­asserts­that­no­significant­changes­have­been­made­to­the­format­of­the­journal­article­since­its­introduction­in­1665.3­In­2009,­Hogenaar­(2009)­launches­a­critique­towards­a­new­digital­publication­format,­saying­that­“its­end-product­is­still­a­publication­rather­than­a­communication­object.”­Two­years­later,­Bourne­(2011)­outlines­the­prospects­of­digital­publications­and­contrasts­them­with­the­situation­at­that­time.­The­bottom­line­of­this­comparison­is­sum-marized­quite­concisely­by­the­title­“Digital­Research/Analog­Publishing.”­Xu­(2011,­i)­creates­the­same­dichotomy.­Consequently,­“a­highly­semantic­enriched­publication­always­makes­its­information­and­data­much­easier­to­search,­navigate,­disseminate­and­reuse,­whereas­most­online­articles­today­are­still­electronic­facsimiles­of­linear­structured­papers.”­Marcondes,­Malheiros,­and­da­Costa­(2014)­claim­that­“despite­numerous­advancements­in­information­technology,­electronic­publishing­is­still­based­on­the­print­text­model.”­The­announcement­of­a­panel­on­publishing­in­2017,­organized­by the Institute of Network Cultures4­reads:­although­digital­technologies­promised­a­renaissance­in­the­publishing­industries,­publishers­still­struggle­with­digital­innovations­and­try­to­hold­on­to­traditional­workflows,­production,­form­and­business­models”­(Institute­of­Network­Cultures­2017).­Consequently,­these­complaints­show­that­what­was­presented­as­the­main­distinction­between­electronic­publications­and­digital­publications­never­really­developed.

The­main­object­criticized­is­the­PDF­format,­widely­known­inside­and­out-side­of­academia­as­the­most­common­format­for­the­distribution­of­digital­documents.­Owen­(2006,­146)­had­remarked­already­in­2006­that­“perhaps­the­most­conspicuous­finding­is­the­frequent­use­of­pdf­as­a­distribution­format.”­According­to­his­analysis,­more­than­two-thirds­of­the­investigated­digital­publications­primarily­used­this­format­during­that­epoch.­In­2018­Garcia­et­al.­(2018,­2/26)­state­that­“published­papers­are­primarily­available­as­HTML­and­PDF.”­Owen­further­finds­this­conspicuous,­because­the­PDF,­“in­spite­of­its­hypermedium­and­multimedia­properties,­is­predominantly­a­print-document­based­format.”­For­Owen,­this­conspicuousness­mainly­represents­a­good­reason­to­reflect­more­broadly­on­certain­elements­in­the­discourse­of­the­field­of­digital­publications.­For­the­field­itself,­observations­such­as­those­are­a­fundamental­nuisance.­In­2010,­advocates­for new publication formats thus began planning a conference with the title

3­ De­Roure­refers­to­the­Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society launched­that­year by The Royal Society of London.

4­ http://networkcultures.org/

Introduction 17

“Beyond­the­PDF.”­A­call­for­preparations,­launched­on­the­blogs­section­of­the­non-profit­publisher­PLOS,­reads:

PDF­has­become­the­standard­way­we­consume­scientific­papers,­but­in­fact­is­not­a­good­format­for­this­purpose­at­all.­…­PDF is an insult to science. (Fenner­2010)

In­the­same­fashion,­Lord,­Cockell,­and­Stevens­(2012,­1004)­state­that­despite­all­the­advantages­for­future­publications­that­go­along­with­digital­technologies,­digital­scholarly­publications­today­in­fact­“culminate­in­a­lumpen­PDF.”­Pettifer­et­al.­(2011,­213)­give­an­overview­of­some­of­the­critiques­in­which­PDFs­are­seen­as­“antithetical­to­the­spirit­of­the­web”­and­compared­with­the­act­of­inventing­a­telephone­and­using­it­for­morse­code.­And­still,­the­authors­assert­that­although­much­better­choices­are­available,­eighty­percent­of­digital­publications­are­published­in­PDF­format.­It­stands­to­reason­to­assume­that­the­PDF­might­also­have­been­extended­to­make­use­of­certain­capabilities­of­digital­technologies,­and­in­fact­such­developments­towards­interactive PDFs­and­multimedia­PDFs­have­taken­place­in­the­last­years.­These­attempts­to­modernize­the­PDF,­nonetheless,­do­not­tone­down­the­critique.­Bourne­(2010,­1)­once­commented­with­much­polemic: “these pioneering publishers are now experimenting with inter-active­PDFs,­‘articles­of­the­future,’­…­but­then­what?”

It­is­indeed­in­the­evaluation­of­the­comportment­of­stakeholders­involved­in­scholarly­publishing­where­the­frustration­behind­research­on­digital­publication­formats­is­most­recognizable.­Bourne,­Buckingham­Shum­et­al.­remark:

Producers­and­consumers­remain­wedded­to­formats­developed­in­the­era­of­print­publication,­and­the­reward­systems­for­researchers­remain­tied­to­those­delivery­mechanisms.­(Bourne,­Buckingham­Shum­et­al.­2012)

Oft­mentioned­reasons­include­that­researchers­behave­selfishly­(Markowetz­2015;­Nüst­et­al.­2017),­or­think­in­terms­of­their­self-interest­(Cribb­and­Hartomo­2010),­oriented­towards­the­creation­of­competitive­advantages­(Borgman,­Wallis,­and­Enyedy­2007).­Publishers­are­dis-tinguished­by­their­occasional­reluctance­to­even­publish­digital­books­(Humphreys­et­al.­2017)­or­think­about­making­allegedly­beneficial­changes­to­what­a­publication­is.­From­time­to­time,­frustration­also­turns­into­open­aggression,­of­which­Neylon­gives­an­illuminating­example.­He­writes:

Someone­once­said­to­me­that­the­best­way­to­get­researchers­to­be­serious­about­the­issue­of­modernizing­scholarly­communications­was­

18 Beyond the Flow

to­let­the­scholarly­monograph­business­go­to­the­wall­as­an­object­lesson­to­everyone­else.­After­the­last­couple­of­weeks­I’m­beginning­to­think­the­same­might­be­said­of­the­UK­Humanities­and­Social­Sciences­literature.­…­the­problem­is­that­people­are­focusing­on­the­wrong­problems­and­missing­the­significant­opportunities­to­rejuvenate­H&SS­in­the­UK.­(Neylon­2012)

If­up­to­this­point­one­thing­is­absolutely­clear,­then­it­is­the­fact­that­the­topic­of­digital­publications­in­academia­is­full­of­emotions.­In­it,­the­parallelity­of­fascination­and­resignation,­between­hope­and­frustration,­form­a­weird­but­vibrant­mixture.­On­the­one­hand,­this­mixture­has­been­very­productive­insofar­as­a­tremendous­wealth­of­projects,­initiatives,­technologies,­and­models­came­to­light.­On­the­other­hand,­it­has­also­shown­itself­to­be­extremely­destructive,­because­resources­and­vigor­often­have­been­spent­for­nothing,­while­researchers,­publishers,­and­other­stakeholders­are­confronted­with­a­growing­amount­of­uncertainty­about­the­publishing­environment­that­should­sustain­their­careers.

As­Hall­(2013,­497)­puts­it,­today­“all­publishing­is­destined­to­become­vanity­publishing.”­The­last­paragraphs­have­shown­that­this­might­not­only­apply­to­concrete­publications,­but­similarly­to­new­forms­or­models­of­publications.­Of­the­more­than­twenty­publication­concepts­analyzed­in­the­study­at­hand,­many­became­relatively­insignificant­after­funding­had­stopped.­Others­only­survive­in­a­small­niche­of­experts­and­enthusiasts,­of­which­many­were­directly­involved­in­its­development.­While­for­Hall,­vanity­publishing­constitutes­the­new,­digital­condition­for­publishing­as­such,­it­is­not­surprising­that­not­everyone­embraces­this­prospect­as­much­as­he­does.­The­complaints­about­missing­standardization­and­vast­heterogeneity­in­the­world­of­digital­publications­showed­that­there­is­much­desire­for­more­sustainable­solutions,­solutions­that­would­be­accepted­by­a­broad­academic­audience­and­that­could­be­sustained­by­bundling­efforts­and­resources.

The­insight­that­the­imminent­revolution­and­the­revolution-postponed-until-further-notice­are­part­of­the­same­process­and­confront­each­other­in­a­constant­relationship­within­this­process,­puts­a­particularly­inter-esting­light­on­the­question­of­what­the­reason­behind­all­this­might­be.­In­brief,­why­does­this­relationship­appear­to­be­constant,­and­why­have­digital­publication­models­not­been­more­successful­over­the­years?­Missing­standards­and­too­many­new­publication­formats­seem­to­be­more­a­symptom­of­a­problem­that­is­not­immediately­definable.­The­issue­of­heterogeneity,­together­with­the­nearly­twenty-five­years­of­developments,­

Introduction 19

more­than­any­other­issue­indicate­that­reasons­exceed­the­scope­of­missing­technological­developments,­or­the­need­to­just­wait­longer­for­stakeholders­to­finally­adopt­new­publication­formats.­It­would­also­be­misleading­to­assume­that­broad­funding­would­change­this­situation.­In­fact,­substantial­funding­has­taken­place­for­more­than­ten­years.­In­the­European­Union­alone,­it­has­brought­to­light­multilateral­research­projects­such as DRIVER,­workflow4ever,­and­OpenAIRE,­funded­across­several­terms­on­a­broad­scale.

In­the­case­of­the­UK,­social­sciences,­and­humanities,­Neylon­argued­that­people’s­way­of­reflecting­on­the­topic­of­digital­publications­is­inap-propriate.­As­a­strong­advocate­for­innovative­publications,­he­has­a­clear­opinion­of­the­actual­problems­and­advantages­of­such­publications.­In­the­light­of­the­current­pattern,­it­seems,­however,­less­obvious­if­certain­problems­are­“wrong­problems”­and­if­opportunities­are­opportunities­without­restriction.­Although­time­has­passed,­technological­and­concep-tual­implementations­have­taken­place,­and­resources­have­been­spent,­advocates­of­digital­publications­nonetheless­remain­rather­unhappy.­It­thus­seems­plausible­to­look­for­the­underlying­problem­in­a­completely­different­place.­This­line­of­thought­has­become­slightly­old-fashioned­these­days,­but­maybe­the­problem­is­not­some­missing­piece­requiring­a­solution­in­order­to­turn­digital­scholarly­publications­into­reality.­Maybe­the­problem­is­in­fact­the­awareness­of­the­problem.­Do­stakeholders­agree­on­the­problem­domain­of­digital­publications?­Do­stakeholders­evaluate­problems­in­a­similar­way?­Obviously,­this­is­not­the­case.­Does­a­way­to­look­at­things­exist­that­could­help­balance­the­tension­between­certain­expectations­and­the­observations­of­researchers­involved­in­the­field?­Is­a­way­of­engagement­into­scholarly­publications­and­digital­technologies­conceivable­that­would­make­the­distinction­between­revolutionaries­and­skepticists­less­paradigmatic?

Built­on­the­abovementioned­paradoxes,­shaping­the­history­of­the­research­field­of­digital­scholarly­publications,­it­is­indeed­the­hypothesis­and­the­point­of­departure­of­the­study­at­hand­that­the­main­obstacle­for­more sustainable publication formats is a problem of awareness about what­is­going­on­in­the­field,­and­what­the­relationships­between­digital­technologies­and­publications­encompass.­The­author­is,­moreover,­convinced­that­conceptual­work­and­the­discussion­of­a­problem­can­be­as­much­a­part­of­problem­solving­as­implementation­and­modelling.­It­appears­that­this­is­not­necessarily­self-evident,­especially­in­an­environ-ment­in­which­“Building­a­Scholarly­Digital­Object”­widely­focuses­on­technological­tasks­(Meeks­2012).­Owen­(2006,­15)­had­already­observed­

20 Beyond the Flow

back­in­2006­that­related­research­has­a­“deficiency­in­terms­of­theoretical­underpinning”­and­that­this­situation­suggests­“that­the­problem­is­more­a­lack­of­a­coherent­discursive­formation.”­Years­later,­Jankowski­et­al.­(2012,­19)­still­note­that­the­field­is­in­“much­need­to­extend­theoretical­under-standing­of­the­transformations­that­scholarly­publication­is­undergoing.”­This­is­not­to­say­that­theoretical­research­on­digital­scholarly­publishing­does­not­exist,­but­too­often­it­exists­only­outside­of­and­very­much­detached­from­projects,­agents,­and­environments­trying­to­build­digital­publication­formats­as­well.

It­sometimes­feels­as­if­there­is­an­opposition­between­builders­and­theorizers,­similar­to­the­opposition­between­revolutionaries­and­skeptics.­It­would­probably­be­more­promising­instead­to­have­more­builders­with­a­healthy­degree­of­skepticism­and­theorizers­with­a­certain­amount­of­capacity­to­build­things.­In­the­rare­cases­where­theoretical­discussions­really­become­an­integral­part­of­the­design­process­of­new­publication­formats,­it­mostly­happens­as­a­means­to­an­end.­The­by­far­most­out-standing­example­for­this­is­the­“end­of­theory”­debate,­initiated­by­Anderson­in­2008,­and­very­much­linked­to­the­theme­of­the­“fourth­paradigm”­(Hey,­Tansley,­and­Tolle­2009).­In­both­debates,­it­is­argued­that­computers­are­not­just­new­tools­to­carry­out­research.­Instead,­they­could­change­the­whole­relationship­between­researchers­and­research­objects.­They­basically­allow­to­judge­differently­what­counts­as­good­research.­It­is­then­not­surprising­that­particularly­researchers,­who­want­publications­to­better­support­computational­analysis,­intensively­reference­these­debates.­The­real­irony­of­this­example,­besides­demonstrating­the­very­pragmatic­use­of­theory­in­digital­publications­environments,­obviously­is­the­performative­contradiction­it­carries­out.­It­makes­a­theoretical­claim­that­undermines­the­feasibility­of­theoretical­claims.­Accordingly,­the­diagnoses­made­by­Owen­and­Jankowski­go­well­with­observations­about­the role theory often plays in environments where future publication formats­are­defined.

If­the­claim­that­the­conflict-loaded­development­of­digital­publishing­stems­from­a­lack­of,­or­a­paradoxical,­conceptual­framing­is­correct,­the­first­task­would­be­to­identify­explicit­as­well­as­hidden­motifs­driving­this­field­of­research.­Having­in­mind­the­remarks­of­Owen­and­later­Jankowski,­it­would­not­be­enough­to­just­analyze­the­written­narrative­in­greater­detail.­This­strategy­would­probably­miss­significant­aspects­of­the­whole­development.­Instead,­it­would­be­necessary­to­relate­the­narrative­on­digital­publishing­to­something­more­concrete­that­can­qualify­and­show­its­impact,­as­well­as­reveal­aspects­of­the­development­that­are­not­part­of­it.

Introduction 21

A­study­of­concrete­formats­and­models­for­innovative,­digital­publications­seems­to­offer­exactly­this­type­of­access­to­the­field­of­digital­publishing.­There­is­a­tremendous­amount­of­research­literature­evaluating­the­pros-pects­of­scholarly­publishing­in­digital­environments­in­general.­In­many­cases,­however,­the­authors­are­not­part­of­developments­in­which­the­implementation­of­new­types­of­objects­happen,­and­which­will­have­to­carry­and­support­the­proposed­ideas­in­real­life.­Research­that­is­somehow­tied­to­the­task­of­implementing­new­scholarly­objects,­which­in­turn­should­serve­the­purpose­of­digital­publications,­reflects­and­reproduces­the­broader­narrative.­However,­its­analysis­also­facilitates­the­discovery­and­comparison­of­themes­that­are­not­openly­discussed.­It­does­so­because­the­suggested­and­actual­features­of­the­newly­designed­publication­formats­allow­revealing­of­such­themes.

The­strategy­of­reproducing­the­conceptual­and­mental­environment­around­a­topic­out­of­an­analysis­of­how­the­narrative,­the­relevant­objects,­artefacts,­or­installations­are­organized­and­structured,­has­a­long­tradition­in­humanities­and­social­sciences­research.­Not­least­because­of­Michel­Foucault’s­“Archaeology­of­Knowledge”­(Foucault­1982),­it­has­become­a­widely­used­methodology­that­did­not­remain­without­impact­on­the­field­of­digital­publishing.­Owen­(2006,­15)­himself­makes­references­to­Foucault­in­order­to­put­the­background­of­his­analysis­into­context.­In­more­recent­years,­the­French­philosopher­Bernard­Stiegler­(2012,­8)­made­use­of­Foucault’s­concept­of­the­archive­in­order­to­outline­some­of­the­building­blocks­towards­a­new­research­field­investigating­“the­emergence­of­digital­technologies,­of­the­internet­and­the­web­…­as­a­new­system­of­publication­constituting­a­new­public­thing.”

The­inclusion­of­concrete­publication­formats­into­the­analysis­does­not­only­add­context­to­the­analysis­of­the­narrative,­it­also­provides­con-text­in­the­form­of­the­historical­dimension­in­the­development­of­digital­publications.­It­allows­to­ask­what­the­different­turns­in­this­history­tell­us­about­the­issue­of­digital­publications.­Historical­viewpoints,­in­fact,­appear­throughout­the­whole­period­defined­above.­In­most­cases,­such­viewpoints­consist­of­comparing­the­situation­of­digital­publications­with­the­moment­of­the­invention­of­the­printing­press­or­the­formalization­of­the­journal­article­(Dewar­2000;­Kircz­1998;­Buckingham­Shum­and­Clark­2010;­Willinsky,­Garnett,­and­Pan­Wong­2012;­Bartling­and­Friesike­2014;­De­Roure­2014b).­These­comparisons,­as­helpful­as­they­might­be­in­some­cases,­are­extremely­ambiguous.­It­goes­without­saying­that­they­may­give­orientation­in­a­situation­in­which­new­conditions­appear,­with­which­there­is­trivially­no­long-term­experience­yet.­It­is­this­orientation,­however,­that­

22 Beyond the Flow

might­become­a­source­of­problems­on­its­own,­because,­since­experiences­could­not­have­been­accumulated­yet,­it­is­uncertain­which­elements­can­legitimately­be­compared­to­each­other.­These­comparisons­pose­a­risk­of­withholding­details­that­do­not­fit­into­them,­resulting­in­biased­inter-pretation.­Owen­(2006,­212)­even­goes­so­far­as­to­speak­of­a­“distorted­view­of­history”­which­serves­the­purpose­to­suppose­a­direct­and­linear­relationship­between­technological­innovations­and­developing­practices.

Fortunately,­today­it­is­actually­no­longer­necessary­to­refer­back­to­his-torical­situations­where­publication­formats­were­introduced­that­people­are­familiar­with.­More­than­twenty­years­of­digital­scholarly­publishing­constitutes­its­own­historical­horizon.­This­horizon­is­sufficiently­broad­to­draw­conclusions­from­it,­supporting­further­engagement.

It­will­therefore­be­the­task­of­the­present­study­to­analyze­research­on­formats­and­models­of­so-called­digital­publications.­The­analysis­will­include­both­the­models­and­formats­themselves­as­well­as­the­narrative,­arguments,­and­leitmotifs­surrounding­them.­It­will­attempt­to­map­the­conceptual­and­mental­space­in­which­digital­publications­emerged,­in­order­to­identify­issues,­inconsistencies,­or­tensions­which­might­be­able­to­explain­the­paradoxical­situation­summarized­at­the­beginning.­With­reference­to­the­abovementioned­tradition­of­discourse­analysis,­it­needs­to­be­added­that­the­parts­belonging­to­such­a­strategy­are­not­meant­to­be­a­goal­in­themselves.­The­goal­is­to­use­this­approach­as­a­means­to­find­ways­towards­a­less­emotional­discourse­with­less­frustrated­agents.­Con-sequently,­the­present­study­will­not­stop­at­making­a­discursive­formation­explicit,­but­will­intervene­and­try­to­reconfigure­the­discourse.­The­goal­is­to­untie­some­of­the­elements­in­research­on­digital­scholarly­publications­that­appear­to­be­indeed­knots.­For­this­to­happen,­parts­of­the­analyzed­discourse­must­be­reconfigured.

For­reasons­of­clarity,­it­makes­sense­to­recall­the­specifications­of­digital­publications­that­have­been­made­so­far,­before­beginning­with­the­task­described­above.­A­digital­scholarly­publication­is­understood­as­a­new­type­of­publication.­It­might­differ­from­historical­publications­in­certain­features,­by­including­elements­that­have­not­appeared­in­historical­pub-lication,­or­by­having­a­completely­different­“form­and­structure.”­A­digital­scholarly­publication,­furthermore,­is­a­publication­that­is­linked­to­certain­understandings­of­digital­technology.­In­other­words,­to­count­as­a­digital­publication­in­the­present­analysis­it­has­to­follow­that­very­idea­that­the­possibilities­of­digital­technologies­define­what­it­should­look­like.­This­conviction­is­a­fundamental­element­of­the­field,­which,­as­seen­before,­

Introduction 23

distinguishes­digital­publications­from­the­notion­of­electronic­publications­or­other­types­of­variations­of­the­form­and­structure­of­publications­that­might­also­exist.­Digital­publications­are­often­described­as­“born­digital,”­appreciated­by­“new­digitally­native­researchers,”­as­Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­(2012,­7)­put­it.­Where­in­this­study­the­terms­digital­publication­format,­publication­concept,­or­just­publication­are­used­without­further­specification,­they­refer­to­this­specific­notion­of­publications­in­academia.

The­abovementioned­specification­defines­conceptual­boundaries­around­the­research­object­of­interest.­There­is,­however,­another­challenge­that­needs­attention­before­deeper­analysis­can­begin.­The­cunning­aspect­of­this­specification­is­the­fact­that­it­defines­the­research­field­of­digital­publications­in­opposition­to­historical­publications,­but­without­providing­any­description­of­the­concept­of­scholarly­publications­in­general.­This­is­intentional.­It­is­the­reaction­to­a­constitutive­problem­of­the­topic.­In­the­field­of­digital­publications,­the­whole­concept­of­publications­is­ques-tioned,­as­will­become­clearer­later­on.­Completely­“new­ways­of­publishing­scholarship”­(O’Hearn­et­al.­2017,­8)­emerge,­but­these­are­very­often­“not­recognized­as­a­scholarly­contribution”­(Palmer­et­al.­2009,­33).­This­situation­demands­restraint­from­any­normative­definitions­of­scholarly­publications­at­the­very­beginning.­Instead,­the­present­study­will­consider­initiatives­that­place­themselves­in­the­context­of­scholarly­publishing.­Although­it­is­not­the­primary­goal­of­this­study­to­define­publications­in­times­of­digital­technologies,­the­task­of­reconfiguring­the­conceptual­space­of­digital­publishing­cannot­be­effective­without­a­notion­of­publication­up­to­a­certain­extent.­Such­notion­will­therefore­gradually­emerge­out­of­the­final­part­of­this­research.­As­far­as­the­selection­of­research­literature­is­concerned,­literature­will­be­included­that­affirms­making­a­contribution­to­the­topic­of­scholarly­publications,­agreeing­on­and­supporting­the­pros-pects­of­digital­publication­as­outlined­before,­and­whose­authors­are­in­some­way­involved­in­concrete­activities­which­define,­model,­or­implement­new­publication­formats.

The­six­chapters­of­this­study­can­be­split­up­into­three­different­steps.­The­first­step,­as­indicated­already,­consists­of­a­historical­analysis­of­the­discourse­and­the­design­of­digital­publications.­This­analysis­takes­place­in­chapters­one­to­four.­Each­chapter­includes­its­own­historical­phase­within­this­history.­The­organization­of­the­history­of­digital­publications­into­basically­four­phases­is­an­outcome­of­this­study­and­does­not­draw­on­other­arrangements,­of­which­there­are­hardly­any.­The­first­phase­extends­from­the­mid-nineties­of­the­last­millennium­to­the­beginning­of­this­millennium.­It­includes­the­first­attempts­and­ideas­completely­revising­

24 Beyond the Flow

the­concept­of­scholarly­publication,­albeit­within­a­technological­environ-ment­that­had­just­begun­to­appear­on­the­horizon­and­which­was­rapidly­changing.­The­second­phase­extended­to­approximately­2007.­It­saw­a­decrease­of­activities­of­the­kind­described­above.­Instead,­there­were­a­lot­of­changes­in­technological­and­organization­infrastructure,­from­which­the­subsequent­phase­should­benefit­extremely.­In­the­third­phase,­the­most­ideas­revolving­around­digital­publication­formats­appeared,­and­most­activities­and­implementations­took­place.­It­is­a­direct­consequence­of­the­preceding­phase­which­left­the­field­with­new­possibilities­to­explore­and­test­the­scope­of­what­it­might­mean­to­create­a­publication­in­academia.­The­final­phase,­which­is­still­in­an­early­stage,­does­not­so­much­introduce­new­ideas­as­it­tries­to­orient­itself­within­the­outcome­of­the­vibrant­period­before.­The­beginning­of­this­phase­cannot­be­determined­exactly,­as­it­gradually­emerges­out­of­the­deceleration­of­earlier­activities.­This­takes­place­at­different­times,­depending­on­the­area­in­which­specific­activities­took­place.­In­most­cases,­this­is­between­2014­and­2016.

The­last­two­chapters­completely­change­the­perspective­on­the­topic.­As­mentioned­before,­the­historical­analysis­brings­to­light­central­themes,­key­claims,­and­key­arguments­from­the­entire­research­field­of­digital­scholarly­publications.­Ultimately,­they­are­all­facets­of­three­fundamental­ques-tions:­what­are­digital­technologies,­how­does­science­work­and­what­is­the­relationship­between­the­two?­The­reference­to­the­debate­around­“the­end­of­theory”­has­already­shown­that­Owen’s­original­question,­of­how­far­the­emergence­of­digital­technologies­has­changed­the­scientific­article,­includes­the­question­of­how­it­has­an­impact­on­science­and­scientific­methodology.­It­is­then­not­unexpected­that­contributors­to­the­field­of­digital­publications­frequently­note­that­“researchers­are­envisaging­a­large­variety­of­new­research­patterns­that­revolutionizing­how­science­is­being­conducted”­(Candela­et­al.­2015,­1747).­Acknowledging­the­crucial­impact­of­debates­around­these­three­questions­on­the­developments­of­digital­pub-lications­means­that­for­the­goal­of­reconfiguring­the­discourse­of­the­field,­it­is­indispensable­to­discuss­them­in­greater­detail.

Chapter­five­does­exactly­this.­It­starts­with­an­evaluation­of­the­concept­of­the­digital­and­relates­it­to­the­notion­of­computation­as­the­epitome­of­what­is­referred­to­as­digital­technology.­Afterwards,­the­ways­in­which­digital­technologies­can­change­the­production­and­representation­of­knowledge­are­analyzed­and­compared­with­the­arguments­found­in­the­history­of­digital­publications.­Both­sections­draw­on­the­concept­of­the­post-digital­and­the­research­field­of­multimodal analysis.­This­analysis­reveals­first­insights­into­reasons­for­the­paradoxical­perception­of­digital­

Introduction 25

publications,­as­well­as­for­the­frustration­in­the­field.­The­final­part­of­the­chapter­develops­a­hypothesis­about­how­the­emergence­of­digital­technologies­themselves­might­have­contributed­to­the­paradoxical­debate.­It­uses­the­concepts­of­intermedial­shifts­and­epistemic­effects­proposed­by­Sybille­Krämer,­and­applies­them­to­the­appearance­of­digital­technologies.

Chapter­six,­finally,­lays­the­groundwork­for­a­reconfiguration­of­the­dis-course­on­digital­scholarly­publications.­It­introduces­some­basic­ideas­in­this­respect,­which­continue­to­use­concepts­of­multimodal­analysis.­At­the­beginning,­a­revision­of­publication­formats­with­regard­to­the­way­these­formats­conceptualize­their­social­dimension­shows­how­much­social­aspects­are­simplified.­This­insight­is­presented­as­a­result­of­the­processes­described­in­the­chapter­before.­Afterwards,­an­empirical­analysis­of­the­social­embeddedness­of­digital­publication­formats­draws­a­more­complex­picture­of­this­social­dimension.­It­is­then­demonstrated­how­the­issue­of­the­social­dimension­of­digital­publication­formats­causes­more­tension,­namely­between­the­idea­of­communication­and­that­of­a­publication.­It­turns­out­that­in­the­research­field­of­digital­publications,­both­are­hardly­defined­or­distinguished.­The­chapter,­and­with­it­the­current­research,­con-cludes­with­the­application­of­three­key­concepts­of­multimodal­analysis­to­the­situation­of­digital­publications.­The­application­clarifies­how­the­issues,­conceived­of­as­problems­within­the­field,­are­not­necessarily­problems­at­all.­It­furthermore­offers­some­conceptual­orientation­for­future­con-tributions,­which­draw­on­the­viewpoint­of­this­study.

[ 1 ]

Cyberpublishing

The ACM Publishing PlanAs­has­been­argued­in­the­introduction,­the­ACM Electronic Publishing Plan by­Peter­Denning­and­Bernard­Rous,­published­in­the­year­1995,­is­one­of­the­best­and­most­often­quoted­references­for­a­shift­that­took­place­in­the­way­computers­and­network­architectures­are­perceived­from­a­publishing­point­of­view.­There­are­at­least­two­interesting­aspects­about­this­manifest­style­paper.­First,­it­already­addresses­many­topics­that­were­picked­up,­suggested,­and­partly­developed­later­on­and­until­today.­Second,­it­states­that­digital­publishing,­without­really­giving­it­that­name,­was­already­taking­place at the time of writing:

These­transformations­have­already­begun.­The­clock­cannot­be­turned­back.­ACM­authors­are­already­placing­documents­in­databases­on­the­“web”­of­information­servers.­(Denning­and­Rous­1995,­76)

This­observation­is­significant­because­it­highlights­that­the­authors­are­one­of­the­driving­forces­of­digital­publishing­and­that­the­Association for Computing Machinery1­(also­referred­to­as­ACM)­as­a­publisher­needs­to­react­to­such­developments.­Hence,­it­is­not­the­publishers­who­have­the­initiative.

The­transformations­Denning­and­Rous­refer­to­are­mainly­social­issues­which­themselves­appear­as­a­consequence­of­options­presented­by­digital­technologies.­The­authors­(1995,­72–74)­observe­among­other­things­that:

– scientists­are­not­satisfied­with­the­format­of­publications­because­it­allegedly­gathers­too­much­information­irrelevant­to­their­interests;

1­ http://www.acm.org/

28 Beyond the Flow

– scientists­are­frustrated­by­the­amount­of­time­necessary­for­the­traditional­publishing­workflow,­especially­in­view­of­the­scientific­innovation­cycle­today;

– there­is­an­information­overload­considered­to­be­a­consequence­of­the­ever-growing­amount­of­publications­and­research­results;

– libraries­are­incapable­of­holding­all­publications­that­have­been­published;

– scientists­therefore­question­the­need­for­publishers­as­well­as­libraries;

– consequently,­research­output­and­publications­are­published­more­and­more­frequently­on­private­servers­and­scientific­work­is­perceived­of­as­“living­on­the­web”;

– such­content­is­therefore­linked­across­documents,­collaboratively­created­and­continuously­changing.

Based­on­such­observations,­Denning­and­Rous­(1995,­75–77)­outline­a­set­of­propositions­that­should­be­capable­of­dealing­with­the­challenges­posed­by­the­aforementioned­developments.­In­fact,­these­propositions­are­similar­to­themes­which­still­shape­a­great­deal­of­the­research­field­of­digital­publication­formats­today.­They­can­accordingly­be­called­part­of­a­collection­of­leitmotifs­within­the­landscape­of­digital­publishing.­Such­leitmotifs­include:

– the­need­to­increase­the­precision­of­information­in­publications; – the­need­to­accelerate­the­production­chain­of­publications; – the­need­to­automate­certain­processes­within­the­lifecycle­of­pub-lications,­in­order­to­reduce­publication­time­and­to­manage­the­information­overload;

– the­need­to­decentralize­the­organization­of­content­of­publications; – the­need­to­impose­collaborative­production­workflows­on­publications;

– the­need­to­conceive­of­publications­as­objects­that­are­quickly­obsolete­and­create­a­continuous­demand­for­alteration.

Rous­and­Denning’s­work­is­also­a­good­starting­point­for­an­inquiry­into­digital­publications,­because­the­authors­make­comprehensive­suggestions­as­to­how­digital­publications­should­be­implemented­in­order­to­comply­with­the­demands­above.­Accordingly:

– journals­should­become­“streams”­in­which­publishing­takes­place­successively­and­without­any­interruptions­imposed­by­concepts­such­as­volume­or­edition;

– the­“identity”­of­publications­should­be­provided­by­means­of­“database­categories”;

Cyberpublishing 29

– it­should­be­possible­to­publish­different­states­of­a­paper­that­can­then­be­discussed­online;

– technology­should­enable­“repackaging”­of­the­content­of­publications;

– the­possibility­to­publish­multiple­resources­as­well­as­multi-media­resources­has­to­be­offered;

– publishing­has­to­include­so-called­“networked­services”; – publications­must­be­rendered­in­Standard­Generalized­Markup­

Language2­(also­referred­to­as­SGML).­They­must­provide­explicit­markup­of­images,­graphs­and­other­components.

It­goes­without­saying­that­the­authors­understand­these­suggestions­in­a­way­that­still­is­very­much­bound­by­the­state­of­publishing­at­that­time.­Many­of­these­ideas­are­radicalized­in­more­recent­projects.­For­instance,­the­database­approach­to­articles­just­means­the­addition­of­meta-data­to­the­articles.­This­should­permit­a­grouping­of­articles­different­from­the­grouping­in­the­journal­volume­in­which­these­articles­were­published­first.­Despite­such­qualifications,­Denning­and­Rous'­work­is­one­of­the­most­comprehensive­collection­of­ideas­of­its­time­and­a­pioneering­contribution.

Additionally,­it­is­important­for­present­purposes­to­note­that­beyond­the­scale­of­innovative­imagination­Rous­and­Denning­(1995,­82–83)­also­address­a­variety­of­social­issues­arising­from­technological­changes­in­publishing.­Challenges­in­this­respect­are:­the­system­of­copyright,­the­role­of­publishers­and­libraries,­and­the­question­of­financial­investment­and­responsibilities­for­long-term­archiving­of­digital­publications.­As­a­pub-lisher,­albeit­with­limited­economic­interests,­ACM­needed­to­consider­such­issues by virtue of the very same reasons that were given in the quote at the­beginning­of­this­section.­From­their­point­of­view­their­consideration­was­in­fact­a­question­of­survival­because­“publishers­that­learn­to­provide­well-structured­knowledge­through­digital­libraries­and­easy-to-use­tools­will­be­the­main­survivors­and­successful­entrepreneurs­in­the­new­medium”­(1995,­82).

The Roaring 90sFew­studies­have­tried­to­evaluate­the­state­of­digital­publishing­in­the­late­1990s.­They­show­very­well­how­innovative­the­scenario­described­in­the­ACM­Publishing­Plan­must­have­looked.­In­1997,­Alsop­et­al.­(1997)­looked­at­three­different­digital­journals­examining­their­strategies­in­engaging­

2­ https://www.iso.org/standard/16387.html

30 Beyond the Flow

with­digital­technologies.­One­of­these­journals­added­features­to­the­pub-lication­which­are­not­possible­without­these­technologies.­The­pre-print­database­Formations­implemented­an­open-review­process­by­making­use­of­a­groupware­software­system­in­order­to­manage­the­publication­process.­The­other­two­journals­restrict­themselves­to­putting­published­articles­on­web-pages­or­publish­them­separately­on­CD-ROM.

In­1998,­Peek­and­Pomerantz­(1998)­conducted­a­survey­which­was­much­more­comprehensive­in­terms­of­quantity­and­time­frame­of­analyzed­journals.­They­summarize­the­efforts­of­journals­as­activities­that­look­to­provide­“alternative­methods­of­access­to­scholarly”­publications­(1998,­331).­Such­access­might­be­mediated­by­the­World Wide Web­or­by­CD-ROM.­Common­challenges­and­differences­include­the­application­and­quality­of­Optical Character Recognition3­(also­referred­to­as­OCR)­for­digitized­articles­or­the­inclusion­of­images­and­other­resources­in­text­exclusive­archives.

These­issues­were­not­only­evaluated­in­terms­of­technological­challenges.­Eason­et­al.­(1997)­studied­different­academic­disciplines­regarding­their­needs­and­preferences­for­linking­between­distinct­information­resources­as­well­as­for­alternative­access­models.­In­the­final­analysis­of­their­inquiry­the­authors­observe­that­the­role­of­online­journals,­as­well­as­the­need­for­capabilities­like­the­ones­above,­varies­significantly­between­disciplines.­Consequently,­three­years­after­Denning­and­Rous,­Peek­and­Pomerantz­still­stress­that­“the­future­of­the­electronic­scholarly­journal­remains­unclear”­(1998,­344).

Other­authors­judged­this­situation­quite­differently.­Singh­et­al.­(1998,­sec. Recommendations)­are­more­convinced­that­the­“time­is­right­to­rev-olutionize­the­‘Scientific­Journal­Publishing­Technology’.”­They­conclude­that­the­reason­why­this­revolution­had­not­yet­taken­place­at­the­time­of­their­writing­is­primarily­related­to­the­“reluctance­of­the­senior­scientific­community”­(1998,­sec. Acceptance)­and­only­secondly­to­issues­of­infra-structure­and­financing.­For­further­analysis,­it­is­significant­to­highlight­the­different­backgrounds­of­the­authors­which­coincide­with­their­distinct­judgements.­Accordingly,­Singh­et­al.­write­from­a­computer­science­and­engineering­point­of­view­while­Eason­et­al.­conducted­their­research­in­a­“department­of­human­sciences.”

This­distinction­becomes­even­more­significant­when­looking­at­some­of­the­rare­examples­of­more­innovative­journals­tested­at­that­time.­In­

3­ Optical­Character­Recognition­parses­image­files­in­order­to­computationally­identify­characters,­letters­and­text­which­might­be­present­on­the­image.­Such­segments­are­then­turned­into­text­representations­in­text­files.

Cyberpublishing 31

1998,­Wheary­et­al.­(1998)­presented­the­Journal­Living Reviews­hosted­at­a Max Planck Institute­and­aimed­at­the­field­of­gravitation­physics.­Burg­et­al.­(2000)­presented­a­bi-annual­publication­called­The IMEJ of Computer Enhanced Learning­(also­referred­to­as­IMEJ).­IMEJ­—­sometimes­also­called­IMMJ­—­is­an­abbreviation­for­Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journals.­This­term­is­one­of­the­first­propositions­of­a­shared­label­for­a­bunch­of­more­experimental­digital­journals.

These­examples­show­that­IMMJs­are­strongly­linked­to­the­field­of­computer­science­and­the­application­of­computation­in­day­to­day­research­work.­The­same­link­also­applies­to­the­assessment­of­the­situ-ation­itself.­Additionally,­authors­convinced­of­the­benefits­of­digital­pub-lications­are­often­the­ones­who­also­develop­the­underlying­technologies.­Some­of­the­authors­who­designed­new­publication­objects­later­on­were­first­deeply­involved­in­the­fields­of­hypermedia­research,­like­David­De­Roure­(Carr­et­al.­1995;­Carr­et­al.­1998),­technological­interoperability,­like­Jane­Hunter­(Lagoze,­Hunter,­and­Brickley­2000;­Hunter­and­Lagoze­2001),­or­information­infrastructure­projects,­as­in­the­case­of­Herbert­van­de­Sompel­(van­de­Sompel,­Hochstenbach,­and­De­Pessemier­1997).

The­main­concerns­of­IMMJs­are­already­transparent­in­its­name.­On­the­one­hand­this­includes­a­deeper­integration­of­images­and­video­into­pub-lications­via­embedding­into­html­or­referencing­through­links­(Singh­et­al.­1998;­Burg­et­al.­2000).­On­the­other­hand,­there­are­attempts­to­evaluate­the­possibilities­of­interactivity­enabled­by­computation.­Such­interactivity­includes­published­simulations­or­interactive­visualizations­(Singh­et­al.­1998),­but­also­for­the­first­time­software­that­would­be­re-runnable­within­a­publication­(Burg­et­al.­2000).­Wheary­et­al.­(1998)­add­the­idea­of­evolving­articles­to­these­points.­More­precisely,­authors­are­advised­in­the­cor-responding­publication­to­continuously­change­their­articles­and­to­adapt­them­to­the­progressing­state­of­research.­The­publication­is­thus­not­a­stable­entity­any­more.­It­constantly­changes.

Another­important­if­not­immediately­obvious­type­of­innovation­is­offered­by­projects­trying­to­explore­how­to­represent­books­or­documents­in­a­digital­way.­Such­projects­did­not­design­publication­formats­directly­but­generated­ideas­that­have­since­been­adopted­by­publishing­projects.­Out-standing­in­terms­of­public­perception­is­the­Hypermedia Research Archive of the Complete Writings and Pictures of Dante Gabriel Rosetti­(McGann­1994).­One­goal­of­this­project­was­“to­use­the­Rossetti­Archive­as­a­model­for­exploring­the­theoretical­structure­of­texts­in­general”­(96).­Likewise,­efforts­to­represent­ancient­Japanese­books­in­a­“hypermedia­model”­can­

32 Beyond the Flow

be­named­here,­where­books­are­perceived­as­a­set­of­multiple­com-positions­of­networked­nodes­(Kitamura­and­Leggett­1996).­Phelps­and­Wilensky­(1996)­went­one­step­further­by­reflecting­on­the­question,­“What­is­a­digital­document?”­In­their­view­a­digital­document­is­just­an­abstract­entity­aggregating­“complex­content”­from­different­physical­sources.­Such­content­can­be­presented­in­different­ways,­depending­on­the­user’s­interaction.

Overall,­it­could­be­said­that­efforts­on­digital­publications­in­the­nineties­took­place­under­the­impression­of­the­hypertext­or­hypermedia­theme.­This­theme­is­addressed­most­often­as­the­idea­of­different­resources­that­may­be­of­different­types­and­can­be­linked­to­each­other­in­various­ways.­There­are­differences­between­the­approach­of­questioning­his-torical­publication­formats­by­way­of­application­of­this­idea,­and­the­approach­of­questioning­this­theme­regarding­its­relevance­for­pub-lishing­formats.­Another­difference­is­the­one­between­projects­applying­this­idea­to­historical­publication­formats­and­those­who­use­it­to­create­publication­formats.­In­the­first­case­hypertext­is­used­as­a­model­for­the­representation­of­something­that­exists­already.­In­the­second­case­it­is­a­paradigm­for­the­design­of­something­new.­Later­on,­Nentwich­(2003)­will­give­this­distinction­a­name­by­calling­it­the­distinction­between­“weak”­or­“strong”­hypertext­structures.

As­has­been­outlined­before­there­were­few­innovations­with­a­broader­impact­or­ones­that­lasted­longer.­Most­contributions­to­the­issue­of­digital­publications­entered­the­scene­on­a­more­fundamental­level,­meaning­by­building­general­technological­infrastructure,­or­as­abstract­reflections­without­any­connections­to­particular­publication­formats­(Kreitzberg­1989;­Davenport­and­Cronin­1990;­Brüggemann-Klein,­Cyranek,­and­Endres­1995;­Brüggemann-Klein­1995;­Karisiddappa­and­Moorthy­1996;­Thatcher­1996).­In­this­context­the­ACM­publishing­plan­is­worth­mentioning­because­it­had­a­unique­approach,­not­completely­moving­into­one­or­the­other­of­the­afore-mentioned­directions.­It­discussed­changes­on­a­meta­level­but­also­defined­concrete­technical­and­non-technical­measures.

Publication­formats­implemented­in­the­early­stage­of­digital­pub-lications­were­affected­significantly­by­technological­problems­stemming­from­general­technological­infrastructure­that­itself­had­just­begun­to­develop.­Singh­et­al.­(1998,­sec. Issues)­mainly­list­infrastructural­issues­like­bandwidth­of­internet­connection,­storage­space­for­multi-media­resources,­secure­connections,­or­even­e-mail­accounts­for­scientists.­Further­technical­challenges­concerned­publication­infrastructures­and­

Cyberpublishing 33

software­itself,­namely­the­support­of­digital­publications­through­the­development­of­tools­to­produce­them.­In­the­majority­of­cases­the­discus-sion­of­authoring­tools­referred­to­the­conditions­of­word­processors­not­well­suited­for­the­creation­of­more­innovative­publications­formats­like­the­IMMJ­(Sørgaard­and­Sandahl­1997).­Another­problem­implicit­to­the­topic­of­authoring­tools­was­the­lack­of­formalized­data­and­content­models­which­technically­model­the­publication.­Denning­and­Rous­as­well­as­Wheary­et­al.­(Wheary­et­al.­1998)­propose­the­LaTeX4­model­while­other­journals­and­authors­prefer­SGML­(Ishizuka­1997).­This­led­to­a­clash­of­technological­backgrounds.­Furthermore,­both­options­were­also­not­well­suited­for­the­complex­demands­of­IMMJs,­which­might­be­the­reason­why­Singh­et­al.­do­not­specifically­mention­any­technological­model.­It­will­become­clear­later­on­that­there­is­a­greater­challenge­behind­this­issue.

Considering­the­state­of­the­art­of­digital­publishing­as­described­by­Eason­et­al.­(above),­it­is­of­similar­importance­to­emphasize­that­such­discussions­had­limited­influence­on­the­broader­landscape­of­scholarly­publishing­as­such.­In­the­final­analysis­both­these­problems­—­immature­infrastructure­and­the­lack­of­formats­that­match­up­with­the­abstract­ideas­—­led­to­the­fact­that­those­digital­publications­trying­to­be­innovative­were­only­realized­by­applying­highly­context­dependent­solutions­and­making­use­of­proprietary­technology­like­Java­applets.­In­consequence,­corresponding­publications­only­existed­within­concrete­project­environments­and­as­objects­in­the­browser.

The Modular ArticleThe concept of the Modular Article­(hereafter­referred­to­as­MA),­proposed­by­Frédérique­Harmsze,­Joost­Kircz­and­Marteen­van­der­Tol­between­1998­and­2000­(Harmsze­and­Kircz­1998;­Kircz­1998;­Harmsze­2000;­Kircz­and­Harmsze­2000),­can­be­interpreted­as­a­major­milestone­in­the­devel-opment­of­digital­publication­models.­It­was­probably­the­first­consistently­designed­and­formally­serialized­digital­publication­model,­developed­on­a­large­scale­and­tested­for­publications­in­different­research­fields.­This­might­be­why­it­is­still­used­today­as­a­point­of­reference­for­modelling­digital­publications­(see­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­2013;­Bardi­and­Manghi­2014).­It­dramatically­sharpened­some­aspects­of­the­profile­for­digital­publications­that­today­have­found­publishing­formats­of­their­own,­namely Semantic Publications (see­chap.­3).­Furthermore,­it­is­one­of­the­few­

4­ https://www.latex-project.org/

34 Beyond the Flow

instances­where­a­project­modelling­a­publication­format­combines­this­with­a­broader­theoretical­context.

The Modularization of Content into Units of Information

One­of­the­crucial­achievements­of­the­concept­of­MAs­is­the­dissociation­of certain concepts both from its terminological as well as its technological context­within­hypertext­and­hypermedia­research­(Harmsze,­van­der­Tol,­and­Kircz­1999;­Harmsze­2000).­More­precisely,­MAs­emphasizes­the­benefit­of­decomposing­publications­into­smaller­pieces­which­are­then­related­to­each­other­by­links.­This­structure­permits­the­independent­dissemination­and­consumption­or­grouping­of­parts­in­different­ways.­In­MAs­such­parts­are­called­“modules.”

The­hypertext­parallel­is­obvious­but­the­concept­of­a­module­exceeds­the­nature­of­structural­units­in­html­documents­or­any­technological­dis-tinction­between­media-­or­file-types.­As­a­model­existing­independently­from­specific­implementations,­but­also­more­technologically­formalized­than­many­ideas­about­publishing­from­the­nineties,­Modular­Articles­are­aimed­at­an­entity­of­particular­importance­for­science.­What­in­hypertext­is­a­document­and­in­hypermedia­is­a­media-resource­is­called­information unit­in­Modular­Articles:

A­module­is­a­uniquely­characterized,­self-contained­representation­of­a­conceptual­information­unit,­which­is­aimed­at­communicating­that­information.­(Harmsze­2000,­39)

Kircz­(1998,­sec.­2.3)­argues­that­even­the­URL5 is “an attempt to maintain to­a­certain­level­the­tradition­of­a­local­archive,”­thus­emphasizing­the­radicalism­of­his­approach.­The­fact­that­by­this­definition­a­module­is­not­framed­in­any­technological­or­material­way,­as­in­the­case­of­historical­publications,­turns­decomposability­into­a­general­principle­in­the­field­of­digital­publishing­(see­also­Bishop­1999).­For­Kircz­this­step­is­just­a­“natural­consequence­of­the­split­between­storage­and­presentation”­(Kircz­1998,­sec.­2.5).­This­split­is­allegedly­suggested­by­the­web­architecture­which­delivers­content­from­a­server­to­any­place­within­the­web­architecture.­The­rendering­takes­place­in­the­client­to­which­the­content­is­delivered­and­can­happen­in­many­ways.­Likewise,­it­should­be­mandatory­to­distinguish­between Form and Content in the Electronic Age­(Harmsze­and­Kircz­1998).

5­ The­Uniform Resource Locator is­the­technical­term­for­links­between­resources­like­websites­in­the­web.

Cyberpublishing 35

As­has­been­stated­before,­the­novelty­of­the­Modular­Article­approach­is­that­it­entangles­theory­and­modelling.­Accordingly,­Kircz­and­Harmsze­try­to­support­their­publication­design­by­developing­sophisticated­claims.­Such­claims­tackle­the­history­as­well­as­the­goal­of­publications,­and­the­nature­of­information.­They­configure­the­background­for­a­clearly­defined­environment­of­digital­publishing­in­which­MAs­are­the­key­component.

The History of Publications Between Rigidity and Dissolution

In­“Modularity:­The­Next­Form­of­Scientific­Information­Presentation?”­Kircz­(1998)­paraphrases­the­history­of­text­as­a­monolithic­linear­object.­He­argues­that­the­development­of­text­into­a­publication­in­modern­science­is­driven­by­the­idea­of­persistence­as­a­consequence­of­the­persistence­of­its­material­carrier.­With­regard­to­McLuhan’s­Gutenberg Galaxy­(McLuhan­2002)­he­describes­that­from­oral­culture­to­the­medieval­scriptorium­up­to­the­era­of­the­printing­press,­text­became­increasingly­structured­and­controlled,­thereby­facilitating­a­certain­concept­of­scientific­truth­(Kircz­1998,­sec.­2.1).­The­development­of­scientific­journals­with­certain­norms­for­the­structure­of­its­articles­is­presented­as­another­step­in­this­process.­He­attributes­the­general­norm­for­this­structure­to­Francis­Bacon­and­his­idea­that­knowledge­is­produced­where­the­behavioral­laws­of­the­world­match­with­the­procedure­and­the­strategy­by­which­this­world­is­described­(Kircz­1998,­sec.­2.2).­In­Kircz’­overview­both­developments­were­only­possible­due­to­the­facilities­of­the­printing­press.

From­the­end­of­the­18th­century­onwards­the­author­identifies­a­desta-bilization­of­the­scientific­publishing­system.­This­destabilization­is­presented­as­an­overproduction­of­publications­and­thus­an­information­overload.­Curiously,­for­Kircz­this­process­is­socially­and­not­technically­motivated­as­was­the­case­before.­For­instance,­he­identifies­the­entan-glement­between­science­on­the­one­hand­and­economic­as­well­as­military­competition­on­the­other­hand­as­a­fundamental­driver­for­this­devel-opment­(Kircz­1998,­sec.­2.3).

Following­the­author,­the­presentation­layer­of­publications­is­primarily­the­linearly­structured­narrative.­The­main­problem­of­information­overload­is­therefore­the­conflict­between­publications­adhering­to­this­linear­and­narrative structure while on the level of archiving6­such­structure­allegedly­does­not­exist­anymore­(sec. 2.4).­Kircz­repeats­the­argument­about­

6­ When­Kircz­uses­the­term­archive­at­this­point­he­means­publishing­infrastructure­which­is­delivered­by­digital­technologies.

36 Beyond the Flow

information­overload­as­a­driving­force­and­a­request­to­change­the­field­of­publishing­already­made­by­Denning.­However,­he­substantiates­this­claim­by­adding­a­techno-historical­argument.

Catching up on his evaluation of the role of the printing press for pub-lishing,­Harmsze­and­Kircz­(1998,­sec.­3)­conclude­that­“we­are­now­entering­a­new­phase­in­which­again­a­medium­with­superior­capacities­will­change­the­form­of­the­knowledge­representations.”

Once­again,­the­quote­distinguishes­between­form­and­content­and­constructs­a­notion­of­information­and­knowledge­that­can­be­clearly­separated­from­the­channel­by­which­people­become­aware­of­it:­“by­a­document­we­mean­a­symbolic­representation­of­a­quantity­of­information”­(Harmsze­2000,­19).­However,­more­important­is­the­techno-historical­necessity­enforcing­this­distinction­upon­new­publication­formats.

The Hard Currency of Publications for the Communicative Endeavour of Science

If­in­the­worldview­of­Modular­Articles­information­exists­independently­of­its­narration,­and­presentation­has­no­information­value­of­its­own,­the­question­arises:­“What­is­a­scientific­paper?”­(Kircz­2001b,­266).­In­order­to­respond­to­this,­Kircz­refers­to­William­Garvey’s­Communication: The Essence of Science­(Garvey­1979).­Accordingly,­the­key­aspect­in­science­is­com-munication­and­the­role­of­publications­is­that­of­being­a­“hard­currency.”­In­order­to­play­this­role­Kircz­states­that­publications­have­to­be­reliable­and­fulfill­certain­functions.­More­precisely,­they­have­to­guarantee­registration,­certification,­awareness­and­archiving­of­information­(Kircz­1998,­sec­3.2).­These­properties­therefore­constitute­something­he­calls­the­“trans-his-torical­core”­of­publications.­In­contrast,­the­form­of­publications­is­only­important­up­to­the­extent­to­which­it­seeks­to­achieve­a­design­that­best­suits­the­needs­of­communication­under­the­conditions­of­a­peculiar­his-torical­period­and­the­technology­it­delivers.

Harmsze­(2000,­25)­derives­the­needs­of­scientific­communication­from­the­general­idea­that­such­communication­is­primarily­goal­oriented.­Defining­the­goals­allows­the­definition­of­requirements­which­in­turn­lead­to­features­for­publications.­Harmsze­uses­a­sender-receiver­model­of­communication­in­which­goals­are­described­both­for­readers­and­authors­of­publications.­The­evaluation­takes­place­on­the­basis­of­an­analysis­of­scientific­communication­in­the­field­of­experimental­sciences.­Within­the­frame­of­goal-oriented­communication,­the­outcome­of­such­analysis­is­

Cyberpublishing 37

that­publications­have­to­assure­efficient­communication.­Communication­is­defined­as­efficient­when­it­is­clear,­orderly,­brief,­and­when­it­avoids­ambiguity­(Harmsze­2000,­22–24).­While­the­trans-historical­idea­of­pub-lications­is­to­communicate­knowledge,­the­possibilities­of­realizing­the­specific­type­of­scientific­communication­should­shape­their­form­at­any­given­point­of­time.­From­an­MA­point­of­view­modularity­and­explicitness­in­terms­of­formalization­meet­these­requirements­best.

The Biology of Information

At­this­point­modularity­is­nonetheless­still­an­abstract­idea.­It­needs­to­become­applicable­to­assure­its­potential­for­efficient­scientific­com-munication.­The­criterion­for­the­implementation­of­modules­is­the­identity­of an information unit.­An­information­unit­is­a­piece­of­information­or­an­aggregation­of­pieces­of­information­focusing­on­a­single­concept­(Harmsze­2000,­45).­Furthermore,­a­module­should­be­self-contained.­This­is­the­case­when­the­meaning­of­a­module­makes­sense­without­necessarily­having­to­refer­to­other­modules.­An­elementary­module­containing­just­one­infor-mation­is­defined­as­the­smallest­piece­of­information­that­still­holds­the­dependency­of­being­self-contained.

The­idea­of­concepts­assures­that­it­is­possible­to­define­modules­as­self-contained­information­units.­They­are­strategical­anchors­from­which­it­is­possible­to­decide­if­an­information­should­be­part­of­an­information­unit­or­not.­Without­such­an­external­viewpoint­it­would­not­be­possible­to­define­criteria­to­decide­if­a­module­is­complete,­is­missing­information,­or­includes­unnecessary­information.­On­the­other­hand,­the­problem­would­recur­if­the­state­of­a­concept­was­to­be­no­different­from­the­state­of­information.­As­has­been­noted,­information­as­content­detached­from­its­presentation­is­an­abstract­entity­according­to­Kircz­and­Harmsze.­The­difference­is­that­for­MAs,­concepts­are­not­abstract­but­embedded.­The­approach­used­by­Harmsze­refers­to­the­work­of­Peter­Gärdenfors­(Gärdenfors­2000).­Gärdenfors­argues­that­three­hierarchical­levels­of­rep-resentation­exist:­a­symbolical,­a­conceptual­and­a­neurological­level.­Infor-mation­is­rendered­on­the­symbolical­level.­In­contrast,­the­neurological­level­does­not­really­communicate.­It­is­just­a­reflection­of­the­world­that­is­facilitated­through­our­senses.­The­conceptual­level­in­MAs­should­play­the­role­of­a­mediator­between­the­neurological­and­the­symbolic­layer.

The­presented­triptych­allows­judgements­about­the­necessity,­redundancy,­or­completeness­of­information­and­information­units.­It­configures­concepts­in­a­way­that­makes­them­independent­from­the­

38 Beyond the Flow

variation­found­in­the­application­of­the­material­in­the­symbolic­layer.­Indeed,­common­sense­gives­us­the­impression­that­it­is­possible­to­say­the­same­thing­in­different­ways.­On­the­other­hand,­the­idea­that­concepts­are­themselves­anchored­on­a­neurological­level­suggests­that­a­conceptual­level­beyond­symbolic­heterogeneity­must­exist.­By­referring­to­the­idea­of­concept­classification­of­modules­Harmsze­(2000,­44)­proposes­that­infor-mation­is­similar­to­atoms­and­molecules­in­the­physical­world.

To­put­it­differently,­the­conceptual­level­is­serialized­by­the­idea­of­what­Harmsze­(2000,­sec.­3.2)­following­Gärdenfors­calls­a­“conceptual­space.”­A­conceptual­space­characterizes­something­in­terms­of­its­“quality­dimensions.”­Harmsze­offers­the­example­of­the­concept­“apple”­which­is­characterized­by­color-,­form-­and­taste-­dimensions.­It­is­possible­to­refer­to­the­concept­by­making­use­of­different­quality­dimensions.­Each­real-world­object­that­is­tackled­by­the­concept­instantiates­a­quality­dimension­differently­(some­apples­are­green,­some­red,­some­lighter­and­some­darker).­Nonetheless,­the­way­in­which­the­conceptual­space­takes­this­heterogeneity­into­account­does­not,­in­Harmsze’s­view,­undermine­but­instead­foster­the­idea­of­the­existence­of­an­underlying­general­concept.­In­turn,­information­units­become­definable­and­a­modular­approach­to­pub-lications­seems­both­appropriate­and­efficient.

Kircz­describes­very­well­what­the­goal­of­such­efficiency­is.­Accordingly,­the­main­idea­behind­modular­articles­is­to­prevent­a­problem­which­in­the­eyes­of­the­author­is­the­most­significant­problem­of­communication:

…­often­information­is­repeated,­whilst­other­information­is­missing.­We­try,­in­fact,­to­envision­the­information­contained­in­the­author’s­mind.­(Kircz­1998,­sec.­4)

Within­the­metaphor­of­hard­currency,­redundancy­equates­to­inflation­and­missing­information­is­deflation.­What­is­important­is­that­both­aspects­depreciate­communication.­Hence,­the­digressions­about­the­conceptual­level­and­the­quality­dimensions­of­information­are­not­only­an­attempt­to­give­evidence­for­the­existence­of­information­units,­but­also­to­offer­approaches­for­better­information­retrieval.­In­order­to­really­assure­efficient­communication,­the­conceptual­level­must­be­included­in­some­way­into­the­publication.­Information­overload­demands­not­only­a­breakdown­of­publications­into­units­which­are­easily­consumable­and­correspond­to­its­true­nature.­It­also­requires­each­module­to­be­described­by­categories­that­make­their­true­meaning­processable.­Modular­Articles­implement­such­categories­as­descriptive­metadata­attached­to­the­modules.­Harmsze­(2000,­38–41)­distinguishes­between­four­types­of­

Cyberpublishing 39

categories­to­assure­that­the­goal­of­efficient­scientific­communication­is­reached:­categories­referring­to­the­conceptual­function,­categories­addressing­the­type­of­scientific­content,­categories­defining­certain­ranges­like­the­temporal­range,­and­finally­bibliographic­categories.

Semantic Links

A­consequence­of­the­theme­of­information­efficiency­on­the­one­hand­and­modularity­on­the­other­hand­is­the­design­of­qualified links between models.­Harmsze­(Harmsze­2000,­79–80)­criticizes­that­in­the­web­architecture­of­that­time­links­only­connect­different­resources­but­do­not­offer­information­on­why­the­link­exists.­The­goal­of­efficient­com-munication­however­demands­that­a­user­has­information­about­why­the­body­and­the­target­of­a­link­—­in­the­present­case­two­modules­—­are­con-nected­to­each­other­before­she­decides­to­follow­the­link.

That­is­why­he­proposes­to­add­metadata­not­only­to­models­abut­also­to­links.­Such­metadata­documents­the­creator,­the­time,­and­the­type­of­relationship­of­the­link.­The­type­of­relationship­denotes­the­aspect­by­which­two­modules­link­to­each­other.­Regarding­scientific­communication­Harmsze­(2000,­85)­distinguishes­between­structural­and­discursive­relationships.­Structural­relationships­express­which­module­contains­what­other­modules,­for­instance­in­terms­of­the­sequence­of­modules­in­a­reading­path,­but­also­what­concept­a­module­represents,­while­discursive­relationships­document­relationships­in­terms­of­logical­reasoning.

Reflecting­on­Harmsze’s­work­about­MAs,­Kircz­(2002,­31)­emphasizes­that­“relations­which­express­themselves­in­hyperlinks­become­information­objects­in­their­own­right.”­Thereby­the­modular­article­borrows­heavily­from­the­field­of­hypermedia­research­which­had­worked­on­this­issue­at­the­same­time­and­before­(De­Roure­and­Hall­1997;­Carr­et­al.­1998).­It­also anticipates the success of the semantic web­(see­chap.­3)­introduced­by­Tim­Berners-Lee­in­2001­(Berners-Lee,­Hendler,­and­Lassila­2001)­and­which­influenced­the­course­of­digital­publishing­significantly.­By­doing­so­the­Modular­Article­demonstrates­its­significance­as­a­nexus­between­approaches­in­the­nineties­and­developments­that­took­place­after­the­millennium.­Furthermore,­it­illustrates­how­digital­publishing­at­its­very­beginning­is­an­effort­that­applies­computer­and­information­science­con-cepts­to­the­topic­of­publishing,­in­contrast­to­asking­what­possibilities­for­publishing­exist­by­virtue­of­digital­technologies.

40 Beyond the Flow

Relevance and Limitations

Although­at­the­verge­of­the­next­step­of­digital­publications,­MAs­like­IMMJs­are­still­confronted­with­technology­that­is­rapidly­developing­itself.­Where­no­architecture­for­qualified­links­exists,­there­is­also­a­lack­of­what­today­is­called­web taxonomies or semantic vocabularies,­meaning­formal­vocabularies­to­consistently­create­classified­links.­Consequently,­a­lot­of­the­work­of­Harmsze­and­Kircz­consists­of­identifying­appropriate­viewpoints­for­classifications­and­defining­terms.­It­is­hence­also­not­the­goal­of­this­present­research­to­implement­MAs­and­to­further­evaluate­problems­that­become­relevant­after­implementation.­Nonetheless,­those­problems­are­listed­and­include­issues­of­how­to­render­and­present­them­as­well­as­how­to­author­such­complex­objects.­In­association­with­the­work­of­Harmsze,­van­der­Tol­(2001)­develops­an­idea­of­how­abstracts­can­be­used­to­organize­and­comprehensively­communicate­MAs­themselves.­It­could­be­said­that­such­an­idea­partially­opposes­the­whole­point­of­the­MAs­insofar­as­it­stresses­that­a­type­of­composition­is­required­for­certain­needs­which­is­not­dealt­with­by­the­concept­of­modules­and­links.

Another­aspect­is­that­MAs­still­focus­on­text­modules.­Kircz­(2002,­29)­is­correct­in­mentioning­that­this­is­an­unnecessary­focus­and­also­that­non-textual­resources­can­constitute­modules.­Nevertheless,­there­is­no­in-depth­analysis­of­this­viewpoint.­The­discussion­of­the­question­of­how­applicable­the­model­of­the­MA­­is­across­disciplines­is­also­problematic.­The­development­of­the­model­was­bound­to­test­cases­from­what­Harmsze­(2000,­97)­calls­“experimental­sciences.”­Nonetheless,­she­claims­that­the­model­is­generic­and­can­be­applied­to­publications­from­other­domains­(Harmsze­2000,­391–98),­including­the­humanities.­Significantly,­she­takes­an­example­from­the­topic­of­“argumentation­theory”­to­illustrate­this.­The­field­of­application­is­thus­a­field­that­shares­similar­principles­as­those­which­lead­to­the­definition­of­MAs.

Despite­these­remarks,­MAs­derive­its­major­significance­from­the­fact­that­it­is­the­one­publication­format­that­most­consistently­represents­the­idea­of­decomposability­of­publications­at­that­time.

Publication Formats Along the Path of Modular Articles

Although­MAs­develops­the­concept­of­modularity­in­its­most­radical­form­possible,­by­the­turn­of­the­millennium­other­projects­existed­which­moved­into­a­similar­direction.­Accordingly,­McAdams­and­Berger­(2001)­present­

Cyberpublishing 41

an­alternative­version­of­this­topic.­Traces­of­the­discourse­on­modularity­can­be­found­up­until­2008­(see­de­Waard­and­Kircz­2008).­In­2007,­Thomas­(2007,­16)­catches­up­on­some­propositions­by­McAdams­and­Berger­in­order­to­think­about­articles­in­terms­of­components.­He­presents­his­contribution to the American Historical Review­in­a­“multisequential,­multi-threaded,­flexible,­modular”­way­that­“should­break­with­the­narrative­structures.”­The­unique­contribution­of­this­peculiar­application­of­modularity­is­the­fact­that­it­was­designed­as­an­experiment­in­order­to­judge­the­actual­usefulness­of­the­approach.­A­long­review­process­was­associated­with­that­aspect­of­the­design­of­the­article,­leading­to­multiple­revisions­and­a­critical­evaluation­of­modularity­as­such.­Accordingly,­Thomas­asks­to­more­clearly­think­on­and­define­benefits­and­drawbacks­of­decomposing­publications.

There­are­two­more­contributions­which­call­their­approaches­“layered”­publications.­One­has­the­form­of­a­layered article­(La­Manna­and­Young­2002),­the­other­of­a­layered e-book­(Darnton­1999).­The­concept­of­a­Layered Publication­(hereafter­referred­to­as­LaP)­is­extremely­similar­to­MAs.­Again,­it­highlights­the­decomposition­of­publications­into­smaller­pieces­of­information­for­the­purpose­of­creating­more­efficient­publications.­It­likewise­defines­efficiency­in­terms­of­the­specific­interests­of­goal-oriented­readers­and­the­possibilities­of­digital­publications­to­comply­with­such­goals.­Finally,­it­also­refers­to­publications­mainly­in­the­light­of­scholarly­communication.

The­difference­between­LaPs­and­MAs­is­the­greater­emphasis­the­first­puts­on­precisely­defined­user­roles.­Accordingly,­Darnton­quotes­the­image­of­a­pyramid­in­which­the­content­is­organized­in­different­layers­of­complexity­and­information­depths.­Readers­with­different­informational­needs­can­approach­the­publication­on­different­layers.­Darnton’s­layered­book­is­more­traditional­than­MAs­in­the­way­that­different­information­units­are­not­really­organized­in­separate­forms.­Instead­the­different­layers­are­purposefully­composed­by­the­authors­putting­much­more­emphasis­and­effort­on­the­authoring­process.­Nonetheless,­the­layered­book­needs­to­be­stressed­as­one­of­few­examples­of­digital­publications­that­explicitly­chooses­the­format­of­a­book­as­a­point­of­reference­instead­of­articles.

Weiten,­Wozny,­and­Goers­(2002)­made­a­contribution­that­focused­much­more­on­deeper­technological­issues­than­those­discussed­by­Harmsze­and­Kircz.­They­rephrased­the­issue­of­efficient­scholarly­communication­

42 Beyond the Flow

in terms of two problems: interoperability7­and­information retrieval8.­By­making­use­of­the­conceptual­approach­of­MAs­they­emphasize­the­importance of technologies within the portfolio of the Extensible Markup Language9­(also­referred­to­as­XML)­in­order­to­solve­the­first­problem.­Regarding­the­second­problem,­the­authors­highlight­the­need­to­define­formal­vocabularies,­however­this­time­in­the­form­of­sophisticated­ontologies­(see­chap.­3).­A­more­granular­decomposition­of­publications­than­the­one­provided­by­MAs­was­offered­by­Caracciolo­(2003).­The­author­defines­an­approach­in­which­a­publication­is­reorganized­around­key­concepts­connected­by­relations­comparable­to­those­that­can­be­found­in­thesauri.

7­ Interoperability­is­a­technical­term­in­the­field­of­computer­science­which­tackles­issues­that­assure­that­data­can­be­processed­consistently­between­different­computers.­A­more­technical­definition­of­interoperability­is­given­by­the­interoper-ability-definition project (see http://interoperability-definition.info/en/).

8­ Information­retrieval­is­a­research­field­in­computer­and­information­science­which­develops­means­and­strategies­in­order­to­provide­the­most­relevant­information­in­relation­with­a­specific­demand­for­such­information.­For­further­details­see­Jansen­and­Rieh­(2010).

9­ http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11

[ 2 ]

World Wide Publishing

Projects­aiming­at­implementing­concrete­designs­for­digital­publications­declined­in­the­first­years­of­the­new­millenium.­Instead,­researchers­like­Leonardo­Candela­or­Herbert­Van­de­Sompel­and­others,­who­later­engaged­in­the­implementation­of­such­designs,­initiated­projects­that­tried­to­create­better­conditions­for­the­technological­and­social­environment­of­digital­publications.­Such­projects­build­on­some­of­the­key­ideas­of­the­discourse­on­digital­publications,­to­be­discussed­more­in­depth­later­on.­Some­of­these­ideas­were­actually­forged­during­this­very­period,­such­as­the­idea­of­open­access­and­data­science­among­others.­This­shift­of­attention­from­concrete­publication­projects­to­more­global­activities­might­in­addition­to­other­reasons­also­be­caused­by­restrictions­of­technology­and­organization­that­have­been­pointed­to­more­than­once­in­the­last­chapter.

Position of Points in Infrastructure and Virtual Publishing Environments

Accordingly,­Kennedy­(2003)­heavily­highlights­the­meaning­and­potential­of the Open Archive Initiative1­(also­referred­to­as­OAI,­see­below)­for­the­progress­of­the­digital­publishing­ecosystem.­He­additionally­argues­with­great­passion­that­the­project­of­the­semantic­web­that­had­just­been­pro-claimed­by­Berners-Lee,­Hendler,­and­Lassila­(2001)­would­be­crucial­for­new­digital­publications.­Furthermore,­Hammond,­Hannay,­and­Lund­(2004)­

1­ https://www.openarchives.org/

46 Beyond the Flow

explore how the Really Simple Syndication2­(also­referred­to­as­RSS)­model,­another­recent­initiative­at­that­time,­could­be­used­for­in­a­digital­pub-lication­context.

While­MAs­and­similar­activities­explored­how­publications­could­be­decomposed,­another­line­of­research­started­to­prepare­the­design­of­completely­new­types­of­publications.­These­initiatives­evaluated­and­defined­models­for­the­design­of­aggregations­(Van­de­Sompel­et­al.­2010)­of­distributed­resources­and­any­media-types­which­would­become­compound information objects­(Lagoze­and­Van­de­Sompel­2007,­see­chap.­3.2).­The­main­shift­behind­such­initiatives­was­the­intent­to­not­only­structure­and­render­a­publication­in­a­different­way­but­to­really­set­a­new­starting­point­for­thinking­about­publications.

This­established­system­generally­fails­to­deal­with­other­types­of­research­results­in­the­sciences­and­humanities,­including­datasets,­simulations,­software,­dynamic­knowledge­representations,­annotations,­and­aggregates­thereof,­all­of­which­should­be­considered­units­of­scholarly­communication.­(Van­de­Sompel­and­Lagoze­2007,­par.­2)

These­resources­may­come­from­any­point­within­the­sphere­of­research.­They­do­not­depend­on­a­final­paper­that­synthesizes­everything.

In­2003,­Bekaert,­Hochstenbach,­and­Van­de­Sompel­(2003)­already­evalu-ated­the­potential­of­the­MPEG-21 Digital Item Declaration Language3­(also­referred­to­as­DIDL)­format­in­order­to­model­such­compound­information­objects.­A­similar­activity­led­to­the­definition­of­the­Document Model for Digital Library­(Candela­et­al.­2005,­also­referred­to­as­DoMDL),­meant­to­build­the­core­schema­of­the­OpenDLib Digital Library System­(Castelli­and­Pagano­2002).­This­model­would­facilitate­the­organization­of­Heterogeneous Information Spaces to Virtual Documents­(Candela­et­al.­2005).­Lourdi,­Papatheodorou,­and­Nikolaidou­(2007)­present­a­hierarchical­model­to­aggregate­resources­of­folklore­collections­which­are­part­of­one­theme­but­represented­in­different­media­formats.

However,­these­and­similar­attempts­had­limitations.­Some­focus­on­the­scope­of­a­concrete­repository,­often­for­certain­types­of­resources,­and­the­use­of­XML­as­the­foundation­for­the­model.­The­limits­of­XML­as­a­hierarchical­data­model­for­the­representation­of­aggregations­that­should­hold­different­types­of­resources­from­different­repositories­are­

2­ http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification3­ https://mpeg.chiariglione.org/standards/mpeg-21/mpeg-21.htm

World Wide Publishing 47

summarized­by­Brooking­et­al.­(2009).­Consequently,­in­2006­the­Mellon Foundation­offered­a­two-year­grant­for­the­development­of­a­new­data­model­for­compound­information­objects.­This­model­was­developed­under­the name of Object Reuse and Exchange4­(also­referred­to­as­ORE)­model.­It­was­presented­in­2007­(Lagoze­and­Van­de­Sompel­2007;­Van­de­Sompel­and­Lagoze­2007)­and­was­intended­to­realize­the­creation­of­scholarly­digital­publications­as­aggregations­from­the­very­beginning,­even­if­its­application­nowadays­exceeds­such­purpose.­All­these­activities­can­be­understood­as­infrastructure­and­technology­developments.­The­reason­for­this­is­that­they­not­only­try­to­enable­digital­publications­in­the­afore-mentioned­manner­but­also­that­they­constitute­a­significant­extension­to­the­web­architecture­in­ways­hypermedia­research­has­worked­on­for­a­long­time­(Ossenbruggen,­Hardman,­and­Rutledge­2006).

A­different­angle­on­infrastructure­is­introduced­by­Kennedy­(2003).­The­author­regrets­that­“until­now,­there­has­been­no­standardized­frame-work­from­which­organizations­can­freely­explore­and­develop­this­option­[electronic­publishing]”­(2003,­sec. abstract).­In­this­respect­he­describes­and­implements­a­service-oriented­software­that­should­manage­the­whole­workflow­of­the­production­of­digital­publications.­A­comparable­effort­is­presented­by­Sanchez,­Morales,­and­Flores­(2004).­The­service­described­aims­at­so-called­Digital Publishing Organizations­(also­referred­to­as­DPO).­It­tries­to­support­the­coordination­process­of­agents­involved­in­the­creation­of­digital­publications.­The­approaches­that­tried­to­act­on­a­global­scale­were­complemented­by­initiatives­such­as­that­presented­in­(Ghani,­Suparjoh,­and­Hamid­2008),­which­did­the­same­on­an­institutional­level.­All­of­them­have­in­common­that­they­focus­on­infrastructure­in­order­to­sup-port­interactions­and­workflows­between­stakeholders­and­agents­in­the­chain­of­production­of­digital­publications,­while­the­former­activities­are­aimed­at­facilitating­the­creation­of­publication­data­models­as­well­as­nec-essary­computational­interactions­between­them.­In­the­same­fashion­Liew­and­Foo­(1999;­2001)­stress­that­the­main­innovation­in­digital­publishing­is­not­the­publication,­but­an­increasing­level­of­possible­interactions,­espe-cially­for­readers.­Accordingly,­they­suggest­investing­more­energy­into­the­design­of­computational­environments­offering­easy­integration­and­usability­of­new­publications.

4­ https://www.openarchives.org/ore/

48 Beyond the Flow

Programmatic Framing and Organizational Self-Awareness

The­shift­of­interest­regarding­digital­publications­also­led­to­a­broader­analysis­of­digital­publications­within­a­certain­historical­and­social­context.­In the Delphi Survey,­for­instance,­agents­from­the­publishing,­library,­and­research­domain­tried­to­evaluate­the­future­of­digital­publishing­in­terms­of­design,­financing,­usage,­and­archiving,­as­well­as­the­effects­for­the­stakeholders­(Keller­2001).­In­all­these­discussions­the­problem­of­the­serial crisis­—­an­alternative­way­of­referring­to­the­information­overload­—­was­a­major­topic­guiding­these­reflections.­Correspondingly,­agents­from­the­area­of­research­libraries­as­well­as­researchers­themselves­argued­that­the­development­of­digital­publications­in­electronic­journals­may­solve­this­serial­crisis­(Agosti­et­al.­2013).­The­development­of­such­publications­would­help­research­libraries­to­gain­autonomy­from­private­publishers­by­providing­cost­efficient­ways­to­produce,­manage,­and­disseminate­pub-lications­(Kennedy­2003).­Thus,­the­development­of­computational­services­for­the­creation­and­curation­of­electronic­publications­can­also­be­seen­in­a­political­light.

This­political­agenda­behind­the­promotion­of­digital­publications­began­to­take­shape­in­the­formation­of­the­Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition5­(also­referred­to­as­SPARC)­around­the­turn­of­the­millennium.­One­of­the­main­goals­of­SPARC­was­to­increase­the­pos-sibilities of research libraries to strengthen their position in relation to publishers­( Johnson­2001).­In­this­respect­they­actively­promoted­an­unre-stricted­access­model­for­publications­called­open access from its very beginning with the Budapest Open Access Initiative6­in­2001.

In­contrast,­publishers­began­to­imagine­new­business­models­based­on­digital­publications.­Such­activities­built­on­the­premise­that­publishers­will­transform­from­product­centered­to­service-oriented­businesses­(Owen­2002).­Hammond’s­evaluation­of­RSS­mentioned­above­is­one­example­of­an­early­attempt­to­realize­this­claim.­Following­this­premise,­the­implementation­of­digital­publications­should­not­so­much­alter­the­publication­as­it­should­connect­publications­with­alerts­about­related­activities,­job­notifications­and­other­things.­In­this­model­the­publication­is­deemed­to­be­an­interface­that­should­facilitate­the­creation­of­profiles­in­order­to­deliver­potentially­interesting­things­for­readers.

5­ https://sparcopen.org/6­ http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/

World Wide Publishing 49

The­same­period­saw­another­theme­come­to­light­that­will­later­on­inter-vene­with­open­access­activities.­Up­to­this­point­the­re-design­of­digital­publications­was­not­closely­linked­to­considerations­about­how­science­itself­changes­due­to­computational­technologies.­In­contrast,­Borgman,­Wallis,­and­Enyedy­(2007,­27)­emphasize­the­emergence­of­“a­new­way­of­’doing­science’.”­In­this­new­research­model­computation­is­the­essential­element.­According­to­them­research­needs­data­as­publications.­The­essential­question­is­however­what­makes­this­type­of­data­different­from­images,­videos,­text,­and­other­media­mentioned­before.­While­a­more­comprehensive­discussion­of­this­question­has­to­be­postponed,­a­short­response­is­that­the­argument­is­not­so­much­about­what­the­data­is­but­how­the­interaction­between­researchers­and­data­is­conceived­of.­Such­interaction­privileges­specific­aspects­of­data­presentation­over­others.

The­idea­of­how­research­should­or­will­take­place­then­began­to­shape­the­design­of­publications.­Borgman­et­al.­continued­to­argue­in­favor­of­data­libraries­holding­published­data­in­a­certain­“reusable”­way.­This­proposal­is­supported­by­a­survey­of­Anderson,­Tarczy-Hornoch,­and­Bumgarner­(2006)­who­determined­that­at­that­time­at­least­one­fifth­of­the­linked­data­from­online­publications­was­not­available­anymore.­From­a­broader­perspective­on­digital­publications­the­issue­of­data­publication­equates­to­the­emergence­of­publications­that­openly­argued­for­building­digital­pub-lications­around­its­key­component,­that­being­data.

All­of­the­topics­outlined­in­the­last­paragraphs­will­reappear­in­the­next­chapter.­The­period­of­digital­publications­subsequent­to­the­one­in­this­chapter­discusses­and­develops­them­in­much­greater­detail.­Nonetheless,­the­frame­for­much­that­is­argued­later­on­was­set­at­the­beginning­of­the­millennium.

Early Theoretical Evaluations of Digital Publications

It­is­significant­that­in­this­period­early­attempts­were­made­to­com-prehensively­evaluate­the­state­of­the­art­of­already­implemented­digital­scholarly­publications.­In­a­highly­theoretical­perspective­Nentwich­(2003,­chaps.­6.3–6.4)­identifies­a­set­of­five­different­concepts­of­digital­pub-lication which consist of:

– Layered­Article – Modular­Article – Hyperdiscussion

50 Beyond the Flow

– Hyperbook – Knowledge­Base

Some­approaches­already­mentioned,­such­as­IMMJs,­are­not­completely­covered­by­these­categories.­In­contrast,­concepts­such­as­Hyperdis-cussions­and­Knowledge­Bases­are­not­immediately­understandable­as­publications­in­the­first­place.­A­Hyperdiscussion­is­an­online­discussion­that­is­curated­from­time­to­time­to­be­re-usable­as­a­shared­resource­under­academic­terms.­It­is­regarded­as­a­publication­because­the­online­space­is­conceived­of­as­a­public­space­and­because­purposeful­curation­exists.­A­Knowledge­Base­is­a­resource­which­tries­to­comprehensively­represent­the­state­of­the­art­of­a­defined­field­of­inquiry.­It­is­updated­and­modified­consecutively­to­keep­up­with­this­goal.­However,­the­content­of­a­Knowledge­Base­does­not­necessarily­focus­on­articles.­A­Hyperbook­is­something­in­between­these­two­approaches­and­can­be­compared­with­the­contribution­of­Wheary­et­al.­(1998)­discussed­above.­In­the­long­run­the­distinctions­were­chosen­by­Nentwich­to­communicate­two­ideas­about­the­prospect­of­digital­publications­at­that­time:­modularization­and­liquefaction.­Liquefaction­is­a­term­which­in­the­study­at­hand­will­be­used­to­refer­to­approaches­that­seek­to­undermine­the­different­types­of­closures­of­a­publication.­In­Nentwich’s­terms­this­means:­(a)­that­the­publication­refrains­from­subtracting­itself­from­the­communicative­flow­(Hyperdiscussion),­that­it­records­it­from­the­flow­of­communication­with­minor­modifications;­and­(b)­an­ongoing­update­process­(Knowledge­Base).

Not­long­after­the­work­of­Nentwich­was­published­Owen­(2006)­developed­another­attempt­to­classify­digital­publications.­The­temporal­scope­of­his­inquiry­goes­from­1987­to­2004.­The­typology­of­digital­publications­carried­out­by­Owen­does­not­classify­new­publications­into­any­type­of­meta­con-cepts­as­Nentwich­does.­Instead,­the­author­defines­a­set­of­features­which­may­apply­to­specific­publications­in­different­ways.­Thus,­electronic­pub-lications in comparison to historical articles may:

– include­different­multimedia­resources; – allow­network­access; – be­connected­to­other­resources; – grant the original author more control over the publication after submission­has­taken­place;

– have­dynamic­content; – may­be­adaptable­to­the­context­of­use;­and – may­therefore­expose­“quasi-intelligent­behavior”­(Owen­2006,­130); – grant­more­control­to­the­reader­and­her­reading­needs; – appear­in­more­flexible­formats.

World Wide Publishing 51

Owen’s­approach­to­evaluating­digital­publications­reflects­his­primary­research­goal,­which­differs­from­Nentwich’s.­His­main­question­is­how­much­of­an­impact­digital­technologies­really­had­on­publications­and­not­what­general­new­publication­formats­exist.­The­results­from­his­survey­led­him­to­the­final­remark­that­“the­experiment,­in­so­far­as­it­really­was­aimed­at­transforming­the­scientific­article,­has­failed”­(Owen­2006,­223),­mainly­because­very­few­of­the­electronic­publications­incorporated­the­features­which­he­describes.­He­explains­this­by­claiming­that­many­of­these features are incompatible with the abstract goal of publications to implement­norms­for­the­manifestation­of­the­scientific­idea­of­objectivity,­a­criterion­he­derives­from­his­theoretical­thoughts­at­the­beginning­of­his­book.

Meadows­(2006)­takes­a­more­critical­stand­as­well.­He­highlights­the­need­to­look­from­above­at­how­digital­publications­are­actually­used­by­scholars­and­thereby­extends­Owen’s­argument.­He­argues­that­for­the­state­of­digital­publications­at­that­time­there­have­been­too­few­analyses­of­reader­practices.­His­research­shows­that­the­type­of­interaction­of­scholars­with­digital­publications­differs­significantly­depending­on­different­infor-mational­needs­in­different­disciplines.­Therefore,­digital­publishing­would­probably­remain­a­field­of­experimentation­for­a­period­of­time­yet.

The­appearance­of­highly­theoretical­surveys­that­evaluate­digital­pub-lications­after­an­initial­period­of­five­to­ten­years­really­demonstrates­that­the­phase­from­the­beginning­up­to­the­middle­of­the­first­decade­of­the­new­millennium­is­a­phase­of­transition­and­consolidation.­On­the­one­hand­research­had­led­to­a­sufficient­amount­of­digital­publication­concepts­calling­for­further­analysis;­on­the­other­hand,­a­variety­of­shortcomings­became­obvious,­leading­to­activities­such­as­those­described­in­this­chapter.­Having­said­all­this,­it­might­seem­likely­that­the­critical­remarks­on­the­success­and­impact­of­digital­publications­might­also­have­been­a­consequence­of­such­shortcomings.­It­will­have­to­be­the­task­during­the­analysis­of­the­following­periods­to­determine­how­far­digital­publications­from­such­periods­have­reflected­the­points­that­were­raised.

[ 3 ]

Publishing 3.0

If­the­beginning­of­the­millennium­can­be­understood­as­an­episode­in­which­most­relevant­developments­for­digital­publishing­formats­took­place­in­fields­such­as­infrastructure­development­or­community­building,­and­if­the­evaluation­of­such­formats­often­happened­rather­critically,­then­the­years­2007­and­2008­clearly­mark­the­shift­to­a­new­phase­for­digital­publications.­From­that­time­on,­the­field­is­again­dominated­by­new­exper-iments­and­new­implementations­of­publication­formats.­The­following­years brought such concepts to light as:

– Scientific­Publication­Packages – Open­Laboratory­Books – Research­Objects – Scientific­Compound­Objects – Liquid­Publications – Enhanced­Publications – Semantic­Publications – Nano Publications – Transmedia­Publications – Rich Internet Publications – Liquid­Publications – Unbound­Books – Living­Books – Hybrid­Publications – Self-Contained­Publications – Single-Resource­Publications

This­list­is­not­complete,­but­it­suffices­to­show­that­the­years­between­2008­and­2013­were­probably­the­most­vibrant­ones­in­the­history­of­digital­publishing.

54 Beyond the Flow

As­if­it­was­meant­to­be­a­starting­signal,­the­commercial­publisher­Elsevier1 initiated­the­Article 2.0­contest­by­asking:­“What­if­you­were­the­publisher?”­(Elsevier­2008).­Later­on,­Elsevier­announced­a­second­contest­in­which­they­looked­for­the­Article of the Future­(Elsevier­2011).­Both­times­the­goal­was­to­imagine­and­prototype­innovations­for­scientific­articles.­Researchers­and­research­projects­were­at­the­center­of­innovation­in­digital­publishing­once­again.­It­can­be­seen­throughout­this­chapter­that­this­is­much­more­than­a­shining­marketing­message.­However,­additional­interdependencies­emerge­as­well.­In­both­calls,­Elsevier­emphasized­publication­issues,­pertaining­to­articles­instead­of­approaches­completely­refraining­from­the­concept­of­articles­and­text­publications.­This­of­course­highlights­Elsevier’s­corporate­interest­of­maintaining­their­market­position­and­identifying­new­revenue­options.­Both­interests­are­reflected­in­the­approaches­which­won­the­prizes.­These­approaches­focused­on­the­enrichment­of­articles­that­however­remain­the­constitutive­unit­in­publishing­(Elsevier­2011).­Additionally,­they­demonstrate­implementations­of­services­that­make­use­of­such­enhancement.­Such­an­approach­has­been­rolled­out­by­Hammond­before­and­is­also­reiterated­by­more­recent­contributions­from­this­environment­(Aalbersberg­et­al.­2014).

The Open Laboratory BookThe­scope­of­the­Elsevier­contest­directly­addressing­researchers­goes­together­well­with­the­so-called­Open Laboratory Book­approach­(Clinio­and­Albagli­2017;­Carter-Thomas­and­Rowley-Jolivet­2017).­Open­Lab-oratory­Books­(hereafter­referred­to­as­OLB),­sometimes­also­called­Open Notebooks,­are­an­initiative­by­researchers­from­the­domain­of­chemistry­and­biology­with­a­strong­involvement­in­experimentation.­The­concept­alludes­to­the­laboratory­notebook,­in­which­scientists­of­certain­fields­take­notes­during­experimentation.­The­main­question­behind­OLBs­is­what­such­laboratory­books­would­look­like­if­they­were­to­be­imagined­in­digital­form­from­the­beginning.

The Transformation of the Laboratory Notebook

Two­major­aspects­of­the­laboratory­notebook­are­highlighted­in­the­dis-cussion­of­this­concept­(Neylon­2009).­One­is­the­fact­that­a­laboratory­notebook­is­a­tool­used­in­the­research­process.­It­is­not­written­at­the­end­in­a­reporting­fashion­but­for­documentation­purposes,­to­document­

1­ https://www.elsevier.de/

Publishing 3.0 55

the­research­process­itself.­The­second­aspect­focuses­on­the­fact­that­due­to­this,­a­laboratory­notebook­holds­records­of­each­step­and­each­experiment,­even­of­failures.­Both­of­these­aspects­contrast­with­historical­publications­which­narratively­re-organize­research­processes­and­refer­to­experiments­in­a­summarizing­manner,­only­cherry-picking­“’typical’­results”­(Bradley­et­al.­2010,­260)­fitting­into­the­narrative.­In­contrast,­the­weakness­of­the­laboratory­book­lies­in­the­fact­that­it­does­not­fulfill­publication­needs­and­cannot­really­stage­the­experiment.­Bradley­(2007)­argues­that­this­is­not­necessary­in­times­of­the­web­and­in­an­environment­of­computer­aided­research.­The­author­advocates­the­use­of­online-blogs­and­-wikis­to­write­notebooks­publicly,­as­a­replacement­for­conventional­publications.­Additionally,­he­argues­that­the­increasing­digital­nature­of­experiments­and­the­data­they­produce­facilitates­their­inclusion­into­channels­like­those­mentioned­above.­The­OLB­is­still­considered­to­be­a­publication­insofar,­as­it­is­explicitly­designed­against­historical­pub-lications.­Accordingly,­Neylon­(2009)­seeks­to­make­historical­publications­obsolete­and­to­substitute­them­with­an­ongoing­publishing­activity­forming­an­interface­to­the­live­stream­of­research.

As­previously­mentioned,­the­issue­of­authoring­created­certain­challenges­for­the­success­of­digital­publications­in­earlier­approaches.­The­creation­of­digital­publications­was­time­consuming­and­demanded­a­mastery­of­technical­skills.­By­recommending­blogs­and­wikis,­OLBs­explicitly­responds­to­this­general­problem.­The­basic­approach­is­the­idea­of­starting­within­the­environment­immediately­accessible­to­researchers­instead­of­waiting­for­tools­and­services­to­be­implemented.­Accordingly,­supporters­of­the­OLB­concept­criticize­the­development­of­such­tools­by­arguing­that­they­are­inefficient­and­not­generic­in­terms­of­functionality­(Neylon­2009,­5).­The­meaning­of­generic­—­presented­as­a­criterion­of­quality­—­is­important­in­this­context.­Within­the­critique­of­existing­tools­in­the­field­of­OLBs,­it­means­building­tools­that­focus­on­one­specific­task­instead­of­creating­a­software­environment­combining­functionalities­in­order­to­tackle­multiple­parts­at­once.­In­this­respect­it­is­in­line­with­famous­software­development­principles­asking­to­“make­each­program­do­one­thing­well”­(McIlroy,­Pinson,­and­Tague­1978,­1902).

Furthermore,­Neylon­criticizes­tools­as­too­complicated­to­use­which­had­been­developed­in­the­closely­related­field­of­the­Semantic­Web.­In­correspondence­with­the­approach­of­blogs­and­wikis,­OLBs­therefore­rec-ommends­the­use­of­third-party­tools­like­Google Spreadsheets2 or Google

2­ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets

56 Beyond the Flow

Charts3.­Although­there­were­supporters­strongly­advocating­the­use­of­technical­standards­and­standardized­vocabularies­in­a­way­comparable­to­the­one­that­was­indicated­in­the­last­chapter,­OLBs­delegated­such­issues­to­other­stakeholders­and­to­higher-level­services­(Bradley­et­al.­2010).­Those­services­took­over­the­necessary­tasks­of­identifying­data­resources­in­the­web,­converting­them­into­standardized­formats,­and­neutralizing­other­drawbacks­caused­by­using­proprietary­tools.­Later,­Bourne­(2010,­2)­more­clearly­addressed­the­problem­of­responsibility.­He­insisted­that­“I­want­the­publisher­of­the­future,­or­the­publisher­in­collaboration­with­a­third­party,­to­be­the­guardian­of­these­workflows.”­The­drawback­of­such­approaches­is­emphasized­by­Poole­(2015)­in­more­recent­time.­Accordingly,­he­diagnoses­that­the­OLBs­field­“remain­inchoate”­(106).­The­following­sections­show­that­the­question­of­how­tasks­and­efforts­should­be­distrib-uted­across­stakeholders­causes­ongoing­debate.

Regardless­of­who­carries­responsibility­for­these­embedding­processes,­they­are­the­key­aspect­through­which­OLBs­really­become­pub-lications­beyond­just­online­documentation.­In­order­to­facilitate­them,­Neylon­(2009)­suggests­the­use­of­the­RSS­facilities­of­blogs,­providing­a­computationally­accessible­wrapper­around­the­text­and­data­posts­of­the­OLB.­This­is­reminiscent­of­Hammond’s­et­al.­consideration­of­RSS­for­the­field­of­publishing.­However,­in­OLBs­it­is­not­the­publication­providing­an­interface­to­related­research­delivered­by­RSS.­The­RSS­feed­is­actually­the­publication­itself,­insofar­as­it­provides­a­public­interface­to­the­research­process.­Therefore,­two­core­components­of­this­type­of­publication­are­its­ongoing­and­potentially­infinite­extensions­on­the­one­hand,­and­the­avail-ability­of­an­online­reference­to­ongoing­research­published­in­real-time­on­the­other.­Supposedly,­every­resource­used­during­the­research­process­is­published.­Any­step­is­an­event­which­alerts­the­consumer­of­the­feed;­the­narrative­of­the­research­process­is­the­narrative­of­the­publication.

Neylon­emphasizes­that­especially­the­last­point­is­a­remarkable­advantage­over­historical­publications.­Open­Laboratory­Books­attribute­the­sum-marization­aspect­of­historical­publications­to­the­needs­of­the­publication­format,­as­has­been­mentioned­before.­By­referring­to­the­often-quoted­knowledge pyramid­(Ackoff­1989),­Neylon­(2009)­argues­that­a­historical­pub-lication­represents­knowledge­as­systematized­data,­while­OLBs­expresses­data­itself.­In­his­point­of­view­this­significantly­limits­the­risk­of­inter-pretative­fuzziness,­manipulation,­and­other­problems.­He­assesses­the­

3­ https://developers.google.com/chart/

Publishing 3.0 57

open-ended­character­of­OLBs­in­the­same­way,­corresponding­to­the­fact­that­research­never­really­has­an­ending.

Instigating Open Science with Open Laboratory Notebooks

The­design­of­OLBs­is­part­of­a­broader­movement­towards­a­way­of­doing­science­in­an­unrestricted,­public,­and­collaborative­way.­This­movement­started­as­an­initiative­driven­by­researchers­and­is­strongly­linked­with­the­open­access­initiative­previously­mentioned.­According­to­Suber­(2004),­one­of­the­most­prominent­advocates­of­open­access,­the­goal­of­open­access­is­to­make­research­literature­“digital,­online,­free­of­charge,­and­free­of­most­copyright­and­licensing­restrictions.”­Such­principles­can­be­easily­extended­to­cover­more­than­just­research­literature­or­other­research­results,­as­highlighted­by­Nüst­et­al.:

Open access is not only a form of publishing such that research papers become­available­to­the­large­public­free­of­charge,­it­also­refers­to­a­trend­in­science­that­the­act­of­doing­research­becomes­more­open­and­transparent.­(Nüst­et­al.­2016,­par.­2)

One­of­the­first­drivers­of­this­movement­was­the­Science Commons4 initiative­of­the­non-profit­organization­Creative Commons5.­In­order­to­extend­the­scope­of­open­access,­Creative­Commons­(2005)­focused­on­the­following three aspects:

1.­ The­evaluation­of­licensing­models­which­guarantee­accessibility­for­everyone

2.­ Formal­description­models­for­the­licensing­of­research­results3.­ Technological strategies to overcome heterogeneity in the ways

research­results­are­stored­and­which­prevent­from­reusing­them

As­has­been­highlighted­above,­the­understanding­of­research­results­comprises­not­only­text­publications,­but­more­importantly­research­data­and­other­supplementary­resources.­The­case­of­research­data­provoked­a­debate­over­the­question­of­whether­licenses­provided­for­the­creative­industries­by­Creative­Commons­are­suited­for­licensing­research­data.­Scientific­Commons­was­driven­by­initiatives­stemming­from­experimental­sciences,­claiming­that­experimental­results­are­facts­and­accordingly­not­products­of­creative­work.­Thus,­it­should­not­be­possible­to­legally­treat­them­as­such­either.­In­consequence,­new­activities­developing­within­the­framework­of­open data­tried­to­evaluate­the­legal­state­of­data­

4­ http://sciencecommons.org5­ https://creativecommons.org/

58 Beyond the Flow

in­the­broader­frame­of­open­science.­One­of­such­activities­led­to­the­release of the Panton Principles for Open Data6­in­2009.­These­principles­give­four­practical­and­legal­recommendations­for­the­“open”­publication­of­research­data.­The­process­was­supported­by­the­Open Knowledge Foundation7,­whose­definition­of­openness­(Open­Knowledge­Foundation­2015)­is­explicitly­mentioned­in­the­principles.­Correspondingly,­content­is­open­when­it­“can­be­freely­used,­modified,­and­shared­by­anyone­for­any­purpose”­(par.­3).

Cameron­Neylon,­an­author­who­appeared­as­one­of­the­leading­figures­behind­OLBs­in­the­last­section,­was­a­member­of­the­core­team­that­developed­these­principles.­Similarly,­members­of­the­team­behind­the­Panton­Principles­participated­in­the­open­science­working­group­of­the­Open­Knowledge­Foundation.­That­is­why­Open­Laboratory­Books­do­not­only­borrow­terminology­from­the­open­science­movement,­they­are­in­fact­a­driving­fraction­of­the­movement­itself.­Accordingly,­Lyon­(2009,­39),­in­her­study­about­open­science­refers­to­OLBs­as­a­radical­open­science­approach.­In­a­similar­way­Whyte­and­Pryor­(2011)­call­OLBs­an­exceptional­example­for­“Open­Science­in­Practice.”

It­has­however­been­indicated­that­open­science­is­not­just­a­legal­extension­to­open­access­for­data­resources.­In­a­summary­of­definitions­of­open­science­terminology­Frank­Gibson­(2007)­indicates­that­above­all­open­science­is­a­combination­of­other­open­practices,­such­as­open­access­pub-lishing,­open­source­programming­and­open­data.­Other­authors­highlight­certain­additional­aspects.­David,­den­Besten,­and­Schroeder­(2008,­2),­for­instance­mention­the­need­for­a­more­developed­digital­infrastructure­and­a­stronger­adoption­of­digital­principles­into­science.­Scientific­Commons­noted­at­the­beginning­that­technological­heterogeneity­in­publishing­prevents­openness­from­being­realized­even­where­it­is­legally­possible.­Likewise,­Hunter­(2006,­sec.­7)­stresses­that­digital­infrastructure­at­the­time­of­2006­“is­inadequate­for­the­task”­of­open­science.­Thus,­open­science­calls­for­the­implementation­of­this­infrastructure,­for­doing­science­in­a­consistently­digital­environment­(Creative­Commons­2008;­David,­den­Besten,­and­Schroeder­2008),­and­for­a­radical­commitment­to­open­standards­where­ever­research­data­is­produced­(Gibson­2007).

Beyond­changes­in­infrastructure­and­standards,­advocators­of­open­science­stresses­the­value­of­collaboration­in­science­(David,­den­Besten,­and­Schroeder­2008,­299–302;­Lyon­2009,­12;­De­Roure­et­al.­2009,­3).­

6­ http://pantonprinciples.org/7­ https://okfn.org/

Publishing 3.0 59

Openness­is­conceived­as­a­social­commodity­that­creates­value­whenever­researchers­interact­with­each­other­as­much­as­possible.­Accordingly,­Lyon­(2009,­8)­coins­the­term­“team­research.”­Bradley­and­Owens­(2008)­take­an­even­more­radical­stand.­They­argue­that­the­idea­of­collaboration­in­the­context­of­open­science­blurs­the­boundaries­between­scientific­and­non-scientific­domains,­seeking­to­put­open­research­in­the­context­of­crowdsourcing8.

The­legal,­technological,­and­social­changes­necessary­in­order­to­realize­open­science­are­significant.­It­is­therefore­not­surprising­that­the­benefits­are­heavily­promoted.­Whyte­and­Pryor­(2011,­4)­try­to­group­those­benefits­proclaimed­by­advocates­of­open­science­into­five­categories:

– Speed­and­efficiency­of­the­research­cycle – Capabilities­to­identify­new­research­questions – Research­effectiveness­and­quality – Innovation,­knowledge­exchange,­and­impact – Research­group­and­career­development

It­stands­out­that­all­these­benefits­have­a­tendency­to­focus­on­notions­of­efficiency­and­productivity.­Such­an­impression­is­substantiated­by­the­following­list­of­benefits­extracted­from­Lyon­(2009,­16).­It­renders­the­abstract­values­above­in­a­more­concrete­form,­often­alluding­to­aspects­of­economy.­In­order­to­illustrate­the­use­of­language,­the­whole­list­is­quoted­below­(emphasis­in­original)­despite­its­verbosity.­It­consists­of:

Increased return on investment of public funds­allocated­to­science­and­research,­by­making­data­outputs­openly­available­for­re-use.

Faster dissemination of research outputs­including­methodologies,­data,­models,­and­scientific­outcomes.

Greater academic rigor,­robustness,­and­scholarly­integrity­from­trans-parent­data­practices.

Higher potential for new discoveries­and­new­knowledge­arising­from­data­re-use­contributing­to­growth­in­UK­economic­and­intellectual­wealth.

8­ Crowdsourcing­which­is­an­artificial­term­constructed­by­using­the­words­crowd­and­outsourcing­refers­to­a­strategy­to­use­the­internet­to­the­end­of­acquiring­infor-mation­and­contributions­from­the­public­within­a­project­context­(see­also­Estellés-Arolas­and­González-Ladrón-de-Guevara­2012).

60 Beyond the Flow

Accelerated ability to predict scientific outcomes­and­behaviors­based­on­large-scale­open­data­analysis,­shared­complex­models,­and­simulations.

Efficiency gains­from­open­research­practice­leading­to­reduced­unnec-essary­repetition­of­research­activity­and­associated­wasteful­funding­allocations.

Enhanced opportunities for student learning from open sharing of exper-imental­methods­and­results­data.

Increased human capacity and capability­from­professionals,­amateurs,­volunteers,­and­citizens­to­assist­in­collecting,­curating,­and­preserving­the­growing­scientific­record.

Enhanced public engagement and understanding of science­principles­and­practice­through­raised­awareness,­pro-active­participation,­and­direct­contribution­to­research.

Significant wider societal gains­through­more­inclusive­and­participatory­approaches­which­facilitate­public­empowerment­and­ownership­of­global­challenges.­(Lyon­2009,­16)

Both­surveys­are­part­of­more­general­research­on­open­science.­Lyon’s­work­relates­to­the­viewpoint­of­policy­makers­and­funders.­Different­agent­groups­thus­emphasize­different­possible­advantages.­Similarly,­it­is­worth­mentioning­that­the­notion­of­open­science­circulates­among­different­social­contexts.­One­result­of­this­is­a­process­translating­academic­arguments­into­a­highly­mercantile­terminology,­as­can­be­observed­from­Lyon’s­list.­The­observation­of­different­interests­conflating­in­the­topic­of­openness­coincides­with­the­fact­that­later­on,­governments­of­countries­such­as­England­and­the­United­States­caught­up­on­some­of­the­arguments­of­the­openness­movement­by­promoting­their­own­open­data­programs.­Correspondingly,­data.gov9,­an­initiative­for­open­governmental­data­in­the­United­States,­was­launched­in­2009.­One­year­later­England­followed­suit­by opening up data.gov.uk10.­The­release­of­the­portal­in­the­US­was­part­of­a­broader­Open Government Initiative­(The­White­House­2013)­launched­by­the­Obama­administration.­These­initiatives­went­along­with­the­big­data­initiative,­also­by­Obama­in­2012­(Weiss­and­Zgorski­2012),­and­the­massive­support­of­big­data­by­the­research­councils­in­the­UK­(Research­Councils­UK­2015).

9­ https://www.data.gov/10­ https://data.gov.uk/

Publishing 3.0 61

Beyond­economy,­politics­implements­ethics.­This­is­no­different­in­the­case­of­open­science.­At­the­beginning­of­this­section­a­certain­ethos­of­doing­science­was­mentioned.­Ethical­aspects­of­open­science­in­a­political­sense­already­appear­in­the­last­bullet­point­of­Lyon’s­list­of­benefits.­In­fact,­they­were­a­crucial­part­of­open­science­from­the­very­beginning.­The­discourse­on­ethics­is­not­separable­from­the­pragmatic­and­scientific­goals­of­open­science.­The­homepage­of­the­Scientific­Commons­initiative­shows­a­quote­by­Alan­Dove,­in­which­he­denounces­patenting­of­pharmaceutical­dis-coveries­by­private­companies.­Hence,­the­message­of­the­arrangement­is­that­the­ideas­of­open­science­reduce­social­injustice.­Cribb­and­Hartomo­argue­more­committedly­in­their­comprehensive­and­programmatic­work­on open science:

The­need­to­share­human­knowledge­has­never­been­more­urgent.­As­the­world­grapples­with­the­acute­challenges­of­resource­scarcity,­climate­change,­poverty,­illhealth,­pollution,­rapid­urbanization­and­food­insecurity,­it­has­never­needed­its­science­and­technology­more.­However,­if­anything­is­to­secure­the­future­of­civilization­and­human­wellbeing,­it­will­not­be­science­alone,­but­the­knowledge­it­yields­being­shared­and­employed­both­widely­and­wisely.­For­science­and­technology­to­deliver­full­value­to­society,­they­must­be­accessible­to­as­many­people­as­possible­and­their­messages­must­be­easily­under-stood.­(Cribb­and­Hartomo­2010,­1)

The message is clear: only science that follows open science principles is capable­of­maintaining­a­world­and­a­human­race­existing­at­the­edge­of­possible­catastrophes.­Consequently,­Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­(2012,­sec.­4)­frame­the­issue­of­open­science­in­a­remarkably­decisive­way­when­saying­that­it­represents­the­decision­between­“the­common­good­vs. self-interest.”

Related Activities

Despite­the­fact­that­OLBs­are­deeply­embedded­into­experimental­sciences­Shaw,­Buckland,­and­Golden­(2013)­tried­to­transfer­some­of­the­ideas­behind­OLBs­into­a­project­they­call­Open Notebook Humanities.­Instead­of­emphasizing­data­publication­activities­the­Open­Notebook­Humanities­stressed­the­role­of­notes­as­a­primary­research­object­in­humanities­disciplines.­Notes­are­considered­pieces­of­thought­that­go­along­with­research­in­humanities,­and­which­are­therefore­never­com-plete­or­finished.­Shaw­asserts­that­the­exposure­of­such­notes­in­an­open­environment­and­in­a­structured­form­accessible­for­computation­can­

62 Beyond the Flow

support­a­humanities­research­process,­as­can­the­publication­of­any­kind­of­experimental­data­in­scientific­disciplines.

Until­now­the­area­of­blogging­has­not­been­discussed­in­greater­detail­in­the­context­of­publishing.­It­is­significant­that­Bradley­(2007)­has­put­the­OLB­in­the­context­of­blogs.­In­fact,­they­share­so­many­features­that­it­is­possible­to­argue­that­OLBs­try­to­generalize­the­blogs­in­the­context­of­scholarly­publishing,­open-science,­and­data-driven­science.­Thus,­the­topic­of­blogs­and­blogging­will­not­be­discussed­further­within­this­inquiry.­An­insightful­analysis­of­blogs­as­an­approach­between­formal­and­informal­scholarly­publishing­is­presented­by­Puschmann­and­Mahrt­(2013)­and­Puschmann­and­Bastos­(2015).

AggregationsMore­or­less­at­the­same­time­as­the­development­of­OLBs,­the­notion­of­publications­as­aggregations,­sometimes­also­referred­to­as­Scientific Compound Object Publishing­(Hunter­et­al.­2008)­or­Compound Information Objects­(Lagoze­and­Van­de­Sompel­2007)­started­to­become­prominent.­A­crucial­backdrop­for­such­publication­concepts­is­some­of­the­infrastructure­developments­indicated­at­the­end­of­the­last­chapter,­described­in­greater­detail­below.­Although­such­developments­took­place­earlier,­it­is­between­2008­and­2010­that­they­led­to­the­creation­of­real­publications.

Aggregations­interpret­the­decomposition­of­publications­in­a­slightly­different­way­than­MAs­or­OLBs.­Also,­the­design­logic­of­aggregations­starts­from­the­opposite­direction.­The­question­is­not­how­to­decompose­pre-existing­publications­into­smaller­units­but­to­stress­quite­literally­that­the­idea­of­an­aggregation­in­science­is­enough­by­itself­in­order­to­speak­about­a­scholarly­publication.­A­favorable­reason­for­this­emphasis­is­the­fact­that­aggregations­are­developed­by­agents­involved­in­activities­different­from­those­of­OLBs­and­MAs.­Publications­like­those­discussed­in­this­section­are­associated­with­computer­and­information-scientists,­mostly­involved­in­the­field­of­digital­infrastructure­development.

The­main­theme­behind­such­publications­is­best­described­by­citing­the­title­of­Van­de­Sompel­et­al.­(2010):­“From­Artefacts­to­Aggregations.”­In­order­to­entirely­distinguish­this­phrase­from­ideas­like­modularization­or­the­inclusion­of­additional­resources­such­as­data­or­visualizations­into­blogs,­it­is­important­to­stress­that­aggregations­completely­abstract­from­any­idea­of­qualitative­connectivity.­In­technical­terms,­that­means­con-nectivity­going­beyond­linking­between­two­resources­or­defining­what­

Publishing 3.0 63

can­be­linked.­While­MAs­decompose­articles­into­smaller­units,­they­still­very­much­refer­to­the­article­as­a­conceptual­framework­and­to­a­positive­description­of­information.­Open­Laboratory­Books­include­resources­which­could­not­be­integrated­in­paper­notebooks,­but­this­notebook­is­much­more­than­an­aggregation.­Resources­are­packaged­within­a­software­environment,­that­being­the­blog,­and­thereby­connected­within­a­narrative,­by­time,­and­by­layout­through­the­design­of­the­publication­environment.­Open­Laboratory­Books­are­defined­from­a­perspective­that­comes­out­of­the­research­process,­because­it­is­mostly­developed­by­researchers.

In­contrast,­aggregations­represent­a­curator’s­point­of­view,­who­is­less­invested­in­the­value­of­specific­resources­and­the­way­such­resources­affect­each­other,­than­with­the­fact­that­in­any­case­she­needs­to­take­care­of­a­certain­set­of­resources­that­are­in­some­way­entangled­with­each­other.­Lagoze­et­al.­(2012,­15)­make­this­shift­in­perspective­very­clear­when­they­provide­the­example­of­a­webpage­from­the­JSTOR11 archive that they decompose­into­a­model­of­resources­and­links,­as­well­as­another­example­from­astronomy,­in­order­to­showcase­the­possibility­of­building­a­pub-lication­from­resources­of­any­digital­type­that­could­be­connected­in­any­definable­way.­Assuming­this­point­of­view,­the­image­of­the­aggregation­tackles­both­the­decomposition­of­resources­perceived­as­artifacts­into­aggregations,­and­the­accumulation­of­artifacts­into­bigger­aggregations.

The­key­component­for­publications­as­aggregations­is­the­OAI-ORE­data­model,­developed­to­gain­more­interoperability­in­certain­contexts­of­the­web­(Van­de­Sompel­and­Lagoze­2007;­Lagoze­and­Van­de­Sompel­2007).­The­capacity­to­generally­aggregate­digital­resources­requires­both­a­consistent­way­of­referring­to­resources,­and­of­describing­the­resulting­aggregation.­Flaws­in­existing­approaches­with­comparable­purpose­were­the­reasons­leading­to­the­implementation­of­OAI-ORE­(Van­de­Sompel­et­al.­2010,­3).­The­most­important­design­decision­behind­OAI-ORE­is­based­on­the­claim­that­the­goals­of­such­a­model­could­be­best­accomplished­by­sticking­to­the­mechanisms­of­the­web­itself­(Lagoze­et­al.­2012).­One­of­the­main­mechanisms­of­the­web­is­the­URI­(see­sec.­on­Linked­Open­Data).­In­OAI-ORE­such­URIs­are­not­just­used­as­addresses­of­websites,­but­to­identify­anything,­even­abstract­concepts.­In­the­context­of­aggregations,­URI­identify:­(a)­the­complete­description­of­aggregations­in­a­metadata-like­web­document,­(b)­the­terms­that­are­used­to­describe­the­relation-ships­between­resources­and­(c),­the­resources­that­are­linked­together­

11­ https://www.jstor.org/

64 Beyond the Flow

themselves.­This­approach­has­two­consequences.­First,­anything­that­has­a­URI­is­a­resource­itself,­which­may­serve­as­a­resource­in­other­resources­that­define­aggregations.­Second,­in­consequence­to­the­web­approach­an­aggregation­does­not­exist­in­any­other­way­than­as­a­metadata­description­called­resource­map.­The­resources­remain­somewhere­in­the­web­and­are­only­referenced­in­the­same­way­as­websites.­Thus,­aggregations­form­pub-lications,­the­parts­of­which­are­distributed­all­over­the­web.

Collections

The­epitome­of­a­scholarly­aggregation,­especially­in­the­case­of­the­humanities,­can­be­seen­in­collections.­The­gathering­of­material­for­a­collection­and­the­selection­of­items­in­the­context­of­a­specific­research­topic­is­an­important­curatorial­process­supposed­to­contain­a­lot­of­intellectual­work­already­(Palmer­et­al.­2009,­11–13).­Additionally,­collections­of­a­certain­type­have­always­been­presented,­for­instance­in­libraries­or­archives.­Thus,­it­does­not­surprise­that­creating­collections­as­a­form­of­academic­publishing­became­increasingly­attractive­at­the­same­time­as­OAI-ORE­created­better­conditions­to­do­so.­Abargues,­Granell,­and­Huerta­(2010,­1)­accordingly­put­the­publication­of­collections­into­the­context­of­a­new­paradigm­of­publishing.

Publications as aggregations are collections if there are no further specifications­describing­the­type­of­relationship­of­the­aggregated­resources.­In­other­words,­the­dominant­aspect­linking­the­resources­in­a­collection­is­the­theme­of­the­collection­itself.

A­very­early­approach­tightly­connected­to­the­development­of­OAI-ORE­itself­is­oreChem­(Lagoze­2009).­oreChem­publishes­collections­of­resources­from­molecular­chemistry.­The­resources­are­hosted­in­different­repositories.­Abargues,­Granell,­and­Huerta­(2010)­presented­the­same­approach,­but­for­geo-referenced­places­instead­of­molecules.­Another­approach­from­the­humanities,­especially­scholars­from­the­literature­domain,­is­presented­by­Hunter­and­Gerber­(Gerber­and­Hunter­2008;­Hunter­and­Gerber­2009;­Gerber­and­Hunter­2010;­Hunter­and­Gerber­2011).­The Literature Object Reuse and Exchange­(also­referred­to­as­LORE)­project­enables­the­formation­and­publication­of­collections­on­top­of­Australian­repository­infrastructures­hosting­resources­critical­for­philology­and­literature­studies.­LORE­provides­a­sophisticated­authoring­component­implemented­as­a­browser­plugin,­an­idea­which­resembles­that­of­distrib-uted­resources­and­networked­research.

Publishing 3.0 65

The­main­reason­for­the­publication­of­collections­shared­by­all­authors­in­the­aforementioned­example­is­the­reduction­of­technological­and­semantic­heterogeneity­between­published­resources­within­in­a­certain­domain.­The­motivation­behind­reducing­heterogeneity­is­the­creation­of­better­conditions­for­information­retrieval.­The­example­of­oreChem­and­chemSpider12­makes­this­very­clear,­as­it­was­also­initiated­as­a­complement­to­approaches­such­as­OLBs­(Clark,­Williams,­and­Ekins­2015),­which­have­excluded­these­problems­in­order­to­be­able­to­create­publications­to­their­liking­(Bradley­and­Owens­2008).

Workflow PublicationsScientific Publication Packages

As­mentioned­above,­collections­gather­resources­pertaining­to­a­certain­topic.­The­way­in­which­these­resources­link­to­each­other­is­not­necessarily­a­crucial­issue.­This­distinguishes­them­from­other­approaches­which­decisively­try­to­answer­the­question­how­resources­are­linked­within­the­scholarly­domain­in­general.­In­an­attempt­to­define­the­appropriate­point­of­orientation­for­the­modelling­of­collections­in­science,­a­new­type­of­pub-lications­emerged.­This­publication­concept­makes­use­of­the­OAI-ORE­

facilities­and­an­online­data-publication­approach­called­linked open data (see­next­section),­but­adds­organizing­principles­to­the­way­resources­are­gathered­within­the­OAI-ORE­aggregation.

The­key­idea­of­corresponding­formats­like­Scientific Publication Packages (hereafter­referred­to­as­SPP)­or­Research Objects­(hereafter­referred­to­as­RO)­is­the­claim­that­the­most­significant­theme­for­the­design­of­pub-lications­in­science­should­be­a­so-called­workflow.­The­concept­of­work-flow­is­derived­from­the­claim­that­science­is­organized­in­lifecycles­(Van­de­Sompel­et­al.­2010).­In­more­concrete­terms,­advocates­of­corresponding­publications­argue­that­science­and­its­dynamic­of­innovation­is­organized­into­three­phases:­(a)­the­production­of­knowledge­that­is­the­research­process­itself,­(b)­the­creation­of­publications,­i.e. the­communication­of­knowledge,­and­(c)­the­use­of­the­represented­knowledge­by­researchers­who­therefore­need­to­interact­with­publications.­This­setup­is­conceived­of­as­“remarkably­stable”­(Van­de­Sompel­et­al.­2010,­567)­despite­historical­changes­of­the­scientific­field.

12­ http://www.chemspider.com/

66 Beyond the Flow

The­way­this­lifecycle­is­described­presents­publications­primarily­as­a­necessary­mediator­between­the­first­and­the­third­phase.­Following­this­description,­it­is­possible­to­argue­that­a­good­mediator­brings­the­two­ends­of­the­mediation­process­together­as­closely­as­possible.­With­this­argument­in­mind,­workflow-oriented­publications­argue­that­the­whole­research­process­needs­to­be­published­instead­of­just­a­summary.­Within­the­research­process,­knowledge­is­produced­and­thus­only­the­research­process­can­give­testimony­about­the­adequacy­of­scientific­knowledge.­Workflows­are­introduced­as­a­formal­model­for­the­representation­of­research­processes,­which­make­it­possible­to­turn­research­processes­into­objects.­They­describe­a­“series­of­structured­activities­and­computations­that­arise­in­scientific­problem-solving”­(Bechhofer­et­al.­2012,­sec.­1),­which­in­turn­“support­reproducibility­and­reuse­in­sciences”­(De­Roure­et­al.­2012).­Thus,­workflow­publications­try­to­let­readers­be­observers­of­the­research­process­itself.

A­workflow­publication­may­embed­all­resources­of­a­particular­research­process,­like­primary­data,­processed­resources,­software,­text,­and­media­among­other­things.­However,­collecting­such­resources­is­not­enough­to­really­gain­reproducibility­(Yuan­et­al.­2018).­Workflow­publications,­thus,­attach­descriptive­metadata­to­each­resource,­representing­their­temporal­position­and­role­within­the­research­process,­itself­defined­as­a­goal­oriented­consecutive­process­(Hunter­2006,­sec.­1;­Hunter­2008,­36).

Scientific­Publication­Packages­were­the­first­example­of­workflow­pub-lications.­They­were­first­presented­as­Scientific Model Packages by Hunter (2006)­in­2006.­The­term­model­explicitly­emphasizes­the­paramount­theme­of­the­scientific­workflow.­The­work­was­part­of­the­FUSION13­project­at­the­University of Queensland­which­evaluated­the­impact­of­grid­technologies14 in­computer-driven­research­in­the­fields­of­bioengineering­and­nano-technology.­The­Scientific­Publication­Packages­two­years­later­(Hunter­2008)­were­a­slightly­modified­version.­The­approach­makes­use­of­a­comparable­attempt­by­Coleman­(2002),­albeit­benefiting­from­the­afore-mentioned­technological­environments­and­the­context­of­infrastructure­development.

It­is­obvious­that­SPPs­and­OLBs­share­the­same­focus­on­the­research­process­in­terms­of­its­processuality.­However,­even­with­that­common­

13­ http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/eresearch/projects/fusion14­ In­computation,­a­grid­is­a­network­of­linked­computers­that­could­be­used­together­

in­order­to­carry­out­one­specific­task.­It­enables­to­use­resources­from­all­the­computers­in­the­grid­which­facilitates­computations­that­very­expensive­(see­also­Magoules­et­al.­2009).

Publishing 3.0 67

ground,­SPP­make­a­very­different­choice­regarding­the­consequences­of­this­priority.­Most­notably,­SPPs­confirm­the­closed­nature­of­research­processes,­whereby­OLBs­emphasize­that­those­endings­are­artificially­set­up­and­that­research­never­really­comes­to­an­end.­Scientific­Publication­Packages­are­in­consequence­authored­all­at­once,­while­OLBs­emerge­in­a­dynamic­and­fluent­way.­The­idea­of­defined­research­processes­that­have­a­starting­point­and­an­end­point­demands­more­decisions­explicitly­in­the­design­process­of­the­publication­format­as­such.­In­the­case­of­SPPs,­this­leads­to­a­much­higher­degree­of­formality­in­the­SPP­model­compared­to­OLBs.­For­instance,­SPPs­use­the­so-called­ABC­(Lagoze­and­Hunter­2006)­model­in­order­to­define­formal­terms­and­entities­that­build­the­workflow­description­(Hunter­2008,­38).­Having­said­this,­SPPs­are­more­concerned­with­the­notion­of­publications­as­objects­while­OLBs­are­intent­on­pub-lishing­as­an­activity.

The­aforementioned­difference­underlying­the­two­formats­is­discussed­explicitly­in­the­context­of­SPPs.­From­a­methodological­point­of­view,­Hunter­highlights­the­distinction­between­workflow­and­lineage­(Hunter­2006,­sec.­3.1).­The­workflow­describes­steps­to­be­carried­out­in­order­to­reach­a­goal,­before­such­steps­are­actually­taken.­A­workflow­is­like­a­work­schedule.­Lineage­describes­what­really­happened­after­the­workflow­has­been­applied.­To­this­end,­lineage­makes­use­of­information­gathered­within­the­process,­especially­in­computer-driven­science­where­it­is­literally­recorded­and­called­provenance.­However,­Hunter­also­emphasizes­that­data­conversion,­acquisition,­and­inference­need­to­be­applied­in­order­to­get­an­informative­picture­of­lineage.­It­is­then­possible­to­also­categorically­distinguish­between­provenance­and­lineage.­From­the­viewpoint­of­this­discussion,­OLBs­favor­the­provenance­perspective.­Provenance­in­OLBs­is­nonetheless­mostly­told­rather­than­recorded.

Scientific­Publication­Packages­were­developed­mainly­by­computer­scientists­and­infrastructure­projects,­as­noted­above.­This­situation­offered­more­possibilities­for­a­more­sophisticated­publication­format,­but­more­importantly­it­included­the­development­of­software­facilitating­the­creation­of­and­interaction­with­such­publications.­An­example­of­this­is­the­SCOPE virtual research environment15 (Hunter­et­al.­2008).­In­SCOPE,­scientists­have­the­ability­to­investigate­and­visualize­workflows,­to­automatically­infer­new­workflows­from­existing­workflows,­and­to­link­web­resources­

15­ A­virtual­research­environment­is­a­design­concept­for­the­creation­of­software­that­seeks­to­support­research­in­specific­domains­across­different­steps­in­the­research­process­and­in­completing­different­tasks­within­one­consistent­product­(see­also­JISC­2013;­Candela,­Castelli,­and­Pagano­2013).

68 Beyond the Flow

with­the­workflow.­For­the­purpose­of­publishing,­it­offers­the­possibility­to­attach­licenses­in­a­machine-readable­way­and­to­define­rules­that­restrict­access.

Research Objects

The­concept­of­ROs­is­a­derivate­of­the­project­myExperiment16­(De­Roure­et­al.­2009;­De­Roure,­Bechhofer,­and­Goble­2011).­The­goal­of­this­project­was­to­create­an­infrastructure­around­the­idea­of­sharing­workflows­as­a­primary­research­output­comparable­to­SPPs.­The­myExperiment­project­created­a­web-portal­around­the­notion­of­ROs­in­which­scientists­are­able­to­retrieve,­review,­repeat,­reuse,­and­re-purpose­previously­published­workflows.­This­portal­provided­data­for­the­analysis­of­user­behavior­(De­Roure­et­al.­2009,­sec.­3;­Bechhofer,­De­Roure,­et­al.­2010,­sec.­4),­where­one­of­the­outcomes­was­the­insight­that­workflows­alone­are­not­considered­sufficient­by­scientists­who­want­to­use­other­researchers’­workflows­(De­Roure­2014b).

MyExperiment­developed­the­possibility­of­creating­a­pack in which test data,­presentations,­articles,­and­other­“supplemental”­material­were­put­together­with­the­workflow­into­a­downloadable­zip­(see­below)­file­(De­Roure,­Bechhofer,­and­Goble­2011).­Research­Objects­are­more­elab-orate­versions­of­packs­which­refer­to­open­technologies­(see­below)­and­standards.­They­make­use­of­the­OAI-ORE­data­model­and­of­a­set­of­related­best­practices­known­as­linked­open­data.­However,­they­also­address­situations­where­such­best­practices­do­not­suffice­(Bechhofer,­Ainsworth,­et­al.­2010;­Bechhofer,­De­Roure,­et­al.­2010).

For­the­purpose­of­advancing­ROs­as­a­publication­concept,­an­international­infrastructure­project­with­several­partners,­funded­by­the­European­Union,­was­launched­in­2010.­The­project,­which­lasted­until­2013,­was­called­workflow4ever­(Gómez-Pérez­2013).­At­the­end­of­the­project,­related­activities­moved­into­a­W3C17­community­group­(W3C­Research­Object­for­Scholarly­Communication­Community­Group­2013)­as­well­as­into­a­loosely­organized­consortium­(Goble­2015).­Among­other­things,­such­initiatives­provided­a­set­of­formal­semantics­for­the­description­of­ROs­(Bechhofer­et­al.­2014)­as­well­as­low-level­tools­for­their­creation­and­management­(De­Roure­et­al.­2012).­The­social­dimensions­of­ROs­as­a­publication­format­were­evaluated­further.­This­led­to­a­schematic­illustration­of­the­lifecycle­

16­ https://www.myexperiment.org/home17­ W3C­is­the­acronym­of­the­World Wide Web Consortium­which­organizes­the­stand-

ardization­of­technologies­related­to­the­world­wide­web­(see­https://www.w3.org/

Publishing 3.0 69

of­published­workflows­(Bechhofer­et­al.­2012)­and­to­a­way­of­automatically­modelling­access­rights­as­well­as­personal­relevance­of­ROs­(Gamble­and­Goble­2010).

Research­Objects­are­mainly­used­in­the­domains­of­biology­and­chemistry­(De­Roure,­Belhajjame,­et­al.­2011,­3).­However,­there­are­some­examples­from­the­fields­of­musicology,­(De­Roure,­Page,­et­al.­2011;­De­Roure­2011;­De­Roure­2014a;­McGarry­et­al.­2017),­facilities­science­(Matthews­et­al.­2013),­and­computer­science­(Crick­et­al.­2014)­as­well.

The­overview­of­ROs­above­shows­clearly­that­more­effort­was­put­into­them­by­more­partners­over­a­longer­time­period.­Clearly,­ROs­could­be­described­as­a­more­elaborate­and­explicitly­designed­version­of­SPPs.­In­his­short­comparison­with­SPPs,­Bechhofer­et­al.­(2014,­5)­break­down­the­conceptual­difference­between­SPPs­and­ROs­into­two­points:­(a)­links­between­the­resources­of­the­workflow­exists­as­a­resource­on­its­own­and­independently­from­any­final­format­such­as­the­zip­file­in­myExperiment;­(b)­emphasizes­the­use­of­open­standards,­assuring­the­highest­degree­of­interoperability­for­the­description­of­the­logical­structure­of­RO.­Both­points­directly­refer­to­the­LOD­approach­without­mentioning­this­explicitly­as­the­point­of­comparison.

The­Impact­of­Linked­Open­Data

The­term­“linked­open­data”­was­first­used­by­Berners-Lee­(2009).­It­does­not­so­much­introduce­a­new­piece­of­technology,­it­is­rather­a­request­to­make­use­of­existing­technologies­in­order­to­build­a­web­of­machine-readable­data­side­by­side­to­the­web­of­HTML18­documents­which­primarily­suits­the­needs­of­humans.­Thus,­it­is­a­paradigm­for­the­publication­of­data­(Heath­and­Bizer­2011,­sec. Abstract)­in­a­form­that­corresponds­with­web­principles­(Bizer,­Cyganiak,­and­Heath­2007).­The­mechanisms­that­are­used­are­the­same­as­those­used­to­link­websites.­A­data­source­A,­for­instance,­asserts­that­a­symphony­is­written­by­Shostakovich.­However,­Shostakovich­is­not­just­written­down­in­plain­text­but­represented­by­an­URI19 which

18­ HTML­is­an­acronym­for­Hypertext­Markup­Language­which­is­a­set­of­formal­semantics­used­to­structure­the­content­of­websites.

19­ An­URI­is­a­more­general­form­of­an­URL­which­is­used­to­define­links­between­websites.­Not­only­entities­are­expressed­as­links­but­also­the­links­themselves.­Modular­Articles­introduced­the­notion­of­meaningful­links­as­links­that­specify­in­which­way­the­two­resources­that­are­linked­together­relate­to­each­other.­In­the­sentence­“Shostakovich­composed­the­Leningrad­Symphony”­the­predicate­“composed”­links­together­the­subject­and­the­object.­It­is­a­term­which­in­the­LOD­world­is­part­of­a­formal­vocabulary,­interpretable­by­computers.­It­is­represented­

70 Beyond the Flow

links­directly­to­a­data­source­B­that­contains­biographical­data­about­Dimitri­Shostakovich.­This­data­may­have­the­form­of­values­such­as­dates­and­strings,­but­may­also­consist­of­an­URI­pointing­to­other­data­sources.­Another­assertion­about­a­recording­of­this­symphony,­for­example,­can­directly­link­to­a­data­source­C.

In­a­workflow,­a­piece­of­software­has­a­link­to­a­data­resource­on­which­it­is­applied.­Once­again,­it­is­not­just­a­link­but­a­link­with­meaning.­In­the­case­of­workflow­publications,­this­meaning­could­say­dataset­X­was­generated­by­software­Y.­The­predicate­wasGeneratedBy is part of the W3C-PROV20 ontology,­referenced­by­the­fact­that­the­term­is­represented­by­a­URI.­The­fact­that­the­link­between­the­piece­of­software­and­the­data­source­is­modelled­as­a­link­itself,­pointing­to­the­ontology,­assures­that­the­formal­meaning­of­this­term­can­be­evaluated­by­humans­or­computers­within­the­same­technological­framework­in­which­the­workflow­is­modelled.

It­is­not­the­case­that­SPPs­do­not­provide­proper­standardized­semantics.­They­use­and­extend­the­ABC­model­in­order­to­model­workflows.­The­main­difference­is­the­way­these­semantics­are­serialized­under­the­same­con-ditions­as­the­data­by­following­LOD­guidelines.­This­is­what­Bechhofer­et­al.­meant­with­the­second­distinction­between­SPPs­and­ROs.

Research­Objects­were­introduced­slightly­later­than­SPPs.­The­time­span­is­significant,­however,­because­in­the­interim­the­web­of­data­had­grown­1700­percent­(Cyganiak­2015).­Research­Objects­were­therefore­capable­of­making­full­use­of­LOD.­The­extent­to­which­this­aspect­is­crucial­for­the­success­of­aggregations­in­general­and­ROs­in­particular­can­only­be­fully­appreciated­when­taking­into­account­the­extent­to­which­LOD­and­OAI-ORE­implement­theoretical­ideas­that­had­been­around­in­digital­publishing­for­some­time­in­a­very­pragmatical­way.

While­the­techniques­behind­LOD­enable­online­data­publishing,­LOD­being­just­a­term­to­refer­to­the­world-wide­data-web,­OAI-ORE­provides­the mechanisms to formally refer to a subset of these resources in order­to­create­aggregations­such­as­workflow­publications­(Bechhofer,­Ainsworth,­et­al.­2010).­It­enables­descriptions­of­aggregations­of­LOD­resources.­Accordingly,­it­sets­boundaries­for­a­group­of­resources­that­

as­a­URI­which­itself­links­to­the­vocabulary­that­it­is­part­of.­Thus,­there­is­a­link­between­Shostakovich­and­the­Leningrader­which­is­realized­by­the­meaningful­link­that­is­the­predicate­of­the­sentence,­but­in­the­same­structure­three­more­links­refer­to­other­data­sources­which­hold­data­about­Shostakovich,­the­symphony­and­the­act­of­composing.

20­ https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/

Publishing 3.0 71

belong­together­in­the­context­of­an­aggregation.­Consequently,­De­Roure,­Bechhofer,­and­Goble­(2011,­4),­Bechhofer,­Ainsworth,­et­al.­(2010,­13),­and­Bechhofer,­Ainsworth,­et­al.­(2010,­1322)­call­ROs­“boundary­objects.”­The­only­thing­which­make­resources­a­part­of­an­aggregation­is­a­link,­and­the­very­same­resource­can­be­part­of­many­other­aggregations.­Such­links­can­be­gathered­in­a­web­document­or­stored­in­a­database­which­is­acces-sible­on­the­web.­The­important­aspect­is­the­fact­that­the­aggregation­is­no­more­than­a­formal­description­of­(data)­resources­on­the­web.­It­is­now­clear­why­the­LOD­movement­and­the­OAI-ORE­model­fundamentally­belong­together­in­the­context­of­aggregations,­and­why­ROs­became­a­more­successful­version­of­workflow­publications­than­SPPs.

From­Workflows­to­Packs­to­Research­Objects

As­has­been­previously­mentioned,­the­design­of­ROs­was­a­process­starting­with­the­development­of­an­infrastructure­in­order­to­share­workflows.­Similarly,­to­Hunter,­Bechhofer­et­al.­(2012,­sec.­3)­distinguish­between­three­workflow­layers:­the­first­describes­the­abstract­idea­of­what­a­workflow­is,­the­second­defines­templates­for­workflows­before­they­are­applied,­the­third­layer­contains­the­data­that­is­recorded­in­order­to­document­the­applied­workflow.­The­main­concern­at­the­beginning­of­myExperiment­was­the­second­layer­as­well­as­the­creation­of­a­social­space­around­workflows­(De­Roure,­Bechhofer,­and­Goble­2011,­sec.­III).­This­space­follows­the­idea­that­by­sharing­one’s­workflows­others­could­reuse­them­or­put­together­parts­of­different­workflows­into­new­ones.­In­the­best­case­such­workflows­can­be­executed­automatically­and­thereby­enable­scientists­to­easily­test­workflows­and­“accelerate­discovery”­(Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­2012,­sec­2.2).

De­Roure,­Bechhofer,­and­Goble­(2011,­3)­mention­how­the­possibility­to­reuse­other­people’s­workflows­created­a­demand­to­have­access­to­resources­that­are­associated­with­the­workflow­in­a­broader­perspective.­This­does­not­only­mean­data.­It­includes­articles,­presentations,­and­other­supplemental­resources­bundled­into­a­so-called­pack.­At­its­core­a­pack­is­a­list­of­links­to­these­resources­and­the­workflow­data,­which­itself­remains­the­key­component­(De­Roure­et­al.­2013,­304).­Sometimes,­a­pack­is­packaged­with­its­supplemental­resources­into­a­ZIP21­file­(Roos­et­al.­2010,­

21­ ZIP­is­a­file­and­container­format­which­enables­to­bundle­multiple­files­into­one­file.­Since­ZIP­uses­a­compression­algorithm­the­resulting­file­is­most­often­smaller­in­size­than­the­original­files­altogether.

72 Beyond the Flow

14).­In­this­scenario­it­obviously­relinquishes­the­conceptual­and­theoretical­approach­of­LOD­and­aggregations.

Bechhofer,­De­Roure,­et­al.­(2010,­sec.­4)­distinguish­between­seven­different­types­of­packs.­Packs­for­the­purpose­of­publishing­are­only­one­possible­scenario.­Thus,­ROs­are­a­concept­building­on­basic­packs,­for­the­specific­tasks­of­publishing.­The­relation­between­packs­and­ROs­is­described­in­a­concise­form­by­De­Roure,­mentioning­that­packs­are­“prototypical­examples­of­Research­Objects”­De­Roure­(2010,­3).

Bechhofer,­De­Roure,­et­al.­(2010,­4)­highlight­several­tasks­crucial­for­the­conversion­of­packs­to­ROs.­The­most­important­issue­is­the­definition­of­a­consistent­way­to­add­metadata.­Four­kinds­of­metadata­are­mentioned­in­this­respect:­(a)­metadata­regarding­the­lifecycle­of­ROs,­version­infor-mation­about­ROs,­ownerships­and­access­rights­metadata,­and­finally­metadata­about­the­relationship­between­ROs­as­a­whole­and­it­parts.­Bechhofer­et­al.­(2014)­outline­the­semantics­which­were­defined­in­the­workflow4ever­project­mentioned­at­the­beginning­of­section­on­ROs.22­A­repository with the name of ROHub­has­been­set­up­providing­basic­access­to­ROs­meant­for­publication.­In­order­to­support­the­publication­process,­a­small­piece­of­software,­usable­from­within­a­terminal23,­was­programmed.

The­path­from­myExperiment­to­Research­Objects­is­a­path­in­which­certain­objects­(workflows)­in­a­well-defined­environment­are­developed­further­to­become­publications.­In­a­similar­way­it­gives­testimony­about­the­impact­of­LOD­and­OAI-ORE­on­the­discourse­about­digital­publications.

The­E-Science­Narrative

A­curious­characteristic­of­ROs­is­the­emphasis­they­put­on­exper-imentation­and­research­cultures,­including­experimentation,­as­a­crucial­aspect.­Experiments­are­not­only­the­name­of­the­original­project­of­RO,­they­are­also­very­close­to­the­concept­of­workflows.­In­principle,­a­work-flow­follows­the­same­pattern­as­experiments­do.­An­experiment­has­to­be­set­up,­it­follows­a­linear­temporal­logic­when­it­“runs,”­and­the­incidents­that­happen­during­runtime­are­documented­together­with­the­results­for­further­interpretation.­The­similarities­between­the­experimental­model­of­doing­science­and­the­theme­of­workflows­is­the­reason­why­workflows­

22­ Machine-readable­versions­of­these­semantics­can­be­found­at­Goble­(2015­sec. Specs­and­Tooling)

23­ A­terminal­is­an­interface­for­the­control­of­computers­which­has­no­graphical­components­like­windows­or­buttons.­It­works­by­writing­commands­which­are­consecutively­evaluated.

Publishing 3.0 73

are­the­core­model­behind­ROs.­In­the­case­of­computational­workflows,­research­processes­are­described­in­three­steps:­(a)­data­and­algorithm­are­selected,­(b)­the­algorithms­are­applied­to­the­data,­and­(c)­the­result­is­viewed,­interpreted,­and­published­(2011,­sec.­3).­The­steps­of­an­exper-iment­and­a­computational­workflow­are­identical.­Even­more­important­than­the­steps­themselves­is­the­fact­that­workflow­and­experiment­share­the­same­temporal-linear­logic­in­which­each­step­has­its­time.­The­striking­detail­about­the­description­of­the­three­steps­of­computational­work-flows­is­that­it­was­derived­from­an­article­about­research­in­musicology,­or­more­precisely­“computational­musicology.”­Hence,­it­describes­a­research­process­in­the­context­of­a­field­which­historically­has­few­connections­with­experimenting­sciences.­Thus,­ROs­try­to­bring­the­notion­of­experiments­far­beyond­experimenting­sciences:

…­we­should­say­“research”­rather­than­science,­because­the­Web­is­agnostic­about­research­discipline:­it­is­as­much­a­home­for­digital­arts­and­digital­humanities­as­digital­science­and­engineering.­(De­Roure­2010,­90)

Such­a­generalization­refers­to­a­much­broader­discourse­on­the­state­of­research.­Research­Objects­were­not­just­developed­by­computer­scientists,­but­by­computer­scientists­who­belonged­to­a­peculiar­field­of­activity­called­e-Science.­De­Roure­defines­e-Science­as:

…­characterized­by­global­reuse­of­tools,­data­and­methods­across­any­discipline­….­Research­is­significantly­data­driven­and­we­see­increasing­automation­and­decision-support­for­the­researcher­as­the­environ-ment.­(De­Roure­2011,­10)

The­generalization­from­one­specific­practice­doing­research­to­a­global­model­for­research­as­such­is­framed­by­a­political­and­epistemological­discourse,­the­key­features­of­which­will­be­outlined­in­the­following­para-graphs.­The­section­about­OLBs­has­already­introduced­a­peculiar­dis-course­frame­called­open­science.­Indeed,­open­science­and­e-Science­are­strongly­linked­to­each­other.­On­the­one­hand,­ROs­would­not­work­well­without an open web environment of accessible resources from which they­arise.­On­the­other­hand,­open­science­advocates­agree­that­the­most­scientific­benefit­of­open­science­will­arise­from­computational­processing.­The­open­science­discourse­is­more­politically­and­ethically­loaded­than­e-Science,­which­is­more­concerned­with­methodology.­Due­to­this,­both­complement­each­other.­Thus,­for­De­Roure­(2011,­8)­open­science­is­just­the­final­step­in­the­realization­of­e-Science.

74 Beyond the Flow

The­terminology­of­“a­final­step”­and­its­“realization”­implies­a­historical­argument­about­the­development­of­science,­society­and­technology.­E-Science­not­only­makes­references­to­such­a­socio-historical­frame,­it­decisively­perceives­itself­as­the­main­driver­for­a­peculiar­vision­of­socio-historical­progress.­Correspondingly,­two­viewpoints­emerge­when­analyzing­the­e-Science­discourse.­One­characterizes­its­key­features,­the­other­analyses­the­past­and­the­future­it­describes.

The omnipresence of arguments of progress in research literature about ROs­and­e-Science­in­general­is­striking.­In­“The­Future­of­Scholarly­Com-munication”­De­Roure­(2014b)­writes­about­a­thought­experiment­that­looks­back­on­publishing­today­and­describes­why­it­has­to­disappear­in­its­current­form.­The­main­argument­is­presented­in­terms­of­a­linear­vector­within­a­diagram­that­illustrates­how­society­and­science­become­continuously­more­collaborative­and­automated.­In­between,­the­“digital­research­ecosystem”­will­develop­in­“three­generations”­which­De­Roure­outlines­like­this:

…­the­early­adopters­of­new­tools,­followed­by­a­phase­of­embedding­and­re-use­and­then,­building­upon­this­new­sociotechnical­platform,­a­world­of­open­science­and­radical­sharing.­(De­Roure­2011,­1)

The fact that he refers to the article as an obsolete heritage of the historical publishing­system­(De­Roure­2011,­12),­as­well­as­the­claim­that­disciplines­are­at­different­stages­of­their­“computational­turn”­(De­Roure­2011,­12),­clearly­show­that­e-Science­is­not­meant­to­be­one­field­of­research­among­others.­Instead,­it­is­just­a­separate­concept­for­as­long­as­there­is­a­need­to­mark­the­avant-garde,­which­in­time­will­become­normality.­Similarly,­this­viewpoint­is­not­only­presented­in­the­sciences,­there­are­also­the­e-Hu-manities­as­well.

Before­it­is­possible­to­go­into­the­details­of­the­historical­process­as­illus-trated­by­the­e-Science­agenda,­certain­characteristics­of­this­agenda­need­explanation.­Obviously,­the­center­of­e-Science­is­its­focus­on­computation­as­the­dominant­mode­of­scholarly­engagement.­In­this­sense­the­rise­of­e-Science­corresponds­with­the­term­“computational­turn”­used­by­De­Roure­before.­The­question­what­computation­means­can­be­answered­by­referring­to­the­self-descriptions­of­e-Science.­De­Roure­states­that:

This­can­be­characterized­as­the­“Big­Science”­view­of­e-Science:­scientists­working­with­heroic­computational­power­and­volumes­of­data,­targeting­breakthroughs­in­the­modelling­of­everything­from­

Publishing 3.0 75

storms­and­earthquakes­to­fly­brains­and­nanoscale­transistors.­(De­Roure­2010,­1)

This­quote­implicitly­contains­many­of­the­important­qualities­of­e-Science,­but­in­a­form­that­communicates­well­the­mission­it­represents.­Key­issues­are­addressed­by­power,­volume,­data,­modelling,­and­the­plural­form­of­the­word­scientist.­This­plural­refers­to­collaboration­as­a­key­element­of­e-Science.­De­Roure­presents­another­description­of­e-Science­in­“Machines,­Methods­and­Music”­(De­Roure­2011,­12).­This­description­remains­a­bit­fuzzy­as­well.­It­can­be­reduced­to­the­following­six­terms,­terms­that­will­be­used­in­the­present­study­to­characterize­the­e-Science­approach.­Beside­collaboration,­e-Science­builds­on­the­themes­of­automation,­data,­acceleration,­connectivity,­and­preservation.

The­goal­of­automation­is­linked­to­a­topic­which­has­been­denoted­as­a­serial­crisis­or­information­overload­in­the­previous­sections.­In­e-Science­this­issue­turns­into­a­situation­in­which­advocates­proclaim­that­the­“volumes­of­data”­cannot­be­processed­by­human­minds.­This­situation­demands­automation­in­order­to­prevent­the­data deluge:

The­data­deluge­is­caused­by,­and­needs­to­be­handled­by,­innovation­in­automation­and­by­the­new­scale­of­participation­of­scientists­in­the­digital­world.”­(De­Roure­2011,­1)

However,­in­e-Science­automation­does­not­stop­at­automating­tasks­within­research­processes,­which­could­hardly­be­handled­otherwise.­Automation­becomes­an­ethos,­and­as­an­ethos­e-Science­tries­to­significantly­extent­the­scope­where­automation­is­applied.­Automation­in­e-Science­aims­at­automation­of­research­itself.­Correspondingly,­Neylon­(2009,­sec. Introduction)­uses­the­term­“automated­experimentation.”

Research­Objects­are­publications­designed­to­facilitate­this­very­goal­and­not­just­for­reasons­of­transparency­and­openness.­The­idea­of­workflows­itself­links­closely­to­the­ethos­of­automation,­for­it­provides­a­viewpoint­on­research­that­is­formalizable.­The­redesign­of­publications­in­this­field­is­strongly­motivated­by­the­goal­of­preparing­publications­for­the­sake­of­automation­(De­Roure­2010,­92–93)­and­to­facilitate­automated­processing­of­its­contents­(Shotton­2009).­It­implies­that­automation­is­always­useful,­wherever­it­is­possible.­The­data­deluge­is­one­of­the­key­arguments­behind­this­claim.

The­next­step­to­automated­science­after­automated­experimentation­is­automated­knowledge­discovery­(Pan­2010).­In­automated­knowledge­dis-covery,­tasks­such­as­data­selection,­aggregation,­and­method­selection­

76 Beyond the Flow

among­others­are­automated­within­a­self-learning­computation­seeking­to­adequately­solve­defined­problems.­In­another­step,­scientific­robots­or­“bots”­(Kuhn­2015)­operate­self-responsibly­(Sofronijević­2012),­thereby­becoming­agents­of­their­own.­These­“social­machines”­(De­Roure­2014a,­237)­are­the­final­stage­on­the­way­towards­fully­automated­science.

Once­again­thoughts­of­the­future­of­publishing­are­tightly­coupled­with­a­discourse­that­uses­the­argument­of­scarce­resources­in­order­to­make­a certain vision more convincing: “we can anticipate an increasingly automated­future­—­we­will­run­out­of­humans­and­yet­the­technology­axis­goes­on”­(De­Roure­2014b,­234).

The­topics­of­automation­and­data­deluge­also­lead­to­another­issue:­acceleration.­Bradley­and­Owens­(2008,­2),­like­most­authors­in­this­research­field,­emphasize­that­the­of­goal­automation­is­the­acceleration­of­the­scientific­progress.­Names­of­related­software­such­as­ChemSpeed Technologies AG, Accelerator SLT100 Synthesizer­(Bradley­and­Owens­2008,­4)­give­ample­evidence­of­this­ideal.

There­are­few­examples­in­which­the­ideal­of­acceleration­is­discussed­explicitly.­Cribb­expressed­one­of­the­reasons­implicitly­in­the­phrase­quoted­in­the­section­on­open­science­and­the­open­laboratory­book.­The­number­of­urgent­problems­in­the­world­forces­science­to­find­quicker­ways­of­dealing­with­the­problems­outlined­by­the­author.­In­e-Science,­accel-eration­is­understood­as­a­reduction­of­the­“time-to-discovery”­(De­Roure­2013,­1)­in­“scientist’s­knowledge­turns”­(Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­2012).­A­knowledge-turn­is­conceived­as­the­time­needed­for­results­of­one­research­process­to­be­processed­into­the­new­results­of­subsequent­research­processes.­Marcondes­(2005,­119)­calls­this­shift­the­embodiment­of­research­results­within­the­scientific­knowledge­base.

Another­point­of­reference­in­e-Science­regards­the­conditions­necessary­for­e-Science­to­become­the­main­mode­of­doing­research.­In­other­words,­everything­that­is­of­value­within­an­e-Science­research­process­has­to­be­available­in­digital­form,­or­at­least­to­be­easily­digitizable.­A­computational­workflow­is­not­capable­of­taking­things­into­account­that­have­no­digital­representation.­There­is­no­methodological­concept­for­how­to­deal­with­non-digital­things­within­e-Research­and­its­publications.­Digital­rep-resentation­is­conceived­as­the­most­outstanding­as­well­as­dominant­mode­of­representation.­Thus,­already­in­2010­Bourne­(2010,­1)­stresses­that­“computation­has­impacted­science­to­the­point­where­every­aspect­of­it­is­touched­by­computation.”

Publishing 3.0 77

A­further­restriction­regarding­representation­is­the­fact­that­in­most­cases­digital­representation­refers­to­an­abstract­notion­of­data.­Executable Music Documents­(De­Roure­2014a)­are­thus­not­publications­meant­to­be­listened­to.­They­contain­music­data­in­a­form­that­suits­the­algorithms­with­which­this­data­is­packaged.­The­concentration­on­data­as­a­form­of­appearance­and­not­just­as­a­means­of­representation­led­to­e-Science­often­being­called­data-driven science­(Hey,­Tansley,­and­Tolle­2009;­De­Roure­2014b,­234).

Complementary­to­the­discourse­in­open­science­and­its­ethos­of­collab-oration,­e-Science,­and­here­especially­the­research­field­of­ROs,­develops­the­notion­of­“social­infrastructure”­(De­Roure­et­al.­2009,­3).­Driven­by­the­claim­that­“the­majority­of­scientific­advances­in­the­public­domain­result­from­collective­efforts”­(Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­2012,­21)­this­infra-structure­is­a­primary­concern­in­corresponding­discussions.­De­Roure,­Bechhofer,­and­Goble­(2011,­1)­clearly­references­this­when­he­uses­the­term­“Science­2.0.”­As­the­development­of­the­web­2.0­caused­a­new­type­of­engagement­of­web­users­in­the­web,­the­implementation­of­social­infra-structure­will­engender­a­new­type­of­science.

The­concept­of­ROs­building­on­the­model­of­distributed­web­resources,­reproducibility,­and­reuse­depends­on­another­given:­the­availability­of­these­resources.­Such­availability­has­been­partially­addressed­by­the­ethos­of­openness­and­digitization.­However,­openness­and­digitization­do­not­assure­that­resources­are­here­to­stay.­Consequently,­another­ethos­builds­upon­the­topic­of­preservation.

Major­players­in­the­field­of­e-Science­advocate­a­radical­form­of­archiving­that­tries­to­preserve­as­much­as­possible­from­what­is­produced­digitally.­The­argument­behind­this­approach­is­the­claim­that­the­future­value­of­resources­cannot­be­anticipated­(Bourne­2010)­at­the­time­where­archiving­decisions­are­made.­Accordingly,­ubiquitous­preservation­is­demanded.­This­demand­is­well­addressed­by­remarks­that­without­radical­archiving,­a­“digital­dark­age”­(Choudhury­et­al.­2008,­20)­will­arise­in­which­“knowledge­burying”­(De­Roure­et­al.­2009,­10)­is­an­omnipresent­problem.

Now­that­the­characteristics­of­the­e-Science­agenda­are­clearer,­it­is­easier­to­follow­the­arguments­of­history­and­progress­in­which­e-Science­posits­itself.­The­avant-garde­status,­which­e-Science­claims­for­itself,­is­only­con-vincing­when­there­is­a­past­that­directly­leads­to­the­e-Science­mode­of­research­and­a­future­to­which­this­particular­avant-garde­leads­in­the­most­direct­way.­In­both­viewpoints­e-Science­has­strong­opinions.­The­state­of­affairs­which­presents­e-Science­as­a­necessary­step,­and­which­is­the­

78 Beyond the Flow

result­of­a­history­that­focus­on­the­history­of­technological­innovation,­has­already­been­discussed­on­several­occasions.­At­its­end­there­is­the­data­deluge.­Data­deluge­was­introduced­as­an­updated­version­of­information­overload­and­the­serial­crisis.­While­information­overload­is­indifferent­to­the­form­of­the­information,­data­deluge­is­more­precise.­It­completely­adheres­to­the­mode­in­which­e-Science­is­trying­to­do­science,­a­mode­which­focuses­on­data­and­computation.­A­more­concrete­definition­of­the­data­deluge­specifies­it­in­terms­of­the­so-called­“three­Vs”­(Hendler­2013).­Accordingly,­the­velocity­with­which­information­is­produced,­as­well­as­its­volume­and­variety­dominate­science­in­such­a­way­that­only­e-Science­is­capable­of­dealing­with­it.­This­issue­is­likewise­not­presented­as­an issue in science but as the­issue­of­science­today.­From­the­viewpoint­of­e-Science,­this challenge is primarily a failure of the historical publishing system (Neylon­2009,­2),­where­modes­of­production­do­not­match­modes­of­con-sumption­any­longer.­Insofar­as­e-Science­appears­to­be­the­way­out­of­this­crisis­ROs­have­to­become­the­new­publication­format.

According­to­Borgman,­Wallis,­and­Enyedy­(2007,­7),­the­topic­of­the­data­deluge­is­one­of­the­main­drivers­behind­funding­investments­into­e-Science.­At­the­other­end­of­the­discussion­are­advocates­like­David­De­Roure,­affirming­that­“this­new­sociotechnical­situation­means­we­are­better­equipped­to­cope­with­the­data­deluge­that­predicated­the­e-Science­program”­(2011,­sec.­4).­Research­Objects­and­other­workflow-oriented­pub-lications­are­the­means­which­“deliver­systematic­pipelines­to­deal­with­the­data­deluge”­(Bechhofer,­De­Roure,­et­al.­2010,­91).

The­discourse­about­the­future­is­dominated­by­arguments­about­the­epistemological­environment­this­future­will­bring.­One­part­of­these­arguments­was­provided­by­the­anthology­on­The Fourth Paradigm pub-lished­by­Microsoft­Research­(Hey,­Tansley,­and­Tolle­2009).­The­other­point­of­reference­is­the­article­“The­End­of­Theory:­The­Data­Deluge­Makes­the­Scientific­Method­Obsolete”­published­2008­in­The Wire­(Anderson­2008).

In­the­letter­publication­Chris­Anderson­argues­that­the­amount­of­data­produced­does­not­just­bring­a­quantitative­but­also­a­qualitative­change­to­science.­He­asserts­that­the­amount­of­data­already­available­at­the­beginning­of­research­does­not­allow­the­derivation­of­a­hypothesis­from­it­before­any­statistical­exploration­has­taken­place.­On­the­other­hand,­the­results­of­data­driven­research­processes­make­it­difficult­to­derive­any­model­that­is­more­expressive­than­its­description.­In­consequence,­he­con-cludes­that­hypothesis­driven­research­and­theories­as­models­for­world­explanation­do­not­lead­to­promising­research­anymore.

Publishing 3.0 79

Contributions­in­the­former­publication­also­include­more­balanced­views­which,­however,­have­a­similar­direction.­The­main­claim­behind­the­proclamation­of­a­fourth­paradigm­is­the­claim­that­computation­will­eliminate­the­epistemological­difference­between­empirically­and­theoretically­driven­research,­making­each­of­these­approaches­available­within­the­same­research­process.

These­discussions­are­not­really­taking­place­within­the­e-Science­field­but­are­cited­here­in­order­to­describe­the­relevance­and­future­success­of­its­research­program.­It­partially­resembles­the­discourse­about­the­essence­of­information­discussed­in­the­section­about­MAs.­However,­where­MAs­try­to­connect­the­issue­of­meaning­with­neuroscience­in­order­to­empirically­anchor­information,­ROs­harness­epistemology­in­order­to­give­primacy­to­the­unit­of­the­(computational)­experiment­as­a­way­of­organizing­the­research­process.­The­consequence­of­this­way­of­thinking­is­also­well­expressed­when­remarks­are­made­about­the­role­of­texts­within­the­new­methodological­setup.­In­this­context,­text­is­a­social­asset­that­provides­no­unique­truth­value­on­its­own­(2011,­3).­The­workflow­is­in­fact­meant­to­be­a­replacement­for­articles­that­only­remain­due­to­historical­reasons.­In­contrast,­workflows­will­be­the­primary­object­by­which­scientists­get­credit­(Bourne­2010,­2).

The­e-Science­program­that­maintains­a­strong­relationship­with­the­project­of­open­science­was­presented­in­connection­with­ROs,­because­ROs­are­the­most­prominent­publication­format­inheriting­e-Science­principles­in­an­extremely­unfiltered­way.­Nevertheless,­around­three­quarters­of­the­publishing­concepts­that­are­presented­in­this­research­openly­posit­themselves­within­the­same­ideological­frame­or­share­key­aspects,­that­being­more­of­a­justification­for­the­extended­space­given­to­the­topic­here.

Semantic PublicationsThe­next­approach­to­digital­publishing­to­be­discussed­here­are­Semantic Publications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­SPs).­SPs­are­not­completely­new.­As­will­be­shown­later­on,­they­share­many­ideas­with­Modular­Articles.­Harmsze,­for­instance,­is­sometimes­referenced­as­a­pioneering­figure­in­this­respect­(Giunchiglia,­Xu,­et­al.­2010,­sec.­1).­The­decrease­of­research­activity­regarding­digital­publications­and­the­different­key­interests­in­the­remaining­activities,­however,­led­to­the­development­from­MAs­to­SPs­being­not­without­interruption.­After­2009,­SPs­became­one­of­the­most­active­research­areas­on­digital­publications­as­well­as­a­concept­with­a­

80 Beyond the Flow

significant­degree­of­implementation.­Additionally,­it­could­be­argued­that­in­fact­the­concept­of­MAs­entails­both­the­idea­of­aggregations­and­of­SPs.

The­key­difference­leading­to­this­opposition­between­aggregations­and­SPs­has­to­do­with­the­understanding­of­the­concept­of­a­module.­Aggregations,­and­RO­in­particular,­radicalized­the­main­idea­introduced­with­the­metaphor­of­modularity.­They­conceive­of­modules­in­a­way­that­resem-bles­physical­separation,­and­in­fact­the­distributed­nature­of­aggregations­includes­servers­that­are­physically­quite­separated.­The­path­that­leads­from­MAs­to­SPs,­however,­leaves­the­unit­of­the­object,­first­known­as­the­physical­object­of­an­article,­intact.­While­the­second­perspective­focuses­on­the­modular­structure­within­things­conceived­as­given­objects,­the­first­focuses­on­how­such­objects­are­always­part­of­a­modular­structure­that­precedes­them.

Modularity­in­SPs­is­achieved­by­markup.­Markup­is­a­way­to­explicitly­identify­and­denote­fragments­in­text­objects­by­placing­it­inside­the­text.­As­such,­it­does­the­same­as­was­done­by­OAI-ORE­in­the­JSTOR­article­example.­However,­the­identification­and­description­in­the­OAI-ORE­example­exists­independently­from­the­article,­as­has­been­made­clear.­It­stands­out­from­the­object­and­is­therefore­also­called­standoff­markup­while­markup­in­SPs­is­put­into­the­object­and­addressed­as­embedded­markup.­Although­both­create­information­units­on­their­own,­which­in­the­language­of­the­turn­of­the­millennium­could­be­called­modules,­they­take­different­steps­in­realizing­modularization.­Consequently,­Bechhofer,­Ains-worth,­et­al.­(2010,­2)­put­a­lot­of­emphasis­on­the­distinction­between­ROs­and­SPs.

From Modular Articles to Semantic Publications

In­the­transition­process­from­MAs­to­SPs,­the­three­contributions­by­Mar-condes­(2005),­Mons­(2005),­and­Seringhaus­and­Gerstein­(2007)­stand­out.­Building­on­the­same­arguments­summarized­in­the­last­sections,­Marcondes­highlights­that­scientific­communication­is­slow­and­difficult­to­verify­via­text­publications.­In­order­to­accelerate­science,­he­proposes­to­model­the­“deep­structure”­(Marcondes­2005,­119)­of­articles.­Similar­to­Harmsze,­deep­structure­means­the­formalization­of­structure­and­topics­in­articles.­These­aspects­should­be­made­explicit­by­using­XML­markup­and­standardized­formal­terms.­In­this­respect­Marcondes­proposes­the­

Publishing 3.0 81

Scholarly Ontology Project24­(also­referred­to­as­ScholOnto),­which­offers­formal­terms­in­order­to­reproduce­the­rhetorical­structure­of­an­article.

The­issue­of­standardized­semantics,­contrasted­with­the­contingent­forms­of­natural­language,­is­the­main­concern­of­Seringhaus­and­Gerstein­(2007).­Only­if­the­semantics­used­are­shared­by­all­stakeholders,­the­formalization­of­deep­structures­in­articles­can­really­help­to­integrate­“the­ever-growing­body­of­information”­(1).­Accordingly,­Seringhaus­highlights­standardization­as­one­of­the­most­important­goals­to­ensure­progress­in­digital­publishing.

Besides­standardization­of­semantics­for­purposes­of­formalizing­the­structure­and­discourse­of­articles,­Mons­(2005)­stresses­that­the­same­need­exists­for­the­things­(entities)­articles­are­about.­He­argues­that­“text­is­a­nightmare­for­computers”­because­there­are­always­many­ways­to­refer­to­the­same­topic­or­thing.­Hence,­Mons­asks­the­rhetorical­question:­“Which­Gene­Did­You­Mean?”­(title).­In­his­example,­markup­is­used­in­order­to­link­a­text­passage­that­refers­in­a­narrative­way­to­a­codified­stand-ardized­representation­of­this­entity.

The­term­Semantic­Publications­was­first­used­in­the­article­“Adventures­in­Semantic­Publishing”­(Shotton­et­al.­2009).­In­this­work­the­author­offers­an­illustrative­definition­of­the­term,­as­well­as­a­sophisticated­example­of­a­Semantic­Publication.­Following­Shotton’s­own­words:

We­define­the­term­semantic­publication­to­include­anything­that­enhances­the­meaning­of­a­published­journal­article,­facilitates­its­automated­discovery,­enables­its­linking­to­semantically­related­articles,­provides­access­to­data­within­the­article­in­actionable­form,­or­facilitates­integration­of­data­between­articles.­(Shotton­et­al.­ 2009,­1)

This­definition­also­takes­features­beyond­those­already­discussed­into­account.­However,­the­important­thing­is­that­all­these­features­are­achieved­by­revealing­the­possibilities­of­formally­codified­markup,­which­is­attached­to­the­original­article­in­the­example.­The­features­implicitly­addressed­in­the­definition­show­up­in­the­example­in­terms­of:

– actionable­data,­meaning­data­sources­that­are­de-referenceable­and­which­possess­a­persistent­link­that­can­be­processed­while­the­publication­is­read;

– data­fusions,­meaning­automatized­merging­of­data­sources­within­the­publication­with­data­sources­outside­of­the­publication,­but­which­are­about­the­same­things;

24­ http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/scholonto/

82 Beyond the Flow

– highlighting­of­terms­representing­important­concepts,­persons,­and­other­entities­during­the­reading­process­for­faster­reading;

– authored­or­inferred­links­to­external­information­sources; – supporting claims tooltips on the basis of a functional analysis of citations;

– automatically­created­machine-readable­summary­of­the­article; – tag­clouds­and­a­tag­tree­representing­the­topic­of­the­article.­The­tag­tree­is­created­on­the­basis­of­formal­taxonomies­representing­the­knowledge­domain­of­the­article;

– interactive­elements­like­changing­data­views,­visualizations­and­re-orderable­reference­lists;

– citation-networks­for­the­article­and­the­authors­cited­in­the­article; – deep­structured­markup­of­the­article­which­express­its­composition.

All­these­features­are­enabled­by­explicitly­adding­markup­to­the­article,­facilitating­computational­processing­of­the­content.­Nonetheless,­these­computations­still­have­to­be­implemented­on­their­own­and­by­the­institutions­which­present­the­publication.

The Primacy of Formality and Standardization

The­last­paragraphs­demonstrated­how­ideas­from­MAs­continued­even­after­their­development­had­stopped.­The­use­of­markup­for­making­aspects­of­articles­explicit,­the­formal­representation­of­logical­and­rhetorical­structure­as­well­as­of­meaning­are­fundamental­pillars­for­MAs.­Shotton’s­contribution­gave­an­idea­of­possible­benefits­of­this­approach­that­has­not­been­described­with­such­level­of­detail­before.­The­ability­to­achieve­this­derives­from­the­developments­of­the­so-called­Semantic Web (hereafter­referred­to­as­SW),­discussed­on­several­occasions­above.­In­short,­the­Semantic­Web­provides­the­technological­means­for­making­data­interchangeable­over­the­world­wide­web.­It­is­the­technological­foundation­for­previously­discussed­initiatives,­like­the­linked­open­data­and­OAI-ORE,­but­also­for­developments­responsible­for­SPs.­The­Semantic­Web­also­provides­the­means­of­embedding­markup­into­web­documents­by­virtue­of­a­very­sophisticated­version­of­embedded­markup,­which­in­turn­is­completely­compliant­with­SW­principles.­This­approach­is­called­RDFa25.­It­enables­linking­from­within­HTML­elements­of­webpages­to­SW­data­and­concepts­outside­of­the­document.­RDFa­was­approved­as­a­standard­by­the­W3C­at­the­same­time­OAI-ORE­was­finalized,­and­is­heavily­used­in­SPs.­

25­ https://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-primer/

Publishing 3.0 83

However,­in­correspondence­with­the­two­ways­of­interpreting­modularity,­Hunter­et­al.­(2008,­15)­classify­OAI-ORE­and­RDFa­into­two­profoundly­dis-tinct­approaches­for­digital­publications.

Another­aspect­of­the­Semantic­Web­needing­further­specification­in­the­context­of­the­present­study­is­the­use­of­the­adjective­semantic.­In­the­current­context,­this­term,­which­has­appeared­several­times­already­in­the­preceding­sections,­has­a­meaning­very­specific­to­the­field­of­infor-mation­science.­Evidently,­text­as­such­has­meaning­and­uses­semantics­in­order­to­create­meaning.­However,­in­the­context­of­the­Semantic­Web­and­Semantic­Publications,­this­adjective­denotes­the­use­of­formally­stand-ardized­knowledge­representations,­for­instance­taxonomies,­thesauri,­or­ontologies.­Accordingly,­a­publication­becomes­semantic­the­moment­it­adds­a­layer­of­formalized­and­standardized­terms.

The­name­of­SPs­is­a­direct­reference­to­the­Semantic­Web.­They­are­the­application­to­the­field­of­publishing­of­ideals­of­formalization­and­stand-ardization­in­the­Semantic­Web.­Buckingham­Shum­and­Clark­(2010,­2)­state­that­SPs­are­a­response­to­the­question:­“what­does­the­scientific­article­look­like­on­the­Semantic­Web.”

However,­in­view­of­the­two­notions­of­modularity,­the­quote­of­Buckingham,­Shum,­and­Clark­needs­qualification:­Semantic­Pub-lications are only one of two possible answers to the question of what articles­look­like­on­the­Semantic­Web.­Semantic­Publications,­in­con-trast­to­aggregations,­stick­to­the­form­of­the­article.­This­is­why­they­use­embedded­markup­instead­of­isolated­metadata­descriptions,­as­in­the­case­of­aggregations.­The­background­for­this­decision­is­given­by­Shotton­et­al.­(2009,­2).­He­argues­that­articles­and­databases­represent­two­very­different­goals­in­research.­An­article­is­defined­as­a­rhetoric­object­representing­a­certain­state­within­research,­from­which­the­underlying­hypothesis­should­be­argued­convincingly.­A­database­in­contrast­would­contain­up-to-date­information­and­is­analytical­in­nature.­Consequently,­Shotton­asserts­that­it­is­not­desirable­to­replace­one­with­the­other.­He­adds­social­value­to­the­two­possibilities­to­achieve­modularity­in­different­ways.

Nevertheless,­he­also­very­much­argues­in­favor­of­“frictionless­interoper-ability”­(Shotton­et­al.­2009,­2)­between­the­two.­This­frictionless­interoper-ability­is­achieved­by­including­the­aforementioned­semantic­layer­on­top­of­articles,­putting­the­data­view­on­the­rhetoric­object.­In­a­certain­way­SPs­thereby­make­databases­out­of­articles.­The­difference­highlighted­by­Shotton­is­thus­not­as­big­as­it­seems.­It­is­a­difference­of­deciding­

84 Beyond the Flow

how­to­socially­embed­the­database­paradigm­into­publishing,­but­not­a­difference­of­objects.­As­has­been­noted­by­the­example­of­the­JSON­article,­a­database-oriented­first­approach­can­likewise­produce­objects­that­are­used­as­a­rhetoric­object.

The­key­effect­of­the­Semantic­Web­for­publications­can­therefore­be­sum-marized­as­the­implementation­of­a­dataset-oriented­view­on­resources,­and­the­attempt­to­treat­digital­scholarly­objects­as­databases.­The­Semantic­Web­could­achieve­this,­because­in­contrast­to­the­situation­MAs­experienced­it­provided­better­means­for­formalization­and­stand-ardization.­The­metaphor­of­a­database­as­a­model­for­the­re-design­of­publications­is­openly­proposed­by­Bourne­(2005)­when­he­asks:­“Will­a­Biological­Database­Be­Different­from­a­Biological­Journal?”­(title),­and­has­been­used­all­over­since.­Within­the­developments­instigated­by­the­Semantic­Web,­the­research­field­of­SPs­is­the­one­that­focuses­on­the­development­and­propagation­of­formally­standardized­semantics­in­the­context­of­scholarly­publishing­(Peroni­2014b,­121).­It­does­so­because­it­leaves­the­form­of­the­article­intact.­While­in­MAs­and­aggregations­the­issue­of­semantics­follows­the­issue­of­decomposition,­provoking­a­deeper­debate­on­formats,­it­is­the­primary­concern­of­SPs.­The­current­study­therefore­includes­among­the­publication­formats­the­concept­of­SPs,­which­do­not­use­Semantic­Web­technologies,­but­do­share­the­concern­for­formal­and­standardized­semantics­for­the­purpose­of­isolating­aspects­of­scholarly­text­publications.

Models and Ontologies. The Many Forms of Semantic Publications

In­most­cases­formal­semantics­are­represented­in­ontologies.­Ontologies­are­specific­forms­of­multi-dimensional­knowledge­representations,­which­use­a­Semantic­Web-compliant­format­such­as­the­Resource Description Format Scheme26­(also­referred­to­as­RDFS)­or­the­Web Ontology Language27 (also­referred­to­as­OWL).­Apart­from­offering­the­possibility­of­defining­terms,­which­give­shared­names­to­certain­phenomena,­ontologies­permit­the­definition­of­how­these­phenomena­relate­to­each­other.­This­aspect­facilitates­automated­inference­on­logical­relationships­between­the­phenomena.­Early­models­of­those­outlined­below­are­not­always­implemented­with­this­technology.­However,­newer­ones­sometimes­also­use­different­implementation­technologies,­because­they­explicitly­aim­at­different­technological­environments.­Decisions­against­the­use­

26­ https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/27­ https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/

Publishing 3.0 85

of­Semantic­Web­technologies­therefore­are­not­just­bound­to­historical­circumstances.­Still,­Semantic­Web­compliant­ontologies­are­at­the­heart­of­SPs.

One­of­the­first­semantic­models­consistently­implemented­in­the­context­of­digital­publications,­albeit­before­the­definition­of­RDFS­or­OWL,­was­again­provided­by­Harmsze.­Her­struggle­to­identify­core­information­units­resulted­in­a­scheme­of­splitting­articles­into­modules­called­meta-infor-mation,­positioning,­methods,­results,­interpretation,­and­outcome.­Each­of­these­defines­the­boundary­of­a­self-contained­model.­Even­if­an­article­is­not­completely­split­up­into­pieces,­these­concepts­provide­the­means­to­markup­parts­of­articles­and­thereby­express­their­goal.

A­little­bit­later­than­Harmsze’s­model,­ScholOnto­was­developed­as­an­attempt­to­represent­the­discursive­structure­of­research­articles­(Li­et­al.­2002).­In­ScholOnto,­the­term­discourse­has­a­very­open­and­flexible­meaning.­It­provides­three­different­types­of­semantics.­The­first­dis-tinguishes­important­from­interpretative­from­epistemologically­oriented­parts­in­the­text.­The­second­defines­links­between­parts,­which­cor-respond­in­terms­of­rhetoric­structure,­logic­structure,­similarity,­or­problematization.­Finally,­there­is­a­mechanism­to­weight­links­in­order­to­express­how­strong­the­relationship­is.­Thereby,­ScholOnto­also­tries­to­formalize­some­qualitative­aspects.

When­it­comes­to­the­use­of­standardized­terms­in­order­to­annotate­topics­and­entities,­it­was­Harmsze­once­again­who­argued­in­favor.­Examples­of­early­projects­following­this­approach­in­a­more­systematic­way­are­provided­by­the­Concept Wiki of the Concept Web Alliance28­(also­referred­to­as­CWA)­and­the­Unified Medical Language System29­(also­referred­to­as­UMLS).­While­the­concept­wiki­was­mostly­used­in­biosciences,­UMLS,­as­the­name­suggests,­includes­terms­from­the­field­of­medicine.­The­problems­addressed­by­these­and­similar­subsequent­projects­are­similar­to­the­one­Mons­tried­to­highlight­in­the­question­about­the­correct­gene­cited­before,­to­provide­uniform­names­for­things­that­are­supposed­to­be­the­same­thing.

Although­UMLS­started­with­the­definition­of­terms­for­entities­and­topics,­it­was­later­extended­by­another­vocabulary­called­Semantic Network­(also­referred­to­as­UMLS-SN),­which­defines­54­terms­for­the­representation­of­discourse­around­these­entities­(Marcondes,­Malheiros,­and­da­Costa­

28­ https://conceptweblog.wordpress.com/29­ https://semanticnetwork.nlm.nih.gov/

86 Beyond the Flow

2014).­The­reason­behind­a­unique­definition­of­discourse­representation­in­UMLS­was­the­perceived­peculiarity­of­discourse­in­medicine.­Another­example­from­the­domain­of­medicine­is­the­Semantic Web Applications in Neuromedicine ontology30­(Gao­et­al.­2006;­also­referred­to­as­SWAN).­Originally­rooted­in­research­on­Alzheimer,­SWAN­is­used­to­model­scientific­discourse­in­articles­on­life­science­and­neuromedicine­(Ciccarese,­Ocana,­and­Clark­2012).­SWAN­is­comprised­of­several­modules­which,­adhering­to­Semantic­Web­principles,­import­other­ontologies­for­the­description­of­bibliography­and­citations.­The­unique­parts­of­SWAN­provide­topic-related­terms­for­discourse­elements,­research­statements,­research­questions,­as­well­as­so-called­structured­comments.­Additionally,­they­define­canonical­entities from the life sciences as well as mechanisms for representing the lifecycle­of­articles­and­the­agents­involved.

The­Text­Encoding­Initiative­(also­referred­to­as­TEI)­is­a­model­not­specifically­defined­to­semantically­enrich­research­publications,­but­to­model­aspects­of­digital­editions­in­the­context­of­scholarly­editing.­It­still­plays­an­important­role­for­digital­publishing­in­the­humanities­in­general.­Examples­of­journals­that­use­TEI­are­the­Zeitschrift für Digitale Geisteswis-senschaften31,­the­Review Journal for Digital Editions32­and­of­course­the­TEI Journal33.

Another­important­model­that­seeks­to­markup­rhetorical­blocks­in­articles­is­informed­by­the­so-called­IMRaD­style.­The­IMRaD­style­is­the­name­of­a­prominent­concept­for­the­structure­of­research­articles­in­the­second­half­of­the­20th­century,­and­again­originates­in­the­fields­of­medicine­and­biology­(Sollaci­and­Pereira­2004).­The­acronym­refers­to­the­sections­of­a­specific­type­of­a­research­article:­introduction,­methods,­results,­and­discussion.­The­ABCDE­model­was­built­on­the­IMRaD­approach.­Here­the­acronym­resolves­to­annotation,­background,­contribution,­discussion,­and­entities.­de­Waard­and­Tel­(2006)­try­to­adapt­IMRaD­to­the­needs­of­semantical­annotation­of­research­articles­in­digital­form­as­such.

The Semantically Annotated LaTeX­model­(also­referred­to­as­SALT)­stands­out­because­it­specifically­aims­at­the­LaTeX­community.­LaTeX­is­a­text­processing­software­suite­which­processes­elements­in­texts,­sim-ilar­to­markup,­in­order­to­create­well­layouted­documents.­It­is­used­in­research­domains­such­as­computer­science,­but­is­not­compatible­with­

30­ https://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-swan/31­ http://www.zfdg.de/32­ http://ride.i-d-e.de/33­ https://journal.tei-c.org

Publishing 3.0 87

web­technologies.­The­goal­of­SALT­is­to­bring­SP­ideas­into­publication­workflows­with­LaTeX.­It­provides­three­ontologies­addressing­document­components,­rhetorical­structures,­and­document­metadata.

The Scientific Knowledge Object Pattern­(also­referred­to­as­SKO)­is­another­attempt­to­represent­the­logical­structure­of­articles.­Giunchiglia,­Xu,­et­al.­(2010)­offer­further­insights­on­the­use­of­articles­thus­annotated.­They­demonstrate­how­this­model­is­used­to­outline­and­automatically­process­inductive,­deductive,­and­abductive­argumentation­patterns.

Buckingham­Shum­and­Clark­(2010)­made­an­attempt­to­classify­all­models­seeking­to­represent­discourse,­a­goal­that­most­of­the­models­presented­in­the­last­paragraphs­also­try­to­do.­They­distinguish­between­rhetorical­and­argumentative­or­logical­discourse.­Rhetorical­discourse­is­concerned­with­narrative­strategy­and­strategies­regarding­the­presentation­of­research.

Finally,­Peroni­(2014b)­describe­the­Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies­(also­referred­to­as­SPRO),­the­most­diverse­set­of­ontologies­in­this­list.­It­describes­very­different­aspects­of­articles.­Each­ontology­can­be­used­on­its­own­or­together­with­others.­Some­of­these­ontologies,­such­as the Citation Typing Ontology­(Shotton­and­Peroni­2012;­also­referred­to­as­CiTO),­were­created­by­David­Shotton­himself.­However,­many­other­SP­initiatives,­like­for­instance­the­SWAN­ontology,­are­involved­in­SPRO,­too.­Further­ontologies­in­SPRO­include:

– DoCo­to­markup­document­components­of­articles­(Shotton­et­al.­2015);

– FaBio­and­FRBR­to­highlight­bibliographic­information­(Shotton­and­Peroni­2012);

– BiRO­to­markup­bibliographic­reference­lists; – C4O­to­model­the­context­and­number­of­citations­in­an­article; – PRO­to­attach­information­about­roles­of­agents­involved­in­the­pub-lishing­process­of­an­article­(Shotton,­Peroni,­and­Vitali­2012);

– PSO­to­communicate­the­publishing­status­of­an­article­that­is­semantically­enriched;

– PWO,­a­workflow­ontology­for­publishing­workflows­(Shotton,­Peroni,­and­Vitali­2012).

The­list­of­models­presented­in­this­section­was­extensive.­The­purpose­behind­such­level­of­detail­was­the­substantiation­of­a­recent­observation­by­Ruiz-Iñiesta­and­Corcho­(2014).­The­authors­noticed­(1)­that­the­con-cepts­of­SPs­caused­a­significant­increase­in­models­seeking­to­describe­structures­and­aspects­of­publications.­Several­other­surveys­try­to­give­an­overview­of­the­landscape­of­these­publication­ontologies­that­were­not­

88 Beyond the Flow

even­mentioned­before­(Buckingham­Shum­and­Clark­2010;­Ruiz-Iñiesta­and­Corcho­2014;­Xu­et­al.­2014).­Peroni­(2014a)­counts­seven­of­those­ontologies­in­the­domain­of­law­alone,­and­12­that­focus­on­bibliographic­information.

The­examples­of­SP­ontologies­offered­so­far­can­be­systematized­into­at­least­six­groups.­These­groups­include­ontologies­concerning:

– administrative­aspects – discourse­aspects – structural aspects – biographical aspects – citation purposes – topics­and­entities

This­variety­of­aspects­also­offers­some­explanation­for­the­quantity­of­existing­models.­The­quest­to­describe­the­deep­structure­of­articles­leads­to­very­different­prioritizations­and­interpretations.­Following­Ruiz-Iñesta’s­observation,­an­ironical­aspect­of­SPs­is­the­fact­that­their­focus­on­stand-ardization­and­interoperability­has­the­opposite­effect­in­some­areas.­In­the­majority­of­cases,­multiple­ontologies­exist­for­the­same­category,­due­to­specific­domain­needs,­different­requirements­for­information­precision,­different­technology­backgrounds,­and­historical­reasons.­All­of­these­have­in­common­that­they­respond­to­social­demands­and­backgrounds.­The­meaning­of­this­phenomenon­will­be­analyzed­in­the­second­part­of­this­work.

The Burden of (Digital) Extra Work and its Distribution Across Human and Non-Human Agents

Obviously,­the­effort­it­takes­to­manually­markup­every­research­article­within­the­plurality­of­viewpoints­listed­above,­and­with­such­a­high­level­of­detail,­poses­a­problem­for­the­whole­approach­of­SPs.­This­challenge­is­a­crucial­point­of­discussion­within­the­field­of­SPs­from­the­beginning­until­today.­Shotton­(2009)­determines­in­his­introductory­piece­of­work­that­a­“cost-effective”­implementation­of­SPs­requires­significant­automation­in­the­creation­of­markup.­In­the­same­way,­Giunchiglia,­Xu,­et­al.­(2010­sec­2.7)­highlight­the­huge­effort­in­metadata­generation­and­maintenance­necessary­to­deduce­and­attach­a­formal­representation­of­the­line­of­argument­to­a­research­article.

Although­Mons­(2005)­is­one­of­the­earliest­agents­who­advocates­SPs,­he­emphasizes­another­aspect­behind­this­issue.­Besides­the­fact­that­human­markup­creation­on­the­scale­required­by­SPs­does­not­seem­feasible­for­

Publishing 3.0 89

the­author,­he­also­stresses­that­it­is­not­desirable.­The­normative­and­static­encoding­schemes­would­lead­to­a­kind­of­writing­and­restriction­of­the­“creative”­minds­of­authors­that­would­significantly­reduce­the­quality­of­articles.

There­are­several­responses­to­this­challenge.­One­already­mentioned­is­the­attempt­to­let­computers­do­the­work­of­creating­the­markup.­Other­answers­just­stress­that­the­resulting­benefits­are­worth­the­effort,­or­that­these­efforts­are­inevitable­and­can­therefore­not­be­discussed­because­they are part of social changes in the publishing sector that are without alternative.

It­is­worth­mentioning­that­in­SPs­there­is­in­general­more­reflection­on­issues­of­stakeholder­groups­and­the­publishing­system­to­which­they­belong­than­in­many­other­projects.­Most­often­the­role­of­publishers­is­briefly­criticized­but­rarely­evaluated­in­greater­depth.­In­contrast,­both­Shotton­(2009)­and­the­“FORCE­11­Manifesto”­(Bourne,­Buckingham­Shum,­et­al.­2012),­sustained­by­the­protagonists­of­SPs,­provide­extensive­dis-cussions­on­new­roles­for­different­stakeholders­within­a­digital­publishing­system­shaped­by­the­SP­approach.

Regarding­the­distribution­of­necessary­efforts­for­the­creation­of­markup­in­articles,­Shotton­(2009,­91–92)­refers­to­three­agent­groups:­publishers,­editors,­and­authors.­The­publisher­should­organize­a­machine-readable­version­of­the­bibliography,­as­well­as­a­structured­version­of­article­components­such­as­sections.­The­editors­with­their­domain­knowledge­should­assume­the­task­of­researching­and­markup­entities,­context,­and­logical­meaning.­Finally,­the­authors­should­provide­functional­classification­of­their­citations,­that­is­highlight­formally­why­they­cited­a­particular­source,­by­using­semantics­like­the­ones­provided­by­CiTO.

A­complementary­strategy­to­the­distribution­of­effort­is­to­gradually­scale­the­effort.­This­approach­is­suggested­by­Lord,­Cockell,­and­Stevens­(2012).­The­authors­call­it­a­“measured­and­evolutionary”­(1013)­semantic­enrichment.­Here,­the­extent­up­to­which­formal­markup­is­applied­by­the­authors­depends­on­technical­and­non-technical­aspects­of­the­authoring­process,­and­may­vary­from­publication­to­publication.­The­goal­is­to­define­a­strategy­that­can­be­easily­included­in­existing­research­and­publishing­workflows­of­authors.­Additionally,­the­effort­demanded­from­the­authors­should­reflect­the­extent­up­to­which­the­benefits­can­actually­be­made­transparent­to­the­authors.­The­goal­is­to­slowly­move­away­from­the­“lumpen­pdf”­(see­Introduction)­to­SPs,­so­that­the­effort­becomes­a­natural­

90 Beyond the Flow

part­of­the­publishing­process­without­dominating­the­discourse­on­digital­publishing.

Regardless­of­strategies­to­minimize­markup-efforts­by­sharing­it­between­people­or­gradually­postponing­it,­such­effort­remains­a­critical­aspect­of­SPs.­Abundant­research­on­the­automation­of­this­task­gives­evidence­of­this.­Very­similar­to­the­argument­of­De­Roure,­Shotton­(2009)­claims­that­techniques­of­automation­will­more­and­more­solve­problems­that­digital­technologies­have­produced­in­the­first­place.­The­importance­of­the­issue­of­effort,­so­the­assertion­goes,­will­therefore­decline­over­time.­Nonetheless­there­are­still­more­examples­for­semi-automated­enrich-ment­of­SPs­(Pavlopoulos­et­al.­2009;­Fink­et­al.­2010;­Marcondes,­Malheiros,­and­da­Costa­2014)­than­of­fully­automated­enrichment.­Furthermore,­the­level­of­automation­significantly­depends­on­the­aspects­that­should­be­recognized­automatically.­Automatically­identifying­document­structures­(Shotton­et­al.­2013)­is­more­reliable­than­the­discursive­functions­of­citations­(Ciancarini­et­al.­2013).­The­disambiguation­of­terms­for­instance­requires­the­assistance­of­authors­and­their­“tacit­knowledge”­(Shotton­2009,­7).

Revisiting Progress, Data Deluge and Information

As­has­been­mentioned,­another­way­to­approach­the­obstacles­of­SPs­is­to­show­that­there­is­no­alternative­to­SPs­in­the­near­future.­There­is­no­better­way­to­give­evidence­for­this­argument­than­to­cite­Penev­et­al.­(2010,­2),­who­apply­the­“adapt­or­die”­principle­to­the­situation­of­publishers­and­SPs.­Terminology­that­strongly­commits­to­the­theme­of­progress­is­used­all­over­within­the­SPs­community.­Correspondingly,­Shotton­(2009)­calls­SPs­“the­coming­revolution­in­scientific­journal­publishing,”­while­Peroni­(2014a)­shortens­this­into­just­“The­Digital­Publishing­Revolution.”­Moreover,­innovation­in­publishing­is­reduced­to­the­concept­of­SPs­when­he­makes­the­equation:­“today’s­publishing­revolution,­aka­semantic­publishing”­(7).­In­contrast,­Bourne­(2011)­complains­about­the­growing­“problems­of­out-dated­communication.”

Shotton­(2009,­93)­observes­“raw­text­decreasing­in­value,”­a­phenomenon­that­makes­relinquishing­semantic­markup­in­publications­an­act­of­digital­censorship­(94).­Having­said­all­this,­SPs­share­the­same­certainty­about­the­development­of­digital­publications,­albeit­based­on­slightly­different­visions.

Publishing 3.0 91

The­similarity­between­key­themes­in­the­discourse­on­SPs­and­other­pub-lication­formats­include­more­than­reflections­on­automation­and­progress.­The­belief­that­SPs­are­without­any­alternative­corresponds­with­the­emphasis­that­is­again­put­on­the­often-cited­theme­of­data­deluge.­Thus­Shotton­(2009)­argues­that­data­deluge­does­not­permit­researchers­to­really­read­all­the­articles­that­are­published.­Similarly,­Renear­and­Palmer­(2009)­state­that­the­overload­of­information­requires­a­more­strategic­form­of­reading.­They­claim­that­digital­technologies­are­exactly­the­kind­of­technologies­that­permit­reading­differently.­Seringhaus­and­Gerstein­(2007,­1)­state­that­the­amount­of­information­already­published,­and­con-tinuing­to­grow,­is­the­main­challenge­of­publishing.­The­only­solution­he­sees­that­can­face­this­challenge­is­to­“modernize­academic­publishing­to­exploit­the­power­of­the­Internet.”

Comparable­with­MAs,­SPs­make­their­arguments­in­a­nexus­between­the­social-historical­issue­of­the­quantity­of­information,­a­positive­definition­of­information,­and­a­publishing­environment­which­has­to­integrate­both.­The­peculiarity­of­SPs,­compared­to­former­applications­of­the­same­setup,­is­the­extend­up­to­which­the­last­point­in­this­setup­is­discussed.­While­the­Modular­Articles­focus­on­the­application­of­the­information­paradigm­to­the­publication­format,­SPs­extend­its­application­into­a­vision­for­the­whole­publishing­environment.­This­extension­derives­from­the­experience­that­libraries­struggle­to­offer­appropriate­services­for­dealing­adequately­with­the­digital­“chaos­in­the­laboratory”­(Bourne­2011,­120).

Accordingly,­Sefton­(2009)­introduces­his­model­of­SPs­as­an­element­within­the­bigger­picture­of­an­“integrated­content­environment.”­Gradmann­(2010)­develops­the­idea­of­a­vast­“knowledge­space­of­data,”­enabled­by­SPs­­and­turning­publications­into­heuristic­objects­for­the­creation­of­this­space.­Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­(2012)­express­the­same­idea­in­a­very­colorful­way­when they argue that:

We­see­a­future­in­which­scientific­information­and­scholarly­com-munication­more­generally­become­part­of­a­global,­universal,­and­explicit­network­of­knowledge;­where­every­claim,­hypothesis,­argument­—­every­significant­element­of­the­discourse­—­can­be­explicitly­represented,­along­with­supporting­data,­software,­work-flows,­multimedia,­external­commentary,­and­information­about­provenance.­(Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­2012,­45)

Having­said­this,­SPs­are­associated­with­attempts­to­create­better­con-ditions­for­information­retrieval­and­for­information­infrastructure:

92 Beyond the Flow

The­goal­is­to­pave­the­way­towards­a­Semantic­Publishing­Ecosystem­that­will­alleviate,­at­least­partly,­the­information­overload­problem.­(Groza­2012,­sec. Abstract)

The­call­for­a­more­strategic­reading­as­a­consequence­of­the­quantity­of­information­extends­the­evaluations­of­the­status­of­information­given­so­far.­Renear­and­Palmer­(2009)­add­another­formalization­to­this:­one­of­the­main­points­in­their­article­claims­that­this­type­of­reading­is­not­only­necessary,­but­that­it­is­the­epitome­of­reading­in­science.­Consequently,­they­argue­that­scientists­have­always­read­strategically.­In­this­light,­SPs­become­the­most­natural­way­to­design­publications­and­the­effort­to­markup­information­appears­as­a­key­scientific­activity­difficult­to­question.­A­minor­survey­with­researchers­in­order­to­support­this­claim­was­carried­out­by­de­Ribaupierre­and­Falquet­(2014).­In­summary,­they­stress­that­the­act­of­looking­out­for­a­publication­in­science­always­corresponds­with­a­search­for­specific­information.

Additionally,­this­argument­supports­the­positive­definition­of­information­as­it­was­highlighted­on­several­occasions­above.­The­equation­between­the­information-seeking­purpose­of­readers­and­the­application­of­stand-ardized­markup­obscures­the­possibility­of­an­agency­of­the­reader­in­the­creation­of­the­information­content.­This­line­of­thought­goes­beyond­the­unit­of­individual­information­in­the­field­of­SPs,­and­includes­narrative­aspects­of­publications.­Accordingly,­“such­discourse­structures­are­trapped­within­the­content­of­the­publications”­(Groza­2012,­sec. Abstract).

The­positive­notion­towards­a­formal­understanding­of­information­in­the­context­of­SPs­is­less­theoretical­and­more­pragmatic­than­in­the­case­of­the­MAs.­Nevertheless,­the­outcome­is­the­same.­For­Marcondes­(2005),­markup­is­the­real­information­in­text.­Yet­it­is­necessary­to­add­this­markup­to­text­because­the­characteristics­of­narrative­transform­it­into­an­“invisible­knowledge­unit”­(Giunchiglia,­Xu,­et­al.­2010,­sec.­2.1).­In­this­respect­markup­reconfigures­the­hierarchy­between­text­and­information­in­favor­of­information,­like­it­adheres­to­the­concept­of­SPs.­Marcondes­(2005)­correspondingly­continues­to­imagine­a­world­of­publishing­in­which­publications­are­dissolved­in­communication,­similar­to­the­vision­of­Grad-mann.­This­is­possible­because­formal­semantics,­like­ontologies,­would­dissolve­the­semantic­heterogeneity­inherent­in­text­publications­(Sierman,­Schmidt,­and­Ludwig­2009,­63).

Publishing 3.0 93

The Role of Domains and Stakeholder Groups

The­previous­paragraphs­have­given­some­indication­of­the­close­con-nection­of­SPs­to­activities­in­the­field­of­library­and­information­science.­Many­contributions­in­SPs­are­made­within­infrastructure­projects,­for­instance­in­Digital­Libraries.­Prominent­advocates­of­SPs,­like­Allen­Renear­and­Stefan­Gradmann,­are­information­scientists­themselves.­In­Germany,­the­working­group­on­digital­publishing­that­was­founded­by­the­Association for Digital Humanities in German Speaking Countries34­(DHd)­mostly­equates­SP­principles­—­“the­codified­text”­(Stäcker­et­al.­2016)­—­with­digital­pub-lishing­in­general.­This­observation­is­important­insofar­as­the­initiator­and­convener­of­this­working­group­is­a­librarian­by­profession.

As­has­been­indicated­in­the­introduction­to­this­chapter,­publishers­are­another­stakeholder­group­closely­linked­to­SPs.­A­superficial­phenomenon­demonstrating­this­entanglement­further­is­the­quantity­of­references­to­the­Article­of­the­Future­contest­made­by­authors­in­the­field­of­SPs.­Giunchiglia,­Xu,­et­al.­(2010)­as­well­as­Marcondes,­Malheiros,­and­da­Costa­(2014)­explicitly­include­these­initiatives­in­the­list­of­SP-like­activities.­Peroni­(2014a,­8)­and­Shotton­et­al.­(2009,­2)­discuss­Elsevier’s­Grand Challenge­initiative­as­an­active­attempt­by­Elsevier­to­propagate­SP­ideas­to­a­broader­community,­and­to­create­better­conditions­for­SP­compliant­versions­of­articles.­On­the­other­hand,­Elsevier­sponsored­a­prize­for­the best contributions at the SePublica­conference,­a­sub-conference­of­the European Semantic Web Conference35­that­focuses­on­SPs.­Elsevier­also­participated­in­the­first­FORCE11­workshop,­which­produced­the­afore-mentioned­manifesto.

The­example­of­Elsevier­is­given­here­because­Elsevier­is­one­of­the­biggest­commercial­publishers­in­science.­Nonetheless,­the­connection­between­SPs­and­publishers­include­other­publishers­with­other­business­models­as­well.­Thus,­Shotton­(2012)­mentions­Pensoft as another publisher who intensively­implements­SP­principles­into­its­publications.­Likewise,­the­pioneering­showcase­for­SPs­provided­by­Shotton­(2012)­was­a­cooperation­with PLOS,­an­open­access­publisher­most­active­in­the­fields­of­biology­and­medicine.

There­are­several­explanations­for­this­strong­entanglement.­The­first­is­the­strong­emphasis­SPs­put­on­the­unit­of­articles.­In­contrast­to­other­approaches­like­ROs,­the­article­remains­the­core­unit.­Some­of­

34­ https://dig-hum.de/35­ https://eswc-conferences.org/

94 Beyond the Flow

the­reasons­for­this­preference­were­mentioned­at­the­beginning­of­this­section.­Without­doubt,­this­makes­it­easier­for­publishers­to­associate­with­innovations­in­digital­publishing,­because­they­do­not­require­substantial­modification­to­the­main­element­of­their­business­plans.­Instead,­SPs­are­“semantic­overlays”­(Clark­2014)­on­top­of­well-established­objects­of­revenue.­Consequently­Pellegrini­(2017,­9)­asserts­that­“semantic­metadata”­such­as­produced­in­SPs­begin­to­show­up­as­the­“core­of­their­[the­pub-lishing­companies]­innovation­strategy­having­a­profound­impact­on­existing­business­practices­and­new­strategies­of­value­creation.”

Furthermore,­SPs­offer­exceptional­possibilities­of­implementing­the­way­publishers­will­develop­business­models­on­the­basis­of­services­rather­than­content.­Since­markup­significantly­facilitates­processing­of­articles,­it­eases­the­implementation­of­these­services­significantly.­With­the­ongoing­success­of­open­access,­publishers­are­meant­to­be­forced­to­develop­this­option­and­explicitly­advertise­SPs­in­this­respect­(Shotton­2009,­86;­Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­2012,­49;­Peroni­2014a,­8–9).

Essentially,­new­business­models­may­arise­from­the­need­to­create,­derive,­and­disseminate­“semantic­assertions”­from­SPs­(Peroni­2014a,­8–9).­In­the­FORCE11­initiative­such­prospects­are­transformed­into­more­substantial­product­descriptions.­Accordingly,­tools­are­needed­to­produce­semantic­publications­and­enhanced­products­may­be­offered­to­researchers.­The­information­provided­by­markup­can­also­be­used­for­advanced­“reputation­management”­services,­which­should­be­of­interest­to­institutions­and­funding­bodies­(Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­2012,­54–56).­Another­good­example­of­features­that­enhanced­products­can­provide­is­the­list­of­views­and­inferred­information­which­Shotton­presents­in­his­initial­paper.

The­above­section­on­SPs­demonstrated­that­the­integration­of­digital­technologies­into­publishing­in­general,­and­of­Semantic­Web­technologies­in­particular,­does­not­require­substantially­invalidating­publishing­con-cepts.­In­comparison­with­ROs,­SPs­do­not­question­either­the­form­or­the­content­of­publications.­While­ROs­position­publications­on­top­of­a­networked,­multi-media,­and­multi-resource­environment,­in­the­vision­of­SPs­this­environment­is­derived­from­publications­in­a­subsequent­step.­It­can­be­achieved­by­information­infrastructures,­like­in­the­examples­of­library­and­information­science­projects,­or­through­services­provided­by­publishers.­Regardless­of­the­specific­variant,­in­the­field­of­SPs­the­article­comes­first.­Semantic­markup,­in­the­form­of­embedded­markup,­provides­the­gateway­to­what­lies­beyond.

Publishing 3.0 95

Liquid PublicationsLiquid­Publications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­LP)­are­a­publication­format­that­appeared­more­or­less­at­the­same­time­as­SPPs,­slightly­earlier­than­ROs­and­SPs.­Liquid­Publications­are­the­outcome­of­the­Liquid­Publishing­project­that­was­funded­within­the­7th­Framework­Program­for­research­funding­in­the­European­Union.

The­basic­idea­of­LPs­is­the­claim­that­the­current­mode­of­publishing­has­deficits,­causing­major­problems­for­any­agent­group­related­to­publishing,­most­notably­for­researchers,­who­are­the­creators­and­the­consumers­of­publications.­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007)­highlight­the­problem­that­researchers­take­more­time­to­write­publications­than­to­do­research­because­reputation­is­based­on­publications.­They­describe­situations­in­which­issues­are­created­only­for­the­purpose­of­writing­a­publication­that­solves­the­problem,­a­practice­the­authors­call­“sudoku­research”­(Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­2007,­8).­Furthermore,­they­stress­that­the­current­publication­model­does­not­support­reuse­of­pub-lications or publications really representing the continuous evolvement of­knowledge.­Instead­for­every­new­finding­a­new­publication­is­created.­Additionally,­the­historical­mode­of­publishing­would­delay­the­dissemi-nation­of­new­findings­and­is­insufficient­in­giving­granular­credit­to­specific­types­of­contributions­in­publications­with­multiple­authors.

Beyond­the­aforementioned­issues­LPs­are­very­much­concerned­with­the­topic­of­peer­review.­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007)­harshly­criticize­the­model­of­closed,­expert-based­peer­review­for­quality­con-trol.­They­state­that­it­“kills­good­papers­and­is­inherently­flawed”­(7).­The­viewpoint­is­presented­on­a­personal­basis­and­not­supported­by­actual­research.­Yet­arguments­are­given­which­include:­(a)­that­the­results­of­reviews­are­contingent­and­do­not­always­match­the­quality­of­the­paper,­(b)­that­reviewers­are­biased­and­that­there­are­groups­of­reviewers­who­are­generally­more­positive­or­negative.

The­critique­of­the­historical­mode­of­publishing­is­presented­together­with­a­judgment­about­researchers’­motivation­when­publishing.­These­motivations­are:­(a)­the­wish­to­communicate­research­to­the­public,­(b)­the­wish­to­get­symbolic­capital­back,­and­in­the­case­of­conference­papers­to­establish­and­maintain­relevant­research­contacts.­­In­this­context­the­authors­assert­that­digital­technologies­have­created­completely­new­ways­of­knowledge­production­and,­in­correspondence­with­the­judgments­in­the­last­sections,­invalidate­historical­modes­of­publishing­(7).­They­particularly­

96 Beyond the Flow

highlight­the­meaning­of­network­technologies­and­storage.­Only­these­two­resources­create­ways­of­making­research­output­available­and­of­inter-act­with­without­limits.­The­authors­express­irritation­about­the­fact­that­insufficient­and­outdated­present­modes­of­publishing­remain­conceptually­and­often­also­physically­paper­based,­thus­“lagging­behind.”­In­this­light­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007,­8)­introduce­LPs­as­a­publishing­model­designed­as­if­“academic­research­was­born­after­the­Web.”

Architecture: Analogies of Hard- and Software

The­key­topic­guiding­the­design­of­LPs­is­a­presupposed­analogy­between­software­and­knowledge.­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007)­stress­that­both­the­creation­of­software­and­of­knowledge­is­an­effort­by­many­people­and­an­endeavor­that­will­never­be­finished.­Publications­should­accordingly­enable­collaborative­work­and­permit­permanent­modification.­This­analogy­is­also­provided­for­the­purpose­of­showing­that­in­software­engineering,­mechanisms­are­already­in­use­that­resemble­both­ideas.­It­is­extended­to­the­changing­relationship­between­what­is­conceived­as­hardware­resp.­software.­Like­the­logical­structure­of­software­becoming­increasingly­independent­from­the­underlying­hardware,­publication­will­see­a­decoupling­between­the­structure­of­a­publication­(software)­and­the­former­hardware­(the­paper).­The­most­successful­strategy­in­order­to­achieve­digital­publications­is­to­transfer­these­software­development­mechanisms­to­the­world­of­publishing.­Concrete­references­are­made­to the principles of agile project management36­and­open source software development­(Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­2007,­3).­Liquid­Publication­research literature consequently applies a bunch of further concepts in computer­science­in­order­to­design­the­shape­of­digital­publications.­Pub-lications become data warehouses­and­the­publishing­process­is­defined­and­rendered­in­correspondence­with­pushing,­pulling,­and­branching processes as they appear in the context of version control systems37.

36­ Agile­project­management­or­software­development­is­a­dynamic­and­highly­flexible­strategy­for­project­management­that­tries­to­reduce­bureaucratic­overhead­as­much­as­possible­in­order­to­be­able­to­quickly­adapt­to­unforeseen­issues­during­the­realization­phase­of­a­project­(see­also­Larman­2004).

37­ Version­Control­Systems­(also­referred­to­as­VCS)­are­specialized­are­a­spe-cialized­software­that­is­able­to­track­changes­in­files­—­mostly­textbased­files­like­programing­code­—,­to­recover­the­state­of­these­files­for­a­certain­point­of­time­and­to­organize­contributions­(commits)­from­multiple­contributors­working­with­different­copies­of­the­repository­containing­the­files­(see­also­Hinsen,­Läufer,­and­Thiruvathukal­2009).

Publishing 3.0 97

Entities: Persons, Processes and Objects

Another­significant­aspect­of­the­background­of­LPs­is­its­partial­critique­of­alleged­viewpoints­in­the­open­access­movement.­Although­principles­of­open­access­are­welcomed­and­acknowledged­as­a­fundamental­dependency­for­the­realization­of­LPs,­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007,­22)­claim­that­these­principles­focus­too­much­on­the­accessibility­and­the­usability­of­knowledge,­but­do­not­reflect­the­dynamic­and­multi-faceted­ways­in­which­publications­float­between­different­stakeholders.­LPs­in­contrast­address­this­issue­systematically.­Publishing­is­accordingly­defined­as­a­nexus­of­three­entities: agents,­processes,­and­knowledge objects.­A­specific­constellation­between­these­three­elements­forms­a­Liquid­Publication.­Three­different­examples­for­LPs­are­given­in­the­project:­Liquid­Books­(Casati­et­al.­2011),­Liquid­Journals­(Baez­et­al.­2009;­Baez­and­Casati­2010),­and­Liquid­Conferences­(Xu­2011).­The­three­versions­of­LPs­will­be­described­in­greater­detail­below.

In­order­to­be­able­to­implement­and­describe­LPs­as­the­product­of­collab-orative­work,­it­is­necessary­to­index­all­the­different­roles­in­which­agents­can­contribute­to­a­publication.­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007,­13)­note­that­in­times­of­digital­technologies­agents­appear­in­changing­roles­more­frequently­and­that­many­contributions­are­subtle,­like­for­instance­aggregation,­classification,­or­blogging,­among­others.­In­contrast­to­earlier­formats,­LPs­sustain­a­certain­notion­of­a­monolithic­object­at­the­center­of­publications,­which­they­call­Scientific Knowledge Object­(hereafter­referred­to­as­SKO).­Scientific­Knowledge­Objects­are­also­referred­to­as­“the­IT­aspect­of­the­knowledge­creation­and­dissemination­problem”­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007,­13).­Scientific­Knowledge­Objects­are­the­way­by­which­the­complexity­demanded­by­the­features­summarized­above­and­the­complexity­of­processes­and­actors­indicated­in­the­last­paragraph­should­become­manageable.­On­a­very­basic­level­SKOs­are­defined­as­repositories38­which­—­beyond­content­of­any­typ­—­contain­a­description­of­the­social­network­of­agents­and­processes­involved­in­their­creation­and­modification.­The­concept­of­a­repository­is­again­derived­from­software­development.­Here­it­is­technological­infrastructure­that­is­able­to­store­software­and­organize­the­interactions­of­multiple­developers­within­the­development­process.

38­ A­repository­is­a­software­infrastructure­that­facilitates­the­storage­and­man-agement­of­digital­resources.

98 Beyond the Flow

Functional Requirements

Looking­at­the­research­literature,­it­is­hard­to­grasp­what­LPs­are­precisely.­In­varying­levels­of­abstraction­Casati,­Giunchiglia,­and­Marchese­(2007)­refer­to­them­as­papers,­publications,­or­just­organized­scientific­knowledge.­Likewise,­no­clear­distinction­exists­between­the­term­Liquid­Publication­and­the­term­Scientific­Knowledge­Object.­In­correspondence­with­the­last­paragraph,­however,­the­interaction­patterns­as­well­as­the­functional­requirements­enabling­these­patterns­will­be­discussed­in­greater­detail.­Four­functional­requirements­guided­the­design­process­of­SKOs­are­listed.­First,­SKOs­need­to­permit­non-restricted­modification­of any aspect for the time people in a collaborative setting are willing to contribute.­This­includes­the­possibility­of­several­versions­of­an­SKO­rep-resenting­different­states­of­research­and­work.­The­notion­of­snapshots­is­used­for­this­purpose­(Baez­et­al.­2009,­sec.­3).­Secondly,­SKOs­must­permit­the­organization­and­reflection­of­different­types­of­work­between­different­contributors­to­an­SKO.­This­means­that­different­contributors­might­have­different­control­over­elements­in­the­SKO­and­that­their­contributions­are­individually­tracked­and­categorized.­Third,­every­contributor­should­be­able­to­maintain­and­work­on­her­own­version­of­an­SKO.­This­option­is­compared­with­the­concept­of­branches39­in­decentralized­version­control­systems­like­Git40.­Finally,­SKOs­should­not­just­resemble­the­principles­of­software­repositories,­but­indeed­be­technically­implemented­as­software­repositories­for­the­creation­of­publications­from­the­start.­Thus,­they­are­also­called­“content­repositories,”­or,­for­the­example­of­Liquid­Books,­“LiquidBook­Repositories”­(Giunchiglia,­Chenu,­et­al.­2010,­49).

Stack: Layers of Liquid Publications

The­possibility­to­have­different­people­administering­different­content­in­different­versions­is­called­a­low-level­capacity­of­software­repositories.­It­offers­basic­technical­and­semantic­means­of­referring­to­elements­in­SKOs,­their­creation­history­and­their­contributors.­Advocates­of­SKOs­are­

39­ Branches­in­software­repositories­permit­to­develop­certain­features­independently­from­each­other­and­from­the­main­state­of­development.­It­enables­changes­to­software­that­only­exist­for­the­people­working­on­a­specific­branch.­When­the­devel-opments­in­a­branch­have­reached­maturity­the­whole­set­of­changes­of­the­branch­can­be­merged­back­into­the­main­development­line.­Branches­are­used­in­software­repositories­where­many­people­work­on­many­different­things­at­the­same­time.­Due­to­branches­the­integrity­of­the­core­of­the­software­is­not­jeopardized­but­still­offers­the­highest­degree­of­flexibility­for­software­developers.

40­ https://git-scm.com/

Publishing 3.0 99

aware­that­publications­have­more­specific­interaction­models.­Scientific­Knowledge­Objects­address­this­issue­by­defining­more­granular­categories­in­order­to­describe­the­elements­of­SKOs­and­their­relationship.­Fur-thermore,­these­categories­should­make­it­possible­to­represent­types­of­interactions­between­contributors­and­the­publication.­This­is­an­important­aspect­for­SKOs­because­the­goal­of­improving­the­review­process­is­partially­built­around­the­idea­that­different­contributions­to­publications­should­be­identifiable­on­their­own.

Formally,­four­different­semantic­levels­are­defined,­this­is­an­important­aspect,­each­generating­specific­types­of­metadata­(Giunchiglia,­Chenu,­et­al.­2010,­10–13).­These­levels­are:

1.­ The­file­level2.­ The semantic level3.­ The­serialization­level4.­ The presentation level

The­elements­described­within­these­levels­are­called­nodes.­The­file­level­holds­the­content­itself.­The­content­in­turn­is­represented­in­terms­of­URLs.­These­URLs­can­link­between­nodes,­fragments­of­nodes,­or­groups­of­nodes.41­As­mentioned­above,­the­file­node­may­contain­content­of­any­file­type.­The­semantic­layer­holds­any­type­of­metadata­which­describes­what­a­node­represents­scientifically­as­well­as­in­which­context­it­was­included­into­the­LP.

The­serialization­level­is­meant­to­arrange­the­content­or­filter­file­nodes­and­semantic­nodes­to­create­specific­LPs­versions.­It­has­been­noted­before­that­a­SKO­may­lead­to­different­publications,­for­instance­a­blog­post­or­a­poster.­The­blog­post­has­a­linear­structure­while­the­poster­might­arrange­content­in­columns­or­as­a­graph.­Likewise,­the­poster­probably­uses­less­of­the­text­content­of­the­SKO.­The­serialization­level­describes­this­ordering.­The­presentation­layer­finalizes­the­implementation­of­specific­LPs­out­of­SKOs.­In­general,­it­applies­styles­to­publications.­This­refers­to­things­like­the­font­used­for­text­or­the­size­of­a­video.­Additionally,­it­defines­the­output­file­format.

The­four­levels­do­not­only­introduce­certain­distinctions­between­aspects­of­publications,­they­also­reproduce­the­software­engineering­view­on­pub-lications.­The­relationship­between­these­layers­is­hierarchical.­There­are­

41­ Considering­the­definition­of­URLs­that­has­been­given­before­it­is­important­to­repeat­that­the­content­of­LPs,­different­from­ROs,­is­not­distributed­on­the­web,­but­stored­in­a­repository.­Here,­the­URL­only­defines­a­certain­mechanism­of­making­digital­resources­technically­identifiable.

100 Beyond the Flow

aspects­which­are­considered­crucial­and­aspects­that­are­made­contingent.­Accordingly,­Giunchiglia,­Xu,­et­al.­(2010,­10)­call­the­addition­of­serialization­metadata­to­LPs­an­“execution”­of­a­SKO­and­the­presentation­of­metadata­the­“rendering”­of­the­content.­The­terminology­resembles­the­distinction­between­programming­and­running­software­as­well­as­programming­and­compiling.­Furthermore,­it­updates­the­distinction­between­form­and­con-tent­that­was­made­in­other­publication­concepts.­In­any­case,­LPs­suggest­a­specific­way­of­judging­essential­and­contingent­aspects­of­publications.

State: Versions and Continuous Modification

Giunchiglia,­Chenu,­et­al.­(2010,­19–21)­try­to­advance­the­concept­of­liquidity.­First,­the­basic­idea­of­continuously­evolving­publications­is­separated­into­three­different­types­of­dynamics.­By­referring­to­physical­states,­such­types­are­called­the­gaseous,­the­liquid,­and­the­solid­state.­These­states­are­analyzed­in­terms­of­properties­and­technical­requirements.­Properties­mainly­address­the­modification­rate­and­the­level­of­maturity­that­can­be­expected­from­a­publication­in­each­of­these­states.­In­contrast,­requirements­define­different­levels­of­effort­applicable­to­the­task­of­assuring­the­persistence­of­SKOs.­LPs­thus­call­for­the­def-inition­of­different­levels­of­sustainability,­an­approach­which­is­reminiscent­of­Hunter’s­decay­factor.

In­the­long­run­the­three­states­of­liquidity­in­LPs­equate­to­traditional­notions­of­a­work­being­a­work­in­progress­(gaseous­state),­a­draft­(liquid­state),­or­the­final­version­(solid­state).­However,­the­main­point­of­the­whole­argument­about­liquidity­is­that­publications­are­already­publishable­in­all­states.­The­liquid­state­is­also­considered­to­be­the­crucial­state­of­future­publishing.­Accordingly,­publishing­ceases­to­refer­to­a­certain­state­in­knowledge­production.­Giunchiglia,­Chenu,­et­al.­(2010,­22–23)­outline­the­type­of­practices­that­a­publication­in­the­liquid­state­attracts.­Most­of­these­practices­concern­collaboration,­feedback,­and­review.­The­fact­that­a­publication­can­be­reviewed­in­its­liquid­state­already,­together­with­the­elementary­structure­of­nodes,­is­perceived­as­a­major­contribution­to­a­more­open­and­more­specific­review­process.

Model

It­is­significant­that­the­LP­project­actually­fails­to­elaborate­specifications­for­the­different­metadata­levels­of­LPs­described­above.­The­final­project­report­does­not­comprehensively­define­more­fine-grained­elements­than­

Publishing 3.0 101

those­that­have­been­discussed­already.­The­vocabulary­referring­to­the­file-layer,­for­instance,­proposes­only­a­file_node element that may have an attribute­containing­the­URL.­There­are­few­things­in­the­formal­SKO­model­that­substantiate­the­perspectives­described­in­prose­above,­meaning:­(a)­the­fact­that­there­are­four­semantic­levels,­(b)­that­within­these­levels­a­publication­is­a­group­of­elements­(nodes)­that­(c)­refer­to­each­other­in­a­certain­ways­(relations).

No­definitions­of­concrete­relationships­defining­specific­structures­are­made,­like­in­the­case­of­workflows­in­ROs.­The­same­holds­true­for­elements­in­the­serialization­and­presentation­level.­What­is­offered­is­a­random­integration­of­some­vocabularies­already­mentioned­in­the­SPs­section,­more­precisely­the­ABCD­and­the­SALT­vocabularies­(Giunchiglia,­Chenu,­et­al.­2010,­56).­Additionally,­an­unsystematic­selection­of­style­features­like­font­and­paragraph_style­is­mentioned.­However,­these­features­hardly­serve­any­other­purpose­than­to­illustrate­the­mechanism.

Indeed,­the­more­concrete­research­on­LPs­gets,­the­more­the­approach­turns­away­from­its­original­complexity­and­radicalness­and­thus­from­the­need­to­define­usable­vocabularies.­The­last­step­in­the­aforementioned­report is again an illustration of a set of three SKO patterns.­Patterns­are­common­implementation­structures­of­the­SKO­model.­The­three­patterns­presented­are:­inductively,­deductively,­and­abductively­organized­journal­articles.­In­these­examples,­as­can­be­expected,­the­serialization­of­the­con-tent­is­sequential,­and­the­semantic­level­includes­logical­relationships.

Later­work­by­Xu­(2011)­confirms­the­tendency­of­LP­research­to­give­preference­to­the­journal­article­form­in­order­to­discuss­issues­of­pub-lishing­and­LPs.­While­this­fact­is­especially­prominent­for­LPs,­due­to­the­tension­between­the­level­of­critique­and­the­LP­showcases,­this­observation­can­be­made­for­many­contributions­to­the­field­of­digital­pub-lication­formats.­Accordingly,­Xu­(2011,­67–70)­continues­to­investigate­the­three­SKO­patterns­that­were­mentioned­above­and­transposes­the­rather­technical­concepts­in­the­LP­project­to­concepts­that­are­more­familiar­to­the­publishing­domain.­Lifecycle,­for­instance,­is­a­far­more­restricted­vari-ation­of­the­theme­of­general­“liquidity”­structured­by­snapshots­within­a­repository­(Xu­2010,­425–27).­Correspondingly,­the­rich­and­open­space­of­options­for­the­design­of­publications­that­was­chased­by­Candela,­Casati,­and­others­at­the­beginning­is­reduced­to­a­set­of­commons­features­later­on.­What­were­once­the­levels­of­serialization,­semantics,­and­presentation­as­well­as­the­feature­of­liquidity­turns­into­basic­structures­of­text­

102 Beyond the Flow

documents,­rhetorical­relationships,­and­subsequent­annotations­(Xu­2010,­428).

Reference Implementations

Further­examples­try­to­deepen­the­analysis­of­dependencies­between­agents,­practices,­and­SKOs.­The­three­showcases­are­Liquid­Books­(Casati­et­al.­2011),­Liquid­Journals­(Baez­et­al.­2009;­Baez­and­Casati­2010)­and­Liquid­Conferences­(Xu­2011,­chap.­6).­The­goal­of­these­examples­is­to­investigate­how­the­concept­of­liquidity­might­change­historical­publishing­setups­understood­as­a­conflation­of­aforementioned­entities.­Although­these­examples­offer­more­concrete­insights­into­LPs,­these­insights­sub-stantiate­the­notion­of­liquidity,­not­the­model­of­the­LP­format.

For­instance,­Liquid­Journals­are­defined­as­thematic­streams­which­continuously­include­and­exclude­links­to­scientific­contributions.­The­important­aspect­of­these­journals­is­no­longer­providing­final­versions­of­research­papers,­but­offering­an­interface­to­currently­relevant­research­at­every­state­of­maturity.­Liquid­Publications­in­the­gaseous­state­could­be­linked­in­the­same­way­as­solid­ones.­Likewise,­links­could­be­included­and­excluded­at­any­time.­Issues­of­journals­are­transformed­to­journal­snapshots­that­represent­“collections­of­links”­(Baez­and­Casati­2010,­sec.­4.2).­This­proposition­also­makes­clear­that­holding­content­is­no­longer­the­primary­function­of­journals.

The­re-specification­of­historical­formats­keeps­the­historical­agents­associated­with­a­specific­concept­intact.­However,­it­asks­for­the­types­of­activity­such­agents­might­engage­in­within­a­continuum­of­different­levels­of­“liquidity.”­For­example,­there­are­still­editors­in­Liquid­Journals,­but­they­now­curate­the­list­of­links­in­Liquid­Journals­instead­of­accepting­and­editing­content.

Liquid­Publications­are­in­many­aspects­in­between­MAs,­SPs,­and­ROs,­enriched­with­the­unique­idea­of­liquidity.­From­MAs­they­inherit­the­strong­emphasis­on­fragmentation­and­modularization.­The­use­of­URIs­in­order­to­technically­represent­elements­and­entities­in­a­publication­as­well­as­the­intent­to­formally­classify­each­of­its­entities­comes­close­to­SPs.­However,­it­is­worth­mentioning­that­despite­comparable­technological­approaches­and­goals­there­is­rarely­any­reference­to­SPs.­The­management­of­LPs­in­repositories,­finally,­resembles­some­of­the­characteristics­of­the­early­ROs­in­the­myExperiment­environment.

Publishing 3.0 103

The­term­liquidity­is­a­metaphor.­By­putting­together­all­aspects­apparent­in­its­presence­it­is­possible­to­say­that­most­often­it­defines­a­higher­rate­of­interaction­between­agents­and­publications.­Interactions­that­are­outlined­for­the­liquid­state­include­giving­feedback,­reviewing,­and­modification.­The­modification­of­content­as­an­instant­reaction­to­the­feedback­resem-bles­the­idea­of­direct­communication.­Accordingly,­the­Liquid­Journal­was­characterized­as­a­channel­that­no­longer­holds­content­but­controls­the­flow­of­information.­The­focus­shifts­from­the­object­to­the­phenomena­the­object­is­supposed­to­mediate.­Such­communicative­turn­is­also­sup-ported­by­the­aforementioned­analogy­between­the­history­of­publishing­and­the­decoupling­of­software­from­hardware.­One­could­therefore­claim­that­LPs­aim­at­the­highest­degree­at­which­publishing­can­be­grasped­as­communication.

Enhanced PublicationsNext in line is the concept of Enhanced Publications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­EPs).­The­term­Enhanced­Publication­is­used­in­two­different­ways.­On­the­one­hand­it­represents­an­effort­to­define­an­integrative­concept­to­digital­publications.­Sierman,­Schmidt,­and­Ludwig­(2009),­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013),­Bardi­and­Manghi­(2014),­and­Simukovic­(2012)­even­use­it­as­an­umbrella­term­for­digital­publications­as­such.­On­the­other­hand,­it­is­used­by­projects­or­journals­trying­to­advertise­innovative­components­of­their­digital­publications.­The­term­integrative­concept­highlights­that­some­of­the­related­work­consists­in­comparing­and­systematizing­different­approaches,­identifying­common­problems,­and­in­undertaking­the­first­attempt­to­define­a­technical­and­formal­model­that­includes­all­the­others.­This­is­a­significant­difference­to­former­evaluations­by­Nentwich­and­Owen.­Furthermore,­EPs­seek­to­create­better­conditions­for­infrastructure­that­supports­their­creation.

The­reason­for­this­significant­difference­is­the­professional­background­of­the­concept’s­main­contributors.­Enhanced­Publications­arose­out­of­the­digital­library­and­digital­research­repository­domain,­and­first­appeared­in­the DRIVER42­project­(Digital­Repository­Infrastructure­Vision­for­European­Research).­They­were­used­in­a­variety­of­reports­which­were­combined­in­a­publication­funded­by­the­Dutch­SURF43­Foundation­(Sierman,­Schmidt,­and­Ludwig­2009).­The­definition­of­this­term­as­well­as­the­content­of­the­reports­built­upon­earlier­work­on­research­repositories­which­also­

42­ https://web.archive.org/web/20120113023439/http://www.driver-repository.eu/43­ https://www.surf.nl

104 Beyond the Flow

took­place­in­the­Netherlands.­Correspondingly,­Peters­and­Lossau­(2009,­250–51)­highlight­the­impact­of­the­DARE­(Digital­Academic­Repository,­see­Koninklijke­Bibliotheek­2006)­for­the­realization­of­the­DRIVER­project­as well as for the COAR44­(Confederation­of­Open­Access­Repositories).­Hogenaar­(2009,­2–3)­likewise­relates­the­activities­to­the­Dutch­project­ESCAPE45­(Enhanced­Scientific­Communication­by­Aggregated­Publication­Environments).­Most­of­the­authors­of­DRIVER’s­reports­had­worked­in­one­of­these­projects­before.

The­peculiar­viewpoint­of­these­domains­not­only­shaped­the­specification­of­EPs,­it­also­led­to­activities­of­a­type­that­were­new­in­the­context­of­digital­publications.­Despite­these­peculiarities­EPs­are­obviously­part­of­the­same­discourse­on­digital­publications­as­the­concepts­discussed­earlier­in­this­work.­They­repeat­large­parts­of­the­major­themes­that­have­been­outlined­already,­among­them­the­information­overload­(Woutersen-Wind-houwer­and­Brandsma­2009),­the­acceleration­of­science­(Verhaar­2009,­38),­and­open­access­(Peters­and­Lossau­2009).­Nonetheless,­research­on­EPs­focuses­more­than­others­on­the­evaluation­and­discussion­of­environ-mental­and­infrastructural­problems­of­digital­publications.­This­aspect­is­very­well­documented­by­Woutersen-Windhouwer’s­and­Brandsma’s­(2009,­81)­intent­“to­help­to­structure­the­environment­of­scholarly­publishing.”

The­alternative­usage­of­the­term­Enhanced­Publications­builds­on­the­attempt­of­the­DRIVER­project­to­establish­a­generic­perspective.­Accordingly,­people­and­projects­use­it­to­give­a­name­to­the­innovative­potential­of­publications­as­such,­regardless­of­their­type.­Some­of­these­projects­were­intentionally­initiated­by­the­same­SURF­foundation­that­was­involved­in­the­DRIVER­project­( Jankowski­et­al.­2012,­2).­Other­initiatives­like­the Information Bulletin for Variable Stars­appropriated­the­term­indepen-dently­(Holl­2012).

The W3C Incubator Group on Library Linked Data­(W3C­Library­Linked­Data­Incubator­Group­2011)­provides­a­random­list­of­EP­projects­relating­to­the­engagement­of­SURF­mentioned­above.­It­also­describes­their­entan-glement­within­the­strategic­frame­of­infrastructure­development­in­the­Netherlands.

44­ https://www.coar-repositories.org/45­ https://escapesurf.wordpress.com/

Publishing 3.0 105

Specifications and Features

As­mentioned­above,­any­description­of­EPs­is­pragmatically­motivated.­The­primary­goal­of­such­descriptions­is­finding­a­starting­point­from­which­to­answer­the­question­of­whether­research­repositories­need­to­invest­in­further­development­of­their­technologies­or­not­(Woutersen-Wind-houwer­and­Brandsma­2009).­Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009)­state­that­the­examples­of­what­they­consider­to­be­an­EP­are­so­new­that­they­lack­an­overarching­model­in­order­to­refer­to­them.­In­fact,­the­most­important­aspect­of­this­argument­is­the­underlying­claim­that­different­approaches­to­new­publication­objects­do­belong­to­a­unifiable­idea.

Judging­by­the­quantity­of­publication­concepts­available­at­that­time,­the­number­of­concepts­considered­in­the­evaluations­is­relatively­low.­Basically,­two­concepts­are­repeatedly­mentioned­and­discussed­in­greater­detail.­These­are­the­Modular­Article­and­Scientific­Publication­Packages­(Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­2009;­Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­2009;­Hogenaar­2009).­Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­(2009)­also­discuss­Marcondes­“web­published­scientific­articles”­while­Verhaar­(2009)­posits­Seringhaus­as­a­reference­point­for­EPs.­Both­contributions­were­discussed­as­early­examples­of­SPs­in­the­present­study.­In­fact,­Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­(2009)­use­the­section­title­“Semantic­Pub-lishing”­in­their­presentation­of­Marcondes­but­then­include­SPPs­under­the­same­title.­In­contrast,­they­differentiate­between­MAs­and­SPs­even­though­both­can­be­described­as­referring­to­similar­key­concepts.

The­reason­for­this­fuzziness­depends­on­which­aspects­are­given­priority­in­the­analysis.­The­key­point­behind­the­results­of­each­of­these­analyses­is­the­claim­that­publications­need­to­be­conceived­of­as­aggregations­of­components,­similar­to­approaches­in­the­section­on­aggregations.­This­also­prepares­the­field­for­another­claim,­that­of­saying­that­the­main­innovation­of­digital­publication­concepts­is­the­inclusion­of­components­that­have­not­or­could­not­have­been­included­before.­Hogenaar­writes:

…­the­information­object­will­play­a­central­role.­It­may­be­any­kind­of­object:­a­traditional­publication,­a­comment­on­that­publication;­a­dataset;­an­image;­an­audio­fragment,­and­so­on.­(Hogenaar­2009,­1)

Accordingly,­Verhaar­(2009)­argues­that­EPs­appeared­in­consequence­to­the­incapacity­of­historical­publications­to­include­supplementary­research­materials.­The­function­of­these­newly­included­materials­in­different­publication concepts as well as the evaluation of concrete information units­and­resources­is­of­secondary­importance.­Van­der­Poel­(2007)­

106 Beyond the Flow

and­Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­(2009)­distinguish­between­components­of­three­different­“information­types”:­data­as­evidence,­extra­materials­as­illustration,­and­post­publication­data.­The­level­of­abstraction­behind­this­classification­is­one­of­the­reasons­why­Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009)­conclude­that­SPPs­and­MAs­are­basically­the­same­approach,­despite­the­differences­described­in­the­current­study.­In­an­even­more­concise­definition,­the­authors­(136)­write­that­EPs­have­an­“object-based­structure­with­explicit­links­between­objects.”

A­significant­substantiation­of­the­types­of­information­objects­that­became­a­constitutive­component­of­EPs­is­given­in­Verhaar­summarization:

In­conclusion,­Enhanced­Publications­can­be­defined­as­compound­digital­objects,­which­combine­ePrints­with­one­or­more­metadata­records,­one­or­more­data­resources,­or­any­combination­of­these.­(Verhaar­2009,­101)

The Question of Text

In­comparison­with­the­earlier­specifications,­the­above­quote­highlights­the­centrality­of­text,­referring­to­it­as­ePrints.­Indeed,­later­specifications­of­EPs­promote­this­idea­more­often.­Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009,­136)­accordingly­state:­“we­assume­Enhanced­Publications­have­at­least­one­textual­resource.”­This­is­significant­because­both­authors­add­that­publications are conceivable in which there is no central textual resource (Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­2009,­154),­an­idea­for­which­examples­have­been­described­in­the­current­study­already.­They­argue­that­this­scenario­is­out­of­the­scope­of­EPs.­This­argument­is­striking­insofar­as­the­con-cept­of­SPPs,­which­does­not­make­text­mandatory,­is­one­of­the­more­prominent­objects­of­study­in­EP­research.­In­the­light­of­this­point­the­EP­approach­therefore­cannot­fulfill­its­ambition­to­be­generic.

Despite­Hogenaar’s­and­Hoogerwerf’s­pragmatic­decision,­the­role­of­text­remains­an­issue.­Within­the­article­that­introduced­the­concept­of­infor-mation­objects­and­which­was­published­in­the­same­year,­Hogenaar­(2009)­does­explicitly­not­distinguish­between­articles­and­other­information­objects.­Jankowski­et­al.­(2012)­tone­down­the­definition­given­by­Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­by­saying­that­an­EP­consists­of­a­central­publication­which­only­most­often­is­a­textual­resource.­Diender­(2010)­instead­not­only­states­that­EPs­are­primarily­textual­resources­to­which­other­resources­are­added,­but­that­text­is­also­its­primary­interface.

Publishing 3.0 107

Despite­this­inconsistency­the­question­of­the­role­of­text­is­addressed­more­often­than­in­other­publication­designs.­Semantic­Publications­are­an­exception.­However,­SPs­are­able­to­make­a­decision­about­the­role­of­text­by­virtue­of­a­very­specific­approach­to­digital­publications.­Enhanced­Pub-lications­are­not­able­to­do­the­same,­because­their­concept­is­grounded­in­an­evaluation­of­the­state­of­the­art.­In­the­light­of­the­issue­of­text,­this­state­of­the­art­therefore­appears­to­be­less­consistent­than­EPs­assume.

The­Question­of­Methodological­Differences­and­the­Humanities

Enhanced­Publications­also­offer­minor­attempts­to­evaluate­dependencies­between­specific­needs­of­disciplines,­especially­the­humanities­and­EPs.­In­fact,­the­cluster­of­EP­projects­created­more­example­publications­in­the­domain­of­the­humanities­than­in­other­projects­not­originating­in­the­humanities.­Around­2011­several­projects­were­funded­with­the­goal­to­evaluate­the­potential­of­EPs­for­publishing­in­the­humanities.­Among­them are the Veteran Tapes­project,­which­publishes­research­on­the­second­world­war­(van­den­Heuvel­et­al.­2010),­and­the­Enhancing Scholarly Pub-lishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences­project­( Jankowski­et­al.­2012).

In­the­latter­project,­several­books­from­media­and­cultural­sciences­that­were­already­published­in­paper­form­were­transformed­into­EPs.­Jankowski­et­al.­(2012)­propose­that­the­selection­of­added­features­in­the­project­should­resemble­the­particular­needs­of­the­humanities.­However,­no­deeper­analysis­of­these­methodological­needs­and­the­way­in­which­they­relate­to­these­features­is­provided.­The­paper­focuses­on­descriptive­and­technical­aspects­of­EPs­and­on­the­implementation­process­of­the­use-cases.­However,­it­documents­some­of­the­experiences­the­designers­made­together­with­the­humanities­researchers­within­the­implementation­process.

In­contrast­to­the­original­goal­of­these­projects,­the­Veterans­Tapes­project­also­lacks­a­substantial­evaluation­of­the­experiences­of­humanities­researchers­involved­in­this­type­of­project.­It­was­instead­meant­to­function­as­a­lighthouse­project,­to­attract­a­broader­humanities­audience.­More­precisely­van­den­Heuvel­et­al.­(2010,­2688)­state:­“We­consider­this­project­as­exemplary­for­the­paradigm­shift­that­is­taking­place­in­the­field­of­humanities.”­The­paradigm­shift­itself,­however,­is­only­proclaimed.

Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009,­137–39)­discuss­concerns­about­the­fact­that­the­DRIVER­project­chose­to­only­implement­one­EP­“demonstrator”­that­should­represent­all­scientific­domains.­Once­again,­the­discussion­

108 Beyond the Flow

indicates­the­possibility­of­different­needs­between­different­disciplines­when­it­comes­to­the­design­of­new­publication­formats.­The­authors­respond­negatively­to­this­question­in­two­ways.­First,­they­relativize­these­needs­by­arguing­that­methodological­differences­between­disciplines­will­become­increasingly­unimportant­due­to­the­growing­phenomenon­of­interdisciplinary­research.­Thus,­like­in­other­publication­concepts,­the­design­process­is­led­by­certain­claims­about­how­technological­innovation­will­change­scientific­practice.­Second,­they­reduce­the­question­of­methodological­differences­an­observe­that­only­different­resources­are­important­in­different­disciplines.­More­precisely,­they­link­different­dis-ciplines­to­different­resource­types­such­as­text­corpora­for­the­humanities­and­measured­data­to­science.­Due­to­this­simplification,­the­authors­can­argue­that­EPs­are­able­to­handle­any­resource­type­and­are­therefore­capable­of­representing­research­in­any­discipline.

Another­contribution­in­which­Jankowski­and­Jones­(2013)­is­involved­does­indeed­approach­the­topic­of­methodological­differences­and­EPs­more­seriously.­The­authors­present­the­research­of­Meyer­et­al.­(2011).­This­study­tried­to­investigate­different­uptakes­of­digital­tools,­especially­so-called­web­2.0­tools,­by­disciplines­in­the­humanities­and­the­sciences.­Jankowski­et­al.­deduces­from­that­work­that­the­Humanities­tend­to­work­less­collaboratively­and­use­“computationally­less­complex”­tools­than­the­Sciences­do.­Although­Jankowski­et­al.­highlight­the­importance­of­this­and­comparable­studies­for­EPs,­they­intentionally­leave­the­interpretation­to­the­readers:­again,­this­topic­is­introduced­but­left­behind­without­further­clarification.

Functional Requirements

Enhanced­Publications­are­not­only­defined­by­extracting­features­from­existing­digital­publication­formats.­Further­strategies­to­gain­insights­into­requirements­for­a­sustainable­meta­model­of­EPs­are­considered­as­well.­Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­(2009)­substantiate­specification­of­EPs­by­putting­the­abstract­idea­of­EPs­in­the­context­of­research­lit-erature­on­publishing­as­such­from­the­repositories­domain.­They­follow­Van­de­Sompel­and­Lagoze­(2007),­mentioned­already,­by­claiming­that­scholarly­communication­consists­of­the­areas­of­registration,­certification,­awareness,­archiving,­and­rewarding.­These­areas­are­translated­into­technical­specifications46,­calls­made­to­stakeholders­in­the­publishing­

46­ An­example­of­such­a­specification­is­the­use­of­so-called­persistent­identifiers­(PIDs).­Persistent­identifiers­are­URIs­that­are­not­supposed­to­change­in­the­future.­While­

Publishing 3.0 109

field47,­but­also­recommendations­for­changing­related­practices,­such­as­the­review­process­and­the­measurement­of­the­impact­of­publications.

Hogenaar­(2009)­defines­six­further­requirements­for­EPs­based­on­a­ques-tionnaire­of­“users”­which­address­different­facets­of­publishing.­Following­the­questionnaire,­an­EP­must­(a)­be­citable,­(b)­have­metadata­for­itself­and­its­components,­(c)­must­contain­explicit­relations­between­components,­(d)­be­capable­of­being­stored­in­a­network­environment,­I­able­to­be­versioned­and­continuously­modified,­(f)­be­machine-readable,­and­finally,­(g)­be­stored­in­an­environment­that­provides­an­Application Programming Inter-face48­(also­referred­to­as­API).­These­properties­are­strongly­reminiscent­of­the­discussion­on­aggregations,­and­indeed­several­references­to­this­com-munity­have­already­been­highlighted.­However,­the­list­of­requirements­provokes­the­question­which­user­base­was­selected­in­the­questionnaire.­Unfortunately,­no­further­information­is­given.

In­“Identifying­Properties­for­Enhanced­Publications”­Gielkens­and­Hulman­(2011)­also­build­their­research­on­the­basis­of­an­evaluation­of­users.­However,­the­area­of­interest­in­which­these­properties­are­defined­is­significantly­different­from­the­studies­described­above.­Gielkens­and­Hulman­analyze­readers’­comments­about­a­contribution­to­Elsevier’s­Article­of­the­Future­contest.­In­these­comments,­readers­judge­the­different­properties­of­the­article­and­thereby­offer­an­opportunity­to­draw­inferences­and­to­guide­further­research.­Consequently,­the­authors­derive­properties­for­the­areas­of­usability,­layout,­content­quality,­and­readability.­The­selection­of­properties­shows­that­here,­EPs­are­defined­from­the­angle­of­their­presentation.­The­key­claim­behind­any­further­specification­is­that­EPs­turn­into­interactive­websites­and­are­published­as­HTML,­a­devel-opment­that­takes­place­after­the­main­phase­of­the­DRIVER­project.

Adriaansen­and­Hooft­(2010)­take­a­similar­approach­to­Gielkens­and­Hulman.­They­select­five­different­journal­websites­and­call­them­EPs­without­further­explanation­of­the­relationship­between­former­def-initions­(see­above),­the­meta-model­(see­below),­and­the­application­of­

domain­URIs­might­change­due­to­a­variety­of­reasons,­a­PID­should­always­link­to­the­same­place­and­remain­“stable”.

47­ The­DRIVER­project­calls­for­the­creation­of­so­called­“trustworthy­repositories”,­meaning­repositories­which­for­various­reasons­are­sustainable,­respected,­and­integrated­into­the­publishing­landscape.

48­ An­API­is­a­technical­mechanism­by­which­software­can­be­accessed­from­other­software.­In­this­context­it­means­that­software­and­software­services­can­obtain­metadata­and­content­out­of­repositories­hosting­EPs.

110 Beyond the Flow

this­concept­in­their­study.­Recommended­features­of­EPs­in­this­study­are­interactive­navigation­or­the­option­to­have­downloadable­PDF­versions.

It­was­mentioned­in­the­introduction­to­EPs­that­the­term­EPs­is­sometimes­also­used­by­certain­journals­trying­to­express­that­they­form­part­of­a­development­towards­new­publication­types.­In­this­context­the­specific­set­of­features­these­journals­provide­is­of­minor­importance:­the­term­is­appropriated­as­a­political­concept.­Holl­(2012)­is­a­good­example­for­this­type­of­usage.­He­presents­the­astronomy­journal­Information Bulletin of Variable Stars­and­calls­it­an­EP.­He­tries­to­backup­this­classification­by­just­summarizing­features­of­the­journal­website­in­a­non-systematic­manner.­These­include­links­to­databases­and­data­sources,­interactive­visu-alizations,­and­a­search­facility­on­specific­entities­using­normalizing­name­resolution.

Model

One­of­the­most­important­contributions­to­EPs­is­the­attempt­to­provide­a­high-level­formal­model­for­digital­publications.­Corresponding­to­the­original­intention­to­establish­EPs­as­an­umbrella­concept,­this­model­intends­to­represent­the­minimal­intersection­of­all­digital­publication­con-cepts­investigated­by­the­DRIVER­project.­As­such,­this­model­is­meant­to­be­a­reference­model­that­should­facilitate­the­implementation­of­EPs­and­of­supporting­repository­infrastructures.

Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009)­define­what­a­publication­model­is­in­the­context­of­the­DRIVER­project.­A­publication­model­defines­the­components­of­a­publication­and­the­way­they­are­arranged­in­it.­More­technically,­it­describes­relevant­entities­and­their­relationships.­Consequently,­Verhaar­(2009)­transforms­the­approach­into­a­so-called­entity-relationship model (see­figure­3.1),­a­common­modelling­approach­in­computer­science,­especially­in­the­context­of­databases.­In­this­model­Verhaar­defines­five­entities:­e-prints,­data­objects,­metadata,­compound­datasets,­and­EPs­themselves.­The­difference­between­data­objects­and­compound­datasets­is­mainly­technical.­It­addresses­the­possibility­that­resources­belonging­together­on­the­level­of­meaning­might­be­split­into­different­physical­resources.­It­is­also­worth­mentioning­that­EPs­may­contain­other­EPs.

It­is­also­significant­that­the­model­for­EPs­does­not­provide­any­other­relationship between components than consistsOf.­Likewise,­there­are­no­further­semantics­included­in­the­further­discussion­of­this­model.­Evalu-ations­of­relationship­types­exist­outside­of­the­high-level­publication­

Publishing 3.0 111

model­(Verhaar­2009,­sec.­10.6;­Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­2009,­sec.­5).­Nevertheless,­these­evaluations­are­hardly­systematized­and­serve­the­purpose­of­merely­illustrating­the­usage.­The­aforementioned­demonstrator­introduced­by­Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009,­154)­also­only­mentions­the­need­to­model­sequential­relationships,­they­do­not­implement­this­information­in­the­core­description­of­the­demonstrator­itself.­The­implementation­of­the­demonstrator­is­built­upon­the­OAI-ORE­standard.­In­fact,­the­last­paragraph­showed­that­the­semantics­of­the­EP­model­and­those­in­OAI-ORE­are­nearly­identical,­a­fact­that­is­confirmed­by­Verhaar­(2009)­as­well.

[Figure­3.1]­Basic­entity-relationship­diagram­of­EPs­taken­from­Verhaar­(2009)

112 Beyond the Flow

It­was­mentioned­before­that­the­concept­of­EPs­was­defined­among­other­things­in­order­to­be­able­to­evaluate­the­digital­repository­land-scape­at­that­time.­This­task­is­carried­out­by­Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­(2009).­In­the­evaluation­the­authors­(79)­make­an­interesting­observation:­“The­main­conclusion­is­that­publishers­and­repositories­have­the­building­blocks­and­the­tools,­but­in­general­do­not­use­them­to­create­an­Enhanced­Publication.”

From Enhanced Publications to Rich-Internet-Publications

It­has­been­indicated­that­the­definition­of­EPs­changed­over­time.­This­change­is­more­than­an­addition­of­features­within­another­perspective.­It­is­a­modification­of­the­conceptual­core­of­EPs.­In­the­DRIVER­project,­the­core­of­EPs­was­constituted­by­technical­requirements­of­EPs­modelled­within­a­compound­object­meta-model.­In­later­contributions,­the­core­is­an­interactive­website,­while­technical­aspects­become­secondary.­Some­of­these­examples­have­already­been­mentioned.­For­instance,­the­EP­of­the­astronomy­journal­is­created­by­a­script­(a­small­computer­program)­only.­There­is­no­independently­modelled­version­apart­from­the­HTML­page­that­could­be­archived­in­a­repository.­Interactive­visualizations,­moreover,­are­created­on­the­fly­by­means­of­another­script­that­is­not­even­part­of­the­website.

The­shift­that­takes­place­creates­a­new­term­within­the­research­field­of­EPs.­Consequently,­some­authors­begin­to­use­the­term­Rich Internet Pub-lications­(Voutsinos­2010;­Breure,­Voorbij,­and­Hoogerwerf­2011;­Breure­2014,­hereafter­referred­to­as­RIPs).­The­term­was­initially­introduced­by­Breure,­Voorbij,­and­Hoogerwerf­(2011).­Although­some­of­the­authors­formed­part­of­research­groups­that­developed­the­EPs­model,­and­although­they­emphasize­the­strong­connection­to­EPs,­they­argue­that­there­is­a­qual-itative­change­in­the­development­of­EPs.­More­precisely,­they­state­that­little­research­has­been­carried­out­on­the­presentation­layer­of­EPs.­They­claim that there are few connections between research about the struc-tural­layer­of­EPs­and­its­presentation­layer.­At­the­same­time­the­browser­is­implicitly­defined­as­the­place­where­EPs­are­presented.

In­a­survey,­Breure­et­al.­look­at­different­websites­of­publications­and­publication-like­research­output.­They­categorize­them­into­three­different­types.­The­first­are­EPs,­type­two­and­three­are­RIPs.­The­two­main­criteria­which­enforce­these­distinctions­are­the­level­of­interactivity­with­which­a­user­can­navigate­and­manipulate­the­content­of­the­website,­as­well­as­the­capability­to­render­components­of­a­publication­in­a­multi-media­like­

Publishing 3.0 113

style.­They­argue­that­there­are­more­investigations­of­the­integration­of­components­in­the­manner­mentioned­above,­and­that­therefore­a­new­term­should­highlight­this­shift.­In­continuation,­RIPs­refer­to­phenomena­such­as­interactive­multi-media­presentations­created­with­technologies­like­Flash49­or­Java.­The­distinction­between­EPs­and­RIPs­is­also­expressed­as­the­low-end­and­the­high-end­point­of­view­on­digital­publications.

Another­use­of­the­term­RIP­highlights­alleged­benefits­of­visual­forms­of­communication­in­publications,­in­comparison­to­textual­forms.­By­using­the­phrase­“Show­What­You­Tell”­Breure,­Voorbij,­and­Hoogerwerf­(2011)­introduce­a­hierarchy­of­digital­publications,­ordered­according­to­the­extent­to­which­they­use­visual­elements­in­favor­of­textual­elements.­Thus,­RIPs­also­engage­again­and­in­a­new­manner­with­the­debate­about­the­role­of­text­in­digital­publishing.

Other­contributions­such­as­those­by­Voutsinos­(2010)­and­Jankowski­and­Jones­(2013)­put­RIPs­in­the­context­of­the­Web 2.0­debate.­The­Web­2.0­debate­focuses­on­the­capability­of­web­technologies­to­blur­differences­between­producers­and­consumers­of­web­content.­In­the­Web­2.0,­a­website­is­an­interface­of­mutual­communication­and­editing­by­both­the­provider­of­a­website­and­its­visitors.­In­this­spirit,­Voutsinos­(2010)­defines­a­“reference­design­pattern”­for­RIPs­which­contains­communication­features­only.­It­includes­the­ability­to­comment,­to­annotate,­or­share­content­of­RIPs­with­other­web­environments.­This­approach­to­RIPs­is­less­substantial­than­the­definition­by­Breure­et­al.­because­it­focuses­on­aspects­that­were­already­part­of­the­original­EPs­model­under­the­name­of­post-publication­data­(Woutersen-Windhouwer­and­Brandsma­2009).

Although­Jankowski­and­Jones­(2013)­share­the­same­fascination­for­Web­2.0­features,­they­refrain­from­making­a­clear­distinction­between­EPs­and­RIPs.­Consequently,­EPs­are­“an­initiative­to­incorporate­web­functionalities­into­scholarly­publishing”­(349),­while­RIPs­are­an­alternative­term­“for­basically­the­same­development”­(355).

The­characterization­of­RIPs­as­“interactive­web-site­like­environments”­(Diender­2010,­1)­leads­to­research­on­ways­of­incorporating­such­inter-activity.­For­instance,­de­Boer­and­Verkooij­(2011)­evaluate­visualization­software­like­Google­Charts­or­Microsoft Pivotviewer50­in­order­to­see­if­they­can­be­used­for­RIPs.­Breure,­Hoogerwerf,­and­van­Horik­(2014)­and­Breure­(2014)­introduce­a­Flash­based­application­in­order­to­author­and­render­

49­ https://get.adobe.com/de/flashplayer/50­ https://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/pivotviewer/

114 Beyond the Flow

RIPs­with­a­high­level­of­interactivity.­More­standardized­technologies,­like­HTML­with­CSS­for­the­design,­and­JavaScript­for­interactivity­are­addressed­but­do­not­seem­to­be­implemented­in­software.­Many­of­the­showcases­of­the­project­website­need­Flash­to­be­presentable.­Therefore,­an­interesting­aspect­of­the­shift­from­EPs­to­RIPs­is­the­fact­that­it­is­also­a­shift,­from­trying­to­elaborate­a­generic­approach­that­uses­standardized­vocabularies­and­technologies,­to­an­engagement­into­real-world­discussions­and­established­technologies­at­that­time.

Reality Check

Beyond­the­basic­evaluation­of­the­role­of­text­and­disciplines­for­EPs,­another­very­important­difference­from­other­concepts­needs­to­be­mentioned.­Research­on­EPs­also­includes­accompanying­research­on­the­development­of­EPs.­Thus,­studies­exist­which­try­to­investigate­aspects­like­feasibility,­problems,­and­acceptance­of­EPs.

The­first­critical­evaluations­are­already­provided­by­the­DRIVER­reports­themselves.­After­the­implementation­of­the­demonstrator,­Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009)­conclude­that­the­concept­of­EPs­has­a­conflicting­aspect.­More­precisely,­there­is­the­approach­of­potentially­including­everything­that­is­available­in­the­web­into­EPs,­which­endangers­the­EPs­due­to­technical­and­social­issues.­These­issues­include­the­lack­of­nec-essary­metadata­for­components,­its­potential­anonymity­on­the­web,­different­access­rights,­the­changing­state­of­resources­—­for­instance­a­database­that­is­being­updated­—­and­finally­the­phenomenon­of­dead­links.­All­of­these­problems­address­the­lack­of­control­over­publications­which­built­in­a­network­environment­like­the­web.­They­jeopardize­the­sta-bility,­integrity,­and­last­but­not­least­the­quality­of­an­EP.

In­a­slightly­later­article,­Hoogerwerf­(2009)­repeats­these­problems­and­adds­another­three:­first­he­admits­that­EPs­are­hardly­creatable­and­maintainable­in­an­efficient­way,­second,­he­states­that­the­EP­model­is­underspecified­both­in­terms­of­semantics­for­relations­between­components­and­of­obligatory­fields­and­finally,­he­remarks­that­researchers­are­not­really­aware­of­EPs.

The­issues­of­sustainability,­authoring,­and­of­the­attitude­of­researchers­as­key­stakeholders­are­the­main­issues­which­recurrently­mentioned­and­further­studied.­Diender­(2010)­carries­out­a­survey­on­usability­and­asks­researchers:­are­“Enhanced­Publications­an­Enhanced­Experience?”­Jankowski­et­al.­(2012)­set­up­working­groups­with­author­collectives­from­

Publishing 3.0 115

three­print­publications­to­explore­and­test­their­transformation­into­EPs.­Farace­et­al.­(2012)­also­provide­a­survey,­but­on­the­willingness­of­researchers­to­actually­enhance­their­publications­with­extra­material.

The­results­of­all­these­studies­are­challenging.­According­to­them­half­of­the­interviewees­are­willing­to­provide­research­materials,­half­are­not.­A­little­more­than­a­half­question­if­these­materials­are­of­use­for­other­researchers.­Although­beneficial­elements­were­discovered­within­the­transformation­of­books­to­EPs,­the­original­authors­also­put­in­ques-tion­the­benefit­of­such­EPs­on­a­broader­perspective.­Additionally,­they­stressed­the­lack­of­time­to­curate­such­publications.­There­is­no­clear­picture­for­the­issue­of­usability.­Although­interviewees­gave­an­overall­positive­feedback,­many­details­were­criticized.­Farace­et­al.­(2012)­interpret­this­contradiction­by­highlighting­that­people­considered­the­potential­in­what­they­had­evaluated­more­than­their­concrete­experience.­All­authors­agreed­on­the­fact­that­more­research­needs­to­be­done­in­these­directions­in­order­to­help­spreading­EPs.

The­issue­of­authoring­is­further­investigated­by­Adriaansen­and­Hooft­(2010),­Breure,­Voorbij,­and­Hoogerwerf­(2011),­as­well­as­Breure­(2014).­Breure,­Voorbij,­and­Hoogerwerf­(2011)­remark­that­sophisticated­RIPs­cannot­be­created­without­programming­capabilities.­This­assertion­only­substantiates­the­concern­that­the­tools­to­create­EPs­by­many­authors­are­missing.­In­order­to­evaluate­these­problems­in­greater­detail,­Breure­(2014)­describes­the­demands­of­an­entire­authoring­process.­In­the­end­he­con-cludes­that­in­comparison­to­the­benefits,­the­effort­it­takes­to­create­EPs­questions­the­concept­as­such.­Adriaansen­and­Hooft­(2010)­evaluate­the­landscape­of­available­authoring­tools­for­EPs.­They­find­that­none­of­these­tools­actually­support­work­on­all­of­the­crucial­aspects­of­EPs­and­that­their­usage­is­often­very­complicated.

Doorenbosch­and­Sierman­(2011)­report­on­the­results­of­a­comprehensive­study­on­the­feasibility­of­long-term-preservation­of­EPs.­Hogenaar­and­Hoogerwerf­(2009)­and­others­have­argued­that­the­complexity­and­quantity­of­resources­in­EPs­needs­re-distribution­of­archiving­responsibility.­In­contrast,­EPs­and­also­many­concepts­emphasized­the­fundamental­network­nature­of­publications­as­living­in­the­web­beyond­institutional­nodes.­In­this­context­Doorenbosch­and­Sierman­find­out­that­a­distribution­level­exceeding­two­repositories­in­a­network­jeopardizes­EPs,­due­to­related­problems­also­mentioned.­Furthermore,­they­dis-tinguish­between­technological­and­organizational­reasons,­most­of­which­belong­to­the­organizational­area.­Despite­these­pessimistic­results­and­

116 Beyond the Flow

the­strong­emphasis­EPs­and­other­concepts­put­on­the­network­as­a­fundamental­organizing­principle­of­digital­publication,­the­authors­are­positive­that­these­issues­will­be­resolved.

With­the­concept­of­EPs,­an­attempt­was­made­for­the­first­time­to­define­a­systematic­and­overarching­framework­and­technical­model­for­the­description­of­digital­publications.­The­attempt­was­driven­by­a­community­which­was­only­indirectly­engaged­with­most­publication­formats­discussed­before:­the­repository­domain.­In­consequence,­some­of­the­issues­of­digital­publications­which­had­not­raised­much­attention­before­have­been­highlighted­more­explicitly.­Such­issues­notably­include­the­role­of­text­in­digital­publications­and­possible­dependencies­between­research­dis-ciplines­and­certain­features­of­digital­publications.­Similarly,­the­attempt­to­establish­an­overarching­concept­for­different­approaches­to­digital­pub-lishing­raised­more­awareness­about­social­complexities,­namely­a­different­evaluation­of­the­feasibility­of­long-term­preservation,­of­the­costs-benefits­relationship,­and­the­integration­of­associated­research­to­the­development­of­more­abstract­and­technical­concepts.

The­impact­of­these­reflections­are­unfortunately­limited,­for­a­variety­of­reasons.­Regarding­the­role­of­the­text­a­further­evaluation­of­the­meaning­of­this­issue­is­blocked­by­a­pragmatic­decision­to­comply­with­the­cen-trality­of­the­text­at­project­time.­The­question­about­differences­between­scientific­disciplines­is­rejected­immediately­after­it­was­raised,­without­giving­further­arguments­than­the­confirmation­that­it­is­the­attempt­of­EPs­to­carry­out­a­generic­approach.­Issues­of­feasibility­are­mentioned­but­have­no­effect­on­the­generic­model­or­on­the­perception­of­digital­publications.

The­shift­to­RIPs­furthermore­makes­this­tension­worse­for­some­of­these­issues,­especially­for­long-term­preservation.­Although­no­technical­generic­model­for­digital­publications­as­such­existed­before,­the­usability­of­the­EP­data­model­can­be­challenged.­As­mentioned­before,­it­is­built­on a comparison between publication concepts that ignores important differences­and­neglects­other­publication­concepts­that­were­available­already.­In­addition­to­other­reasons­this­might­also­have­contributed­to­the­fact­that­the­generic­EP­data­model­does­not­differ­substantially­from­the­logics­of­the­OAI-ORE­model.­Perhaps­it­is­the­consequence­of­missing­per-spectives­deriving­from­the­EPs­data­model­that­leads­to­the­shift­towards­RIPs.­Since­RIPs­have­a­strong­focus­on­aspects­of­the­user­interface,­and­since­they­deal­with­very­concrete,­partially­proprietary­technologies­they­are,­however,­not­capable­of­enriching­the­EPs­data­model.­If­the­term­

Publishing 3.0 117

EP­refers­to­the­higher­level­of­digital­publications­and­the­term­RIPs­to­the­lower,­in­other­words­to­the­viewpoints­of­a­generic­model­and­the­presentation­layer,­then­the­research­domain­of­EPs­shows­well­how­often­both­angles­lack­conceptual­integrity­in­digital­publishing.

Nano-PublicationsThe­next­publication­concept­to­be­introduced­differs­substantially­from­those­of­the­last­sections.­This­concept­is­that­of­Nano-Publications­(here-after­referred­to­as­NPs).­It­is­also­built­on­top­of­the­Semantic­Web­infrastructure­and­the­linked­open­data­principles,­but­it­interprets­their­consequences­for­a­model­of­digital­publications­quite­differently.­This­difference­can­best­be­described­by­again­referring­back­to­Bourne’s­metaphor­of­a­database.­In­many­approaches­discussed­so­far,­the­database­referred­to­the­publication­itself.­More­precisely,­the­publication­should­be­usable­as­a­database.­Nano-Publications­are­pushing­this­metaphor­one­step­further.­Kuhn­and­Krauthammer­offer­a­first­starting­point­for­understanding­this­shift­when­they­claim­that:

Small­RDF-based­data­snippets­—­i.e. nanopublications­—­rather­than­classical­narrative­articles­should­be­at­the­center­of­general­scholarly­communication.­(Kuhn­and­Krauthammer­2012)

The­technical­term­“RDF-snippet”­basically­means­one­specific­scientific­assertion.­To­put­it­differently,­NPs­consist­of­one­claim­(Kuhn­et­al.­2013,­1)­or­fact­(Mons­and­Velterop­2009)­and­one­only.­This­claim­should­be­rep-resentable­in­one­sentence.­Such­a­sentence­is­normally­expressed­as­an­RDF­triple.­RDF­triples­are­at­the­heart­of­the­Semantic­Web­approach.­They­are­called­triples­because­they­consist­of­three­entities­which­together­build­a­subject,­predicate­and­object­structure.­Hence,­a­triple­represents­the­smallest­form­of­a­statement­about­something­and­it­is­such­a­statement­that­constitutes­the­(Nano-)publication.­Statements­may­take­the­form­of­observations,­hypotheses,­or­claims­(Mons­and­Velterop­2009).­The­gran-ularity­of­the­publication­is­its­key­characteristic­and­thus­stands­behind­the­term­“Nano.”

Similarly,­to­Kircz­and­Harmsze,­the­scope­of­such­an­assertion­is­defined­as­the­smallest,­unambiguous­unit­of­thought­(Groth,­Gibson,­and­Velterop­2010,­sec.­2).­The­difference­however­is­the­exclusion­of­anything­else­in­the­publication­that­goes­beyond­one­instantiation­of­such­a­unit.­Former­approaches­with­similar­goals­tried­to­formally­identify­and­leverage­many­of­these­units­within­a­much­bigger­publication.­In­Nano-Publications­

118 Beyond the Flow

there­is­essentially­nothing­else­than­this­piece­of­information.­While­other approaches group or semantically relate such pieces of information together,­NPs­do­not­have­this­intention.

Going­back­to­the­metaphor­of­the­database,­it­is­not­the­publication­anymore­that­creates­a­database­with­information­but­the­(Semantic)­Web­itself­becomes­a­huge­database­in­which­each­publication­is­one­piece­of­data.­Correspondingly,­the­point­is­not­extracting­the­pieces­of­information­in­a­publication­anymore,­but­to­treat­one­piece­of­information­as­a­pub-lication­itself,­which­in­conjunction­with­others­builds­a­global­“knowledge­network”­(Schmidt­2014).­Even­the­MA­did­not­equate­the­boundaries­of­information­units­with­the­syntactical­unit­of­a­formalized­minimal­sentence.­Instead,­NPs­break­down­the­scope­of­publications­to­the­sim-plest­formal­form­that­an­expression­may­have­in­communication­as­such.

The­strong­link­between­the­Semantic­Web­and­NPs­has­been­repeatedly­indicated­already.­In­fact,­NPs,­like­many­other­approaches­which­try­to­exploit­the­potentials­of­formalized­semantics­in­computation,­are­not­imaginable­without­the­technology­provided­by­the­Semantic­Web.­The­extent­of­this­in­the­case­of­NPs­is­the­identity­between­the­core­unit­of­the­Semantic­Web­(RDF­triple)­and­the­scope­of­the­main­part­of­the­publication­(statement).­The­specific­application­of­these­technologies­in­the­case­of­NPs­results­from­issues­that­influenced­the­creation­of­OLBs­and­SPs­as­well.

The­concept­of­NPs­in­particular­was­developed­out­of­the­Concept­Web­Alliance.­This­initiative­attempts­to­normalize­and­standardize­relevant­con-cepts­from­the­field­of­the­life­sciences­and­biosciences.­For­each­concept­a­Semantic­Web­compliant­URI­is­offered,­consistently­and­persistently­linked­to­it.­By­doing­so,­CWA­wants­to­create­better­conditions­for­the­discovery­and­alignment­of­related­research.

This­goal­follows­the­line­of­arguments­of­Mons­who­was­already­introduced­in­the­section­on­SPs.­It­was­also­Mons­and­Velterop­(2009)­who­published­the­first­set­of­key­ideas­of­NPs­in­2009.­These­were­followed­by­technological­specifications­written­by­Groth,­Gibson,­and­Velterop­(2010).­Possibly­due­to­its­simplicity,­the­concept­of­NPs­was­quickly­adopted­by­some­services­in­the­life­sciences­that­used­SW­technologies­before.­Among­them are the Open Pharmaceutical Triple Store51­(Open­PHACTS),­the­Leiden Open Access Variation Database52,­Prizmas Database,­and­the­COEUS Semantic

51­ https://www.openphacts.org/52­ http://www.lovd.nl/3.0/home

Publishing 3.0 119

Web Application Framework­(Lopes,­Sernadela,­and­Oliveira­2013;­Sernadela,­Lopes,­and­Oliveira­2013;­Sernadela­et­al.­2014).­The­latter­also­tries­to­offer­tools­for­the­creation­of­NPs.­The­Open­PHACTS­project­was­responsible­for­the­publication­of­the­first­NP­guidelines­as­well,­which­received­the­status­of­a­W3C­Community­Draft­(Open­Phacts­2012).­Later­on,­the­curation­of­the­guidelines­moved­to­the­Concept­Web­Alliance­itself­(Concept­Web­Alliance­2015).

Redundancy, a Non-Technical Interpretation of the Data Deluge

As­outlined­in­the­section­on­SPs,­huge­effort­is­put­into­the­stand-ardization­of­semantics­in­the­Semantic­Web­domain.­Nano­Publications­push­this­approach­even­further.­A­first­hint­of­this­radicalization­could­be­observed­by­reconsidering­the­data­deluge­theme­in­the­form­that­is­presented­by­NPs.­In­a­first­reference­Mons­and­Velterop­(2009,­1)­comply­with­the­prevailing­interpretation­that­the­data­deluge­is­a­“chasm­between­data­production­and­data­handling.”­However,­Nano-Publications­do­not­stop­here.­They­build­on­the­claim­that­beyond­pure­quantity­the­data­deluge­multiplies­the­production­of­redundant­research­and­research­results.­Thus,­the­issue­is­not­only­to­make­the­amount­of­research­results­manageable­and­processable,­but­to­merge­allegedly­identical­research­output­together.­Consequently,­and­above­all,­Chichester­et­al.­(2015)­states­that­Semantic­Web­technologies­are­data­integration­technologies­in­the­first­place.

In­none­of­the­research­papers­used­for­the­current­research­any­evidence­or­quantitative­analysis­of­the­phenomenon­of­redundancy­itself­was­given.­However,­the­issue­is­illustrated­by­assumptions­and­fictional­show­cases.­Accordingly,­Velterop­(2010)­claims­that­the­simplification­of­eight­million­PubMed­articles­to­core­statements­would­reduce­redundancy­by­a­factor­of­a­thousand.­Kuhn­et­al.­(2013)­tell­the­touching­fictional­story­about­two­authors­researching­a­similar­topic­but­not­finding­each­other­before­similar­research­is­carried­out­twice.

The transformation of an approach where existing articles are “semantically­enriched”­to­find­further­integration,­to­an­approach­where­these­articles­are­substituted­with­one­formal­assertion­is­the­effect­of­this­specific­interpretation­of­the­publishing­situation­today.­However,­the­whole­concept­of­NPs­is­not­wholly­described­by­just­addressing­the­sub-stitution­of­a­publication­with­an­assertion.­There­is­another­important­level­of­integration.­The­assertions­of­NPs­are­not­published­on­their­own­but­in­combination­with­data­that­supports­the­claim­expressed­in­the­

120 Beyond the Flow

assertion.­Finally,­NPs­build­a­collection­of­data­sets­by­means­of­linking­to­them­in­the­context­of­the­assertion.

The­final­integration­step­is­the­main­point­behind­the­whole­concept­and­justifies­the­semantic­web­compliant­formalization­in­which­the­assertion­has­to­be­expressed.­Advocates­of­NPs­hope­that­when­research­results­are­published­this­way,­a­complete­knowledge­base­of­relevant­claims­in­a­scientific­domain­will­automatically­show­up.­There­may­be­many­NPs­with­the­same­claim­and­each­may­reference­different­data­sets.­By­virtue­of­the­standardized­form­of­expressing­the­claim­in­the­web­a­search­for­that­claim­with­semantic­web­technologies­will­instantly­bring­them­up­together.­A­reference­implementation­of­such­a­Nano Browser­is­implemented­by­Kuhn­(2013)­and­described­by­Kuhn­et­al.­(2013).

This­radicalization­of­the­application­of­Semantic­Web­technologies­and­their­standardization­efforts­in­the­context­of­publications­is­in­fact­also­meant­as­a­critique­of­the­application­of­SW­technologies­in­other­pub-lishing­approaches.­For­instance,­Kuhn­et­al.­(2015)­ironically­refer­to­ROs­as­“megapublications”­which­are­not­necessary­in­order­to­gain­similar­benefits.­Additionally,­they­criticize­SPARQL53,­a­widely­used­search­mech-anism­for­the­Semantic­Web­as­poorly­performant.­Thompson­and­Schultes­(2012)­criticize­SPs­by­arguing­that­they­underestimated­the­effort­needed­to­formally­annotate­articles.­Finally,­Kuhn­et­al.­argue­that:

Basically,­nanopublications­could­become­the­basis­for­the­entire­Semantic­Web.­Whatever­information­one­wants­to­share,­it­could­be­published­in­the­form­of­one­or­more­nanopublications.­(Kuhn­et­al.­2013,­sec.­3.1)

Consequently,­Velterop­(2010)­asks­the­question­if­NPs­might­be­the­true­realization­the­SW­idea.

The Issue of Text Revisited

Nano-Publications­are­as­resolute­in­eliminating­text­and­narrative­elements­form­publications­as­ROs­were.­While­the­latter­concept­expunges­text­due­to­its­interpretation­of­the­role­of­computation­for­future­science,­NPs­do­it­in­consequence­of­arguments­comparable­with­those­behind­MAs.­They­just­radicalize­this­approach­by­putting­the­assertion­in­the­place­of­

53 The SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language­(also­referred­to­as­SPARQL)­is,­as­the­name­suggests,­a­query­language­in­the­context­of­the­Semantic­Web.­A­query­language­is­comparable­with­a­programming­language,­limited­and­specialized­for­the­purpose­of­querying­a­database­like­environment.

Publishing 3.0 121

the­module.­On­the­other­hand,­authors­in­the­field­of­NPs­do­not­com-pletely­reject­all­importance­of­text-based­publications­in­science.­At­first­the­goal­is­just­to­clearly­separate­both­types.­Along­the­way­this­strict­sep-aration­is­put­into­question.­This­process­is­an­illustrative­example­for­the­challenges of approaches situating the realm of meaning within a purely information-­or­data-oriented­context.

The­idea­of­such­separation­in­the­area­of­NPs­was­first­presented­by­Mons­and­Velterop­(2009)­and­Mons­et­al.­(2011),­at­the­beginning­of­the­NP­initiative.­In­concrete­terms,­the­authors­assert­that­the­historical­article­and­its­textual­profile­are­not­well­suited­for­the­honest­presentation­of­research­results.­The­authors­describe­text­as­being­redundant,­filled­up­with­context­dependent­terminology­which­they­classify­as­“jargon,”­and­ambiguous­in­terms­of­meaning.­Its­nature­is­rhetorical­and­thus­aims­at­“readers­and­writers”­needs­in­contrast­to­the­precise­representation­of­facts­and­claims­that­is­the­ideal­of­science.

On­the­other­hand,­such­qualities­would­turn­text­into­an­exceptional­tool­for­things­like­project­reports,­because­reports­are­primarily­meant­to­be­read.­Mons­and­Velterop­accordingly­call­textual­publications­“minutes­of­science.”­They­propose­to­use­them­for­reports­to­funders­or­in­order­to­make­a­plea­for­something.­The­separation­between­NPs­and­text­is­therefore­extended­in­terms­of­specific­functions­that­each­of­the­two­is­able­to­fulfill.­Consequently,­Mons­et­al.­(2011)­depict­text­as­a­way­to­give­provenance information for research results which themselves are better published­by­NPs.

The­extent­to­which­textuality­and­its­narrative­structure­are­separated­from the presentation of research results is also observable where NPs address­the­SWAN­ontology,­introduced­in­the­section­on­SPs.­It­is­an­ontology­for­the­purpose­of­modelling­research­discourse­based­on­research­articles.­SWAN,­although­originally­defined­earlier­than­NPs,­is­also­capable­of­modelling­assertions­like­those­addressed­by­NPs.­However,­Kuhn­et­al.­emphasize­that­in­contrast­to­SWAN:

None­of­these­persons­“owns”­the­sentence­[the­assertion­which­creates­the­core­of­a­NP],­but­the­sentence­has­an­existence­on­its­own­and­just­happens­to­be­mentioned­(i.e. claimed,­challenged,­refuted,­related,­etc.)­by­people­from­time­to­time.­(Kuhn­et­al.­2013,­4)

Thus,­for­NPs­the­assertions­are­not­facts­that­are­isolated­and­extracted­from­discourse,­they­ontologically­precede­discourse.

122 Beyond the Flow

After­the­NP­model­was­introduced,­several­suggestions­tried­to­extend­it.­The­extensions­put­an­interesting­perspective­on­the­ontological­status­of­formal­assertions­proclaimed­at­the­beginning.­Gibson­et­al.­(2012)­for­instance­propose­to­implement­so-called­cardinal­NPs.­Cardinal­NPs­respond­to­the­issue­of­quality­and­trust.­More­precisely,­normal­NPs­offer­a­way­of­discovering­how­much­evidence­exists­for­an­assertion,­but­do­not­include­any­information­about­the­reliability­and­quality­of­this­evidence.­Cardinal­NPs­are­the­result­of­a­“harvesting”­process­which­is­supposed­to­automatically­gather­relevant­information­about­quality­and­reliability­and­which­transforms­this­information­into­a­quality­assertion­that­is­itself­a­NP.­If­a­NP­is­understood­as­a­sentence,­then­the­network­of­NPs­now­creates­meaningful,­multi-sentence­units.

Kuhn­and­Krauthammer­(2012)­also­propose­extending­NPs­in­such­a­way­that­it­is­possible­to­publish­informal­statements­as­a­NP­as­well.­Informal­statements­would­be­statements­that­are­not­representable­as­an­RDF­triple­and­by­using­Semantic­Web­vocabularies.­The­list­of­reasons­the­authors­present­is­quite­comprehensive.­It­reaches­from­the­fact­that­there are entities where no formal vocabulary exists to the observation that­especially­innovative­and­new­claims­are­often­difficult­to­represent­formally.

Kuhn­et­al.­(2013)­develop­this­approach­further­by­presenting­the­AIDA model­as­a­way­to­describe­the­key­concepts­of­NPs­in­a­non-technical­manner.­The­acknowledgment­that­not­everything­can­be­represented­in­an­SW-oriented­approach­to­NPs­goes­hand­in­hand­with­the­shift­from­a­primarily­technological­description­of­NPs­to­a­prosaic­one.­Cor-respondingly,­assertions­in­NPs­are­not­always­RDF­triples,­but­expressions­which­are­atomic,­independent,­declarative,­and­absolute.­This­definition­allows­publishing­a­“continuum­between­formal­and­non-formal­claims”­with­NPs­(Kuhn­et­al.­2013,­4).­Nonetheless,­the­formal­version­remains­the­primary­goal,­which­is­why­Kuhn­et­al.­(2015)­propose­to­work­on­best­practices­for­the­use­of­vocabularies­in­NPs.

Additionally,­Kuhn­et­al.­(2013)­seek­to­comprehensively­“broaden­the­scope­of­Nano-Publications.”­The­scope­referred­to­here­is­the­notion­of­a­scientific­assertion.­The­authors­suggest­using­NPs­also­for­assessing,­interlinking,­or­correcting­other­NPs,­representing­output­from­mining­algorithms­and­to­represent­insights­derived­from­existing­NPs­created­by­curators­or­“bots.”

Finally,­some­contributions­to­the­field­of­NPs­remark­that­NPs­should­be­possible­that­do­not­comply­with­the­AIDA­rules.­Golden­and­Shaw­(2015,­

Publishing 3.0 123

4–5)­stress­that­many­assertions­in­the­humanities­are­not­even­falsifiable­because­they­describe­purely­discursive­objects.­Thus,­the­scope­of­a­NP­should­follow­whatever­the­need­of­the­researcher­is.

At­this­point­the­clear­distinction­between­the­realm­of­discourse­and­the­realm­of­facts­and­statements­that­gave­birth­to­the­concept­of­NPs­turns­upside­down.­When­taken­seriously,­the­outcome­of­this­approach­with­all­its­modifications­and­additions­would­create­a­huge­“knowledge­network”­(Schmidt­2014,­sec­5)­of­interconnected­NPs.­These­connections,­however,­resemble­logical­but­more­importantly­also­qualitative­functions­of­language.­Thus,­instead­of­building­a­reliable­space­of­the­presupposed­positive­essence­of­scientific­communication­clearly­separated­from­the­realm­of­discourse,­in­text­publications­the­advancement­of­the­current­approach­heads­towards­a­space­where­colloquial­discursive­form­is­recon-structed­with­NPs.

Another­consequence­worth­mentioning­is­the­fact­that­all­these­different­NP-flavors­require­reconsideration­of­the­founding­theme­of­NPs,­and­with­minor­modification­and­additions­also­of­MAs,­SPs­and­others:­redundancy.­Assertions­will­probably­appear­that­are­represented­in­these­flavors­but­that­would­represent­the­same­statement­within­the­original­under-standing­of­meaning­and­language.­Since­these­contextualized­and­faceted­statements­are­the­outcome­of­NPs­themselves,­they­really­challenge­the­overarching­theme­of­redundancy­in­the­field­of­NPs­and­beyond.

From Ecology to Infrastructure

In­the­introduction­to­this­section­the­database­metaphor­was­used­to­high-light­the­dimension­of­the­shift­introduced­by­NPs.­Nano­Publications­were­contrasted­with­SPs­where­the­article­is­treated­like­a­database.­Instead,­they­are­pieces­of­data­in­a­data­space,­or­something­which­could­be­called­a­scholarly­publication­web.

If­NPs­try­to­turn­the­web­into­a­publication­space­in­the­same­way­as­SPs­tried­to­turn­articles­into­databases,­it­does­not­surprise­that­much­effort­in­NP-research­is­spent­on­technologically­promoting­this­turn.­A­model­for­NPs­is­one­thing,­but­a­technological­environment­in­which­these­objects­behave­like­publications­is­another.­In­this­very­sense­Kuhn­et­al.­(2015)­propose­the­idea­of­“Publishing­Without­Publishers”­which­follows­“a­decen-tralized­approach­to­dissemination,­retrieval,­and­archiving­of­data.”­Con-sequently,­the­term­decentralized­concerns­the­web­architecture.

124 Beyond the Flow

To­achieve­the­aforementioned­goal,­NP-advocates­stress­the­need­to­first­define­the­requirements­for­the­web­as­a­scholarly­publication­space.­The­research­literature­suggests­three­different­properties:­trust,­relia-bility,­and­quality.­Kuhn­and­Dumontier­(2014)­define­trust­as­the­pos-sibility­of­assuring­that­a­link­to­a­NP­will­always­and­in­any­situation­give­back­the­same­NP.­According­to­Kuhn­et­al.­(2015),­reliability­is­achieved­by­guaranteeing­permanent­and­performant­access­to­NPs.­The­aspect­of­quality­is­addressed­by­Chichester­et­al.­(2015).­They­define­it­as­a­mech-anism­to­assure­that­NPs­comply­with­a­certain­quality­standard.

There­are­services­and­environments­which­have­taken­these­issues­up­in­the­context­of­NPs­as­well.­The­neXtProt54­portal,­for­instance,­offers­hosting­capabilities­for­NPs­which­facilitate­the­fulfillment­of­the­first­two­requirements.­However,­the­creation­of­services­offered­by­particular­agents­is­not­the­kind­of­solution­addressed­by­the­quote­before.­Kuhn­et­al.­(2015)­consequently­criticize­initiatives­like­Figshare55­for­building­centralized­services­to­find­solutions­to­the­aforementioned­publishing­requirements.­They­argue­that­such­services­depend­on­the­survival­of­their­owners­and­their­servers­do­not­guarantee­one­hundred­percent­reachability.

In­contrast,­Kuhn­and­Dumontier­(2014)­propose­to­solve­the­issue­of­trust­in­a­technical­fashion­by­creating­URIs­which­contain­a­so-called­hash56 string­generated­from­the­NP­itself.­When­the­content­of­the­NP­changes­or­if­it­is­delivered­incompletely,­the­hash­changes­automatically­and­thus­would­not­match­the­URI­any­longer.­A­similar­approach­is­taken­by­Chi-chester­et­al.­(2015)­for­guaranteeing­quality.­The­authors­propose­to­partly­derive­quality­from­the­provenance­information­of­NPs­(author,­date,­and­source)­and­to­define­a­scheme­for­links­which­encode­the­result­of­this­automatic­assessment.

Another­example­for­“decentralizing”­publishing­infrastructure­is­given­by­Kuhn­et­al.­(2015).­In­the­same­way­as­quality­control­is­distributed­and­semi-automated,­hosting­and­curation­should­dissociate­from­specific­agents­such­as­publishers.­The­authors­explicitly­criticize­agent-focused­hosting­strategies­for­digital­resources.­Instead­they­propose­a­grid-like­

54­ https://www.nextprot.org/55­ https://figshare.com/56­ Hashing­is­a­method­that­allows­to­turn­a­huge­set­of­input­information­into­a­unique­

and­short­set­of­output­information,­normally­a­sequence­of­characters.­The­same­quantity­of­input­information­always­leads­to­the­same­output­hash.­In­doing­so,­a­hash­is­well­suited­for­checking­on­the­integrity­of­data­in­a­compact­way.

Publishing 3.0 125

publication­infrastructure.­Comparable­to­peer-to-peer57­filesharing­services,­NPs­should­always­be­available­from­several­publication­servers.­The­aspect­of­curation­should­take­place­on­specific­servers­which­focus­on­hosting­NPs­of­only­one­topic­compared­to­servers­which­mirror­NPs­regardless­of­the­subject­matter.­The­consistency­regarding­subject­matter­is­achieved­by­also­encoding­the­subject­into­the­URI­of­NPs,­like­it­was­done­in­the­case­of­NP­hashes.­Hence,­topic­related­grouping­is­not­the­product­of­a­curator­or­editor­any­longer,­it­happens­automatically­when­the­URI­of­NPs­are­parsed­within­the­server­network.

All­these­efforts­have­in­common­that­they­try­to­delegate­publishing­tasks­from­stakeholder­roles­and­individual­manual­work­to­apparently­self-regulating­elements­in­the­web­architecture.­Indeed,­the­confidence­in­this­strategy­is­big­enough­that­Sofronijević­and­Pavlović­(2013)­claim­that­due­to­its­technologically­mediated­bottom-up­approach­and­resource­man-agement,­NPs­will­significantly­push­forward­open­access­publishing­in­developing­countries.

Publication Formats in the Spirit of Nano-Publications

Referring to the informational content scope of NPs an initiative by the GitHub58­service­called­Gist­(GitHub­2018)­should­be­mentioned.­GitHub­is­a­provider­for­hosting­version-controlled­software­repositories.­They­also­cooperate with the Mozilla Science Lab­and­the­aforementioned­Figshare­service.­Gists­are­complete­version-controlled­repositories,­which­basically­consist­of­one­text­file.­This­text­file­can­provide­text,­code,­or­data.­In­conjunction­with­the­initiative­by­Mozilla­these­Gists­can­become­mini-pub-lications­comparable­in­scope­to­NPs­but­more­flexible.

In­fact,­Gists­are­already­used­for­the­publication­of­specific­resources.­The­article­of­Pfaff­et­al.­(2015)­published­at­Wiley­is­a­good­example,­where­a­significant­part­of­the­publication­is­hosted­as­a­Gist.­Becker­et­al.­(2017)­describe­an­approach­where­something­that­resembles­the­idea­of­a­resource­map­in­OAI-ORE­is­published­as­a­Gist­in­order­to­create­better­conditions­for­reproducible­publications­in­data-driven-science.

It­has­been­argued­that­under­the­perspective­of­reducing­the­scope­of­the­information­unit,­NPs­introduced­the­most­radical­concept­possible.­

57­ The­peer-to-peer­principle­is­a­horizontal­organizational­principle­in­which­computers­in­a­network­have­equal­right­to­offer­and­make­use­of­services­within­a­computer­network.­Thus,­no­computer­owns­a­specific­service­or­is­restricted­by­any­type­of­role­management.

58­ https://github.com/

126 Beyond the Flow

Likewise,­it­was­demonstrated­that­this­approach­led­to­an­enhancement­of­the­web­architecture­in­order­to­create­a­scholarly­publication­web.­This­web­is­more­than­just­a­web­of­data,­because­it­implements­regulatory­and­classificatory­mechanisms­which­in­historical­publishing­setups­are­carried­out­manually­by­stakeholders,­or­which­are­part­of­the­argument­of­historical­publication­itself.­As­Kuhn­has­indicated,­trust­and­quality­were­the­outcome­of­curation­and­editing­by­related­stakeholders­as,­of­course,­is­assured­by­specific­sections,­writing­style,­and­other­aspects­of­text­pub-lications­themselves.

It­is­significant­that­after­NPs­were­introduced­a­new­publication­concept­appeared,­positioned­in­between­approaches­like­NPs­and­historical­text­publications.­This­concept­is­called­Micro­Publications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­MPs).­The­name­clearly­alludes­to­the­wording­of­the­concept­of­NPs­and­is­once­again­announced­as­the­“Next­Generation­Scientific­Publishing”­(Clark­2014)­approach.59

Micro­Publications­were­introduced­in­2014­by­Clark­and­Ciccarese­(2013)­and­Clark,­Ciccarese,­and­Goble­(2014).­There­are­some­significant­differences­of­this­concept­compared­to­approaches­like­NPs­or­SPs.­First,­the­authors­observe­that­previous­approaches­to­formalize­and­normalize­publications­in­the­sense­of­the­Semantic­Web­have­not­succeeded­enough,­or­may­have­even­failed,­as­in­the­case­of­semantic­abstracts60.­In­contrast,­MPs­try­to­define­an­approach­which­mediates­between­former­models­and­which­permits­the­formalization­and­normalization­of­articles­step­by­step­and­up­to­the­extent­necessary­in­a­given­situation.

This­demonstrates­that­for­MPs­it­is­not­the­intent­to­remove­the­narrative­form­found­in­historical­publications.­Clark,­Ciccarese,­and­Goble­(2014,­1)­state:­“The­linear­document­publication­format,­dating­from­1665,­has­survived­transition­to­the­web.”­Corresponding­with­this­nuanced­evalu-ation,­MPs­envision­digital­publishing­as­a­nexus­that­makes­use­both­of­the­“Web­of­Documents”­and­the­“Web­of­Data”­(Clark­2014).

An­incremental­or­scaled­approach­to­the­formalization­and­normalization­of­articles­was­also­already­proposed­in­the­SP­field­itself.­The­difference­is­that­SPs­leave­open­what­ontologies­are­used,­and­which­entities­are­formalized­in­such­a­process.­Micro­Publications­define­very­clearly­how­

59­ A­less­technologically­focused­version­of­the­MP­approach­is­proposed­by­Poo­and­Wu­(2017).

60­ Semantic­abstracts­were­discussed­by­Harmsze­and­Shotton­as­a­starting­point­for­the­use­of­semantic­technologies­for­publications­because­it­requires­less­effort­than­creating­a­whole­Semantic­Publication.

Publishing 3.0 127

this­space­between­articles­and­pure­data­should­look­like­by­building­upon­“defeasible­reasoning”­and­argumentation­theory,­as­well­as­selected­models­in­artificial­intelligence­(Clark,­Ciccarese,­and­Goble­2014,­5).­Thus,­while­the­level­of­formalization­is­a­compromise,­the­decision­as­to­the­type­of­important­semantics­is­not.

In­many­situations,­MPs­are­also­defined­as­arguments­to­support­claims­(Clark,­Ciccarese,­and­Goble­2014,­5).­In­this­respect­they­seem­to­comply­with­the­original­NP­approach.­However,­they­criticize­NPs­and­similar­models­as­a­“statement”­focused­approach­and­as­not­being­sufficient­for­scholarly­communication.

This­argument­is­raised­in­two­ways.­First,­they­respect­the­use­of­natural­language­in­research­communication,­especially­for­innovative­research­which­needs­qualification.­Second,­they­state­that­a­claim­with­unqual-ified­evidence­is­not­enough­to­prevent­the­misuse­of­this­claim.­Studies­on­MPs­assert­that­in­scientific­publishing­the­level­of­misuse­of­citations­and­evidence­is­tremendous­(Clark­2014;­Clark,­Ciccarese,­and­Goble­2014).­In­fact,­the­appropriate­use­of­citations­is­presented­as­the­driving­force­behind­MPs.­This­goal­is­also­ethically­framed­in­a­use­case­for­MPs­con-cerning the Drug Interaction Knowledge Base61­(Schneider,­Collins,­et­al.­2014;­Schneider,­Ciccarese,­et­al.­2014).­Here,­bad­citation­and­integration­of­evidence­would­lead­to­“preventable­medication­errors.”­Micro­Publications­approach­this­problem­by­assuring­the­right­use­of­evidence­and­citations­in­publications,­by­enforcing­more­subtle­citation­semantics.

The­last­paragraphs­showed­that­MPs­are­bound­to­discourse-oriented­approaches­in­publishing.­However,­as­an­approach­seeking­to­provoke­the­use­of­formal­semantics­in­an­incremental­fashion,­they­permit­the­creation­of­on-statement­publications­in­the­same­way­as­the­creation­of­an­entire­“knowledge­base­with­extensive­evidence­graphs”­(Clark,­Ciccarese,­and­Goble­2014,­5).­Curiously,­the­seamless­integration­between­formal-ized­and­unformalized­perspectives­in­MPs­also­seems­to­create­its­own­set­of­difficulties.­Schneider,­Ciccarese,­et­al.­(2014)­summarize­that­in­the­aforementioned­use­case­challenges­arise­from­the­fact­that­the­database­requires­both­a­natural­language­and­a­formal­language­representation­for­an­assertion.

61­ https://dikb.org/

128 Beyond the Flow

Automated PublicationsThe­following­publication­concept­does­not­really­look­like­a­new­and­genuine­concept­in­the­first­place,­at­least­not­when­looking­at­the­final­product,­which­is­a­research­paper.­On­the­other­hand,­it­does­appear­audacious­if­one­considers­the­way­this­paper­is­produced­within­this­concept.­Automated Publications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­APs)­are­pub-lications which a computer algorithm creates with only partial or even no involvement­of­humans.­The­term­Automated­Publications­is­not­part­of­the­discourse­on­these­publications.­It­is­introduced­at­this­point­in­order­to­gather­different­loosely­connected­activities­which­(semi-)automate­the­production­chain­of­scientific­publications­regardless­of­their­relationship­to­any­other­publication­concept.

The­topic­of­APs­is­more­widely­known­in­the­area­of­news­media­and­journalism,­where­it­is­discussed­under­the­“Robot­Journalism”­(Latar­2015,­title)­or­“algorithmic­journalism”­(Dörr­2016).­In­robot­journalism,­news­agencies­algorithmically­produce­stories­on­topics­which­provide­rich­sta-tistical­material­such­as­sports­or­finance­news­(van­Dalen­2012),­but­also­short­breaking­news,­as­in­the­case­of­an­earthquake­on­the­west­coast­of­the­U.S.­(Lobe­2015).

In­academia­the­strategy­of­automatically­producing­research­papers­is­broadly­discussed­in­the­context­of­so-called­“fake­papers”­or­“nonsense­papers”­(van­Noorden­2014).­These­types­of­papers­are­produced­by­algorithms­such­as­the­well-known­SCIGen­(Stribling,­Krohn,­and­Aguayo­2005)­which­resembles­a­certain­type­of­jargon­by­contingently­combining­scientific­phrases.­Fake­papers­became­famous­because­there­is­a­long­story­of­them­being­accepted­in­which­culminated­in­the­removal­of­more­than­120­papers­from­publications­by­Springer­and­IEEE­(van­Noorden­2014).

Whereas­the­scandal­behind­fake­papers­is­the­fact­that­their­content­makes­no­sense­when­they­are­read­and­the­intention­behind­them­is­fraud,­APs­take­this­approach­seriously.­Until­now­the­issue­of­automation­in­publications­was­generally­considered­in­two­ways:­the­modelling­of­publications­towards­automatized­research­processes­(Research­Objects,­Scientific­Publication­Packages),­and­the­automated­extraction­of­content­from­publications­by­mining­algorithms­(Semantic­Publications).­Under­the­first­point­of­view­the­research­paper­was­abolished.­Automated­Pub-lications­share­the­binarity­between­factual­content­and­text­often­met­in­the­latter­approach.­However,­they­turn­the­workflow­upside­down.­The­

Publishing 3.0 129

point­is­not­to­derive­factual­content­from­written­papers­but­to­derive­written­papers­from­factual­content.

Accordingly,­authoring­tools­about­datasets­exist,­for­papers­which­require­that­the­author­enters­information­and­gives­reference­to­data­in­order­for­those­tools­to­automatically­create­text­articles­(Candela­et­al.­2015,­1755).­Robertson­et­al.­(2014)­present­such­a­tool­in­greater­detail,­called­GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit­(see­also­chap.­4.3.1).­Resulting­papers­are­pub-lished­in­journals­like­the­Biodiversity Data Journal62 or Zookeys63.

Although­APs­turn­the­procedural­relationship­between­factual­and­written­content­around,­they­comply­with­the­assumption­that­no­genuine­level­of­meaning­belongs­to­the­written­form­of­articles.­This­is­the­very­reason­why­writing­is­considered­automatable.­In­“Publishing­Against­the­Machine”­by­Sofronijević­(2012),­this­fact­is­quite­obviously­presented­in­an­analogy­between­writing­and­clothes.­As­clothes­are­put­around­a­body­text­coats­the­facts.­Sofronijevic­illustrates­the­idea­of­future­science­in­which­human­and­computational­agents­build­hybrid­research­clusters,­due­to­exponentially­growing­capacities­of­computers.­This­vision­resembles­ideas­that­have­been­summarized­in­the­section­on­e-Science­already.

The­argument­is­supported­by­the­presentation­of­research­in­computational­linguistics:­rules­were­found­for­language­phenomena­which­had­been­considered­too­complex­for­the­identification­of­rules­before.­At­the­same­time,­Sofronijevic­equates­rule-based­work­with­routine­work­and­argues­that­scientists­should­focus­on­the­creative­work.­These­arguments­demonstrate­that­APs­are­inspired­by­a­much­broader­theme­on­the­relationship­between­computers­and­humans.­In­this­line­of­thought­APs­are­only­one­element­in­fully­automated­scientific­processes.­These­processes­are­carried­out­by­“Science­Bots”­(Kuhn­2015)­or­“Laboratory­Bots,”­that­(King­et­al.­2009)­also­publish­the­results­on­their­own,­as­their­human­counterparts­do.

Sofronijevic­makes­it­clear­that­at­the­moment­APs­are­publications­with­very­structured­text,­or­where­the­text­is­produced­on­the­basis­of­com-prehensive­data.­However,­the­way­he­historically­frames­APs­as­well­as­his­assumptions­about­the­future­make­it­clear­that­this­is­just­a­current­state­and­that­this­concept­is­supposed­to­be­extended.

62­ https://bdj.pensoft.net/63­ https://zookeys.pensoft.net/

130 Beyond the Flow

Unbound BooksAs­for­now,­all­publication­concepts­presented­root­in­disciplines­like­infor-mation­science,­computer­science,­or­in­the­hard­sciences,­in­particular­life­science,­bio-science,­or­physics.­Although­implementations­from­the­humanities­exist­for­most­of­these­concepts,­humanities­disciplines­did­not­shape­these­concepts.­In­some­cases,­the­concept­was­slightly­modified­or­re-interpreted­to­build­a­bridge­for­the­needs­of­specific­implementation­contexts.­Accordingly,­the­TEI­Journal­and­DHd­Journal­use­other­semantics­than­those­ontologies­most­common­to­SPs.­They­refer­to­the­TEI­schema­because­it­is­the­most­popular­model­for­the­markup­of­text­in­the­humanities.­Furthermore,­NPs­have­also­been­discussed­in­fields­like­archaeology,­but­without­sharing­the­same­rigorous­understanding­of­the­status­of­claims­enrolled­by­the­original­proposal.

The­following­publication­design­is­different­in­this­respect.­It­is­not­only­widespread­in­the­humanities­but­also­theoretically­grounded­in­a­cul-tural­scientific­perspective.­The­term­which­is­most­often­used­to­name­it­is Unbound Book­(hereafter­referred­to­as­UBs).­As­the­term­suggests­UBs­perceive­publications­as­objects­that­are­always­updated­and­modified,­without­the­development­towards­a­final­version.

This­theme­is­not­new­and­has­been­included­in­other­designs­too.­The­term­“Liquid”­in­the­LPs­project­addresses­comparable­ideas.­Wheary­even­uses­the same metaphor in his Living Reviews­journal­back­in­1998.­However,­the­Living­Reviews­journal­remained­an­isolated­example­in­a­specific­context,­which­was­not­extended­or­generalized­beyond­this­context.­Likewise,­LPs­are­distinct­from­UBs­both­in­terms­of­the­object­which­is­“put­to­life”­as­well­as­of­the­implementation­of­this­idea.

Grounded­in­the­humanities,­the­idea­of­UBs­is­in­fact­very­much­concerned­with­books­as­historic-cultural­entities.­Thus,­they­add­a­native­perspective­inherent­to­the­humanities­to­the­discourse­about­digital­publications.

The Genealogy of Liquidity

Unbound­Books,­among­which­the­present­study­also­counts­the­con-cepts­of­Liquid­Books64­or­Living­Books,­go­back­in­large­parts­to­research­

64­ The­concept­of­Liquid­Books­in­this­context­is­not­to­be­confused­with­the­concept­of­Liquid­Books­that­has­been­developed­in­the­Liquid­Publications­project.­In­order­to­minimize­the­potential­for­confusion­the­term­Unbound­Book­used­less­often­but­being more open conceptually was chosen as an umbrella term for publications in this­section.

Publishing 3.0 131

activities­carried­out­by­Hall­and­Birchall­(2009)­and­Birchall­and­Hall­(2006)­in­the­middle­of­the­first­decade­of­the­new­millennium65.­Both­researchers­work­in­the­field­of­cultural­sciences­and­media­theory.­In­their­work­they­try­to­reshape­cultural­studies­in­a­way­that­makes­use­of­a­concept­they­call­“liquid­theory.”­Both­authors­are­also­editors­of­Culture Machine66,­an­online­journal­which­is­published­by­Open Humanities Press67.­In­2008­they­used­the­journal­to­apply­certain­aspects­of­their­theory­to­their­publishing­activities.­They­did­so­by­launching­the­so-called­Culture Machine Liquid Books series68.­The­first­book­published­in­this­series­was­The Liquid Theory Reader­(Hall­and­Birchall­2009).

The­concept­of­UBs­was­further­developed­and­discussed­in­the­out-standing­The Unbound Book Conference­(Institute­of­Network­Cultures­2011),­which­took­place­in­2011­in­Amsterdam­and­The­Hague.­Although­the­program­shows­a­significantly­broader­scope,­the­UB­concept­was­a­crucial­part­of­it­(Hall­and­Amerika­2011).­At­the­same­time­Hall­and­Joanna­Zylinska­released­a­derivate­of­the­Liquid­Books­approach­called­Living Books about Life­(Hall,­Zylinska,­and­Birchall­2011),­also­published­by­Open­Humanities­Press­and­funded­by­the­British­Joint Information Systems Committee69.­The­Living Books about History70­series­emerged­in­2016,­published­by­the­CLIO71 network­in­Switzerland.­Finally,­there­is­a­strong­entanglement­with­the­“remixthebook”­project­(Amerika­2011a)­by­Mark­Amerika.­In­this­project­which­goes­in­parallel­with­the­publication­of­a­book­(Amerika­2011b),­Amerika­theorizes­the­strategy­of­remixing­for­writing­texts.

Later,­the­concept­was­adopted­by­another­participant­of­the­editorial­board­of­Open­Humanities­Press,­the­sociologist­Bruno­Latour.­Latour­used­the­UB­concept­for­his­project­An Inquiry into Modes of Existence72­(also­referred­to­as­AiME),­which­engendered­fairly­huge­attention­for­this­type­of­publication­after­results­went­public­in­2013.

65­ The­term­“Unbound­Book”­was­chosen­in­study­to­avoid­confusion­with­LPs­project.­There­are­now­connections­between­these­two­efforts.

66­ https://www.culturemachine.net67­ http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/68­ http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com/69­ https://www.jisc.ac.uk/70­ https://www.livingbooksabouthistory.ch/de/71­ https://www.infoclio.ch/72­ http://modesofexistence.org/

132 Beyond the Flow

A Culture of Liquidity and the Living Against Binding and Scientism

As­noted­earlier,­UBs­grew­out­of­the­humanities­and­are­consequently­concerned­with­the­book­and­not­with­articles.­However,­UBs­are­not­only­embedded­in­the­humanities­as­a­field,­they­also­form­part­of­certain­critical­narratives.­More­precisely,­supporters­of­UBs­see­the­design­of­these­publications­as­a­part­of­an­analysis­of­the­book­as­a­cultural­object­that­imposes­certain­boundaries­and­organizational­mechanisms­on­the­production­of­knowledge.

In­“The­Unbound­Book”­Hall,­for­instance,­introduces­a­significant­difference­between­book­and­text.­Following­this­distinction,­text­has­precedence­over­the­book­in­the­sense­that­what­an­author­writes­is­text­in­the­first­place.­The­book­binds­text­together­after­it­is­written,­in­order­to­serve­a­specific­purpose,­address­an­identifiable­audience,­or­to­assure­delivery­into­defined­places.­Hence,­the­book­adds­a­layer­of­politics­to­the­text.­Adema­(2015)­is­significantly­clearer­on­this.­She­evaluates­the­cultural­concept­of­the­book­as­a­nexus­between­commercial­interest­of­publishers,­issues­of­power­in­academia,­and­questions­of­epistemological­authority.­Thus,­while­the­interests­of­authors­are­to­produce­text,­the­book­rep-resents­interests,­which­alienates­the­author­from­her­text.

The­moral­weight­of­this­description­is­intended­and­further­radicalized­when­Hall­quotes­Jacques­Derrida:

What­then­do­we­have­the­right­to­call­a­“book”­and­in­what­way­is­the­question­of­right,­far­from­being­preliminary­or­accessory,­here­lodged­at­the­very­heart­of­the­question­of­the­book?­This­question­is­governed­by­the­question­of­right,­not­only­in­its­particular­juridical­form,­but­also­in­its­semantic,­political,­social,­and­economic­for­—­in­short,­in­its­total­form.­(Hall­2013,­496)

Consequently,­for­Hall­a­book­is­a­result­of­“the­force­of­binding”­(Hall­and­Amerika­2011)­and­the­UB­is,­using­the­terminology­of­postmodern­philosophy­which­is­addressed­in­this­quote,­an­attempt­to­deconstruct the­concept­of­the­book.­It­intends­to­implement­a­possible­answer­to­the­rephrased­version­of­the­aforementioned­question:­“What­do­we­have­the­right not­to­call­a­‘book’”­(Hall­2013,­496).

Obviously,­these­answers­come­from­an­evaluation­of­the­qualities­of­text.­Text­unbound­from­its­book­form­is­presented­as­an­ever-changing­decomposed­and­recomposed­thing.­Hall­describes­current­scholarly­writing­practices­like­pre-­and­post-print­publishing,­blogging,­and­tweeting­among­others­in­order­to­demonstrate­these­qualities.­In­these­activities,­

Publishing 3.0 133

text pieces are cut out of longer pieces to put them into transitory com-munication­channels.­Different­blog­posts­are­put­together­for­the­pub-lication­of­articles­and­post-publication­publications­correct­and­adapt­the­text­in­reaction­to­classical­publication.­After­the­illustration­of­text­as­something­that­cannot­and­should­not­be­“fixed,”­Hall­shows­that­the­same­can­be­said­about­historical­texts­like­the­Codex­Sinaiticus.­According­to­Hall­it­is­the­oldest­preserved­bible­which­collect­texts­that­existed­indepen-dently­before,­but­also­contain­texts­which­are­not­part­of­modern­bibles.­It­is­thus­a­shining­example­of­the­text-book­relationship.

Adema­(2015,­70–75)­extends­Hall’s­critique­by­re-connecting­text­and­book,­but­now­in­a­different­hierarchical­relationship­than­the­one­that­forced­Hall­to­approach­text­and­books­as­an­opposition.­More­precisely,­Adema­criticizes­a­certain­notion­towards­books­by­applying­the­aforementioned­features­of­the­text­back­to­books.­The­opinion­she­criticizes­conceives­books­as­representation­of­stability­and­integrity.­It­is­built­on­the­idea­that­in­scholarly­communication­the­book­assures­quality,­trustworthiness,­authority­and­responsibility.­Corresponding­with­Hall’s­line­of­argument­Adema­stresses­that­these­opinions­are­fictions­and­that­the­book­as­a­cul-tural­object­has­always­changed.­Thus,­these­opinions­are­a­projection­from­the­present­into­the­past.­In­her­opinion­to­fall­victim­to­this­idea­of­the­book­would­mean­to­make­a­conservative­and­boring­entity­out­of­it.­Unan-imously,­Hall­summarizes­that:

We­could­therefore­say­that­books­have­always­been­liquid­and­living­to­some­extent;­digital­technology­and­the­internet­has­simply­helped­to­make­us­more­aware­of­the­fact.­(Hall­2013,­501)

For­Bruno­Latour­the­concept­of­the­UB­is­a­crucial­aspect­for­the­realization­of­an­academic­goal.­In­his­book­We have Never Been Modern (Latour­1993)­argues­that­modernity­instigated­scientistic­ideas­of­progress­and­emancipation­which­obscured­other­cultural­and­geographical­con-figurations­to­the­benefit­to­cultivate­an­occidental­fiction­of­socio-cul-tural­history.­It­does­so­because­these­configurations­express­themselves­by­virtue­of­more­strategies­than­just­scientific­truth.­However,­these­strategies­are­not­recognized­within­the­theoretical­and­historical­theme­of­modernity.­In­the­occident­where­this­line­of­thought­appeared­the­emphasis­on­scientific­reasoning­furthermore­concealed­the­multiplicity­of­factors­which­actually­shaped­the­development­of­modern­science­beyond­rationality.

Correspondingly,­Latour­tries­to­identify­these­factors­and­their­influences­as­well­as­to­look­out­for­other­cultural­configurations.­These­configurations­

134 Beyond the Flow

which­he­calls­“modes­of­existence”­can­only­be­discovered­appropriately­when­the­theme­of­the­modernity­is­abolished.­For­Latour­this­means­to­also­abolish­the­established­mode­of­knowledge­production.­In­his­counter­approach­the­presupposed­occidental­notion­of­scientific­truth­is­one­object­of­study­but­only­one­among­others.­Additionally,­it­is­never­the­author­or­scientist­alone­who­produces­scientific­results­but­a­cluster­of­people­and­other­entities­(human­and­non-human­agents)­which­interact­in­the­field­of­scientific­process.­Latour­calls­this­interaction­negotiation­by­which­science­becomes­a­“diplomatic­enterprise”­(Leclercq­2011).­Putting­emphasis­on­this­structure­means­to­democratize­science­for­the­purposes­that­have­been­described­before.

In­the­UB73 An Inquiry into Modes of Existence­Latour­(2014)­tries­to­implement­an­online­book­which­supports­the­idea­of­science­as­a­diplomatic­endeavor.­He­created­this­book­to­facilitate­the­identification­and­description­of­other­modes­of­existence­in­the­way­described­above.­By­making­use­of­a­book­form­which­roots­in­Latour’s­theoretical­reflections­about­the­nature­of­the­problem­of­modernity­the­goal­to­reveal­hidden­modes­of­existence­should­become­more­successful.­Additionally,­the­project­provides­a­step-stone­for­his­broader­project­to­establish­a­philosophy­which­is­built­around­the­idea­of­diplomacy­instead­of­rep-resentation­(Latour­2014).

The­detailed­description­research­background­of­the­creators­of­UBs­should­clarify­the­tight­connection­between­both­angles.­This­connection­goes­far­beyond­the­attempt­to­test­possible­conveniences­digital­technologies­might­bring­to­scholarly­publishing.­Nonetheless,­it­is­also­important­to­have­a­look­at­how­this­background­is­actually­implemented­formally­and­technologically.­Without­having­it­said­explicitly,­the­last­paragraphs­have­already­indicated­that­UBs­are­created­in­order­to­support­three­core­ideas:

1.­ the­first­idea­defines­that­UBs­need­to­support­ongoing­modification­of­its­contents,

2.­ the­second­idea­defines­that­UBs­need­to­enable­and­stimulate­the­engagement­of­multiple­authors­and­contributors­which­are­not­selected­or­defined­in­advance,

3.­ additionally,­UBs­encourage­to­re-use­existing­content.

Accordingly,­Hall­(2015)­defines­the­term­“liquid”­or­“living”­in­the­two­series­he­edits­and­curates­as­being­“open­to­ongoing­collaborative­process­of­writing,­editing,­updating,­remixing­and­commenting­by­readers.”

73­ Latour­calls­this­project­an­augmented­book.­However,­as­it­becomes­obvious­later­on­it­belongs­to­the­same­conceptual­framework­as­the­Living­or­Liquid­Books.

Publishing 3.0 135

While­the­Culture­Machine­Liquid­Books­series­has­a­stronger­focus­on­the­first­two­principles­the­Living­Books­About­Life­series­is­very­much­con-cerned­with­the­third­one.­A­Living­Book­starts­with­the­compilation­of­at­least­ten­existing­articles­from­both­the­sciences­and­the­humanities­about­a­specific­topic­(Hall,­Zylinska,­and­Birchall­2011).­Afterwards,­they­can­be­modified,­extended­or­content­can­be­erased­again.

Technology Beyond Its Cultural Critique

Since­re-use­of­other­people’s­materials­commonly­requires­legal­permis-sion,­the­implementation­of­this­facet­of­UBs­is­social­and­not­technical.­Thus,­the­field­of­UBs­is­also­a­profound­supporter­of­the­OA­principle­(Hall­2008).

Most­advocates­of­UBs­come­from­the­fields­of­Media­Theory­and­Cultural­Sciences.­Developments­show­that­they­do­not­pay­as­much­attention­to­the­technical­context­of­their­concepts­as­they­do­to­their­evaluation.­Hence,­they­do­not­discuss­critical­aspects­of­specific­key­technologies­and­the­influence­that­decisions­on­that­level­might­have­on­the­operational­phase­of­UBs.­It­goes­without­saying­that­in­contrast­to­most­of­the­pub-lication­concepts­that­have­been­discussed­so­far,­conceptualization­and­implementation­are­strictly­separated,­meaning­that­in­some­cases­the­technological­implementation­is­carried­out­by­contractors.­In­other­cases,­contributors­to­this­concept­looked­for­existing­pieces­of­technology­which­they­feel­can­represent­the­features­of­the­UB­concept­well.

One­type­of­software­considered­to­meet­these­requirements­are­wikis.­A­feature­of­wikis­is­the­possibility­to­let­content­be­updated­by­users,­who­are­provided­with­the­necessary­tools­to­do­so.­At­the­same­time­wikis­doc-ument­the­modification­process­and­are­very­accessible­for­non-technical­users.­Another­reason­might­also­have­contributed­to­the­prominent­choice­for­wiki­software:­despite­its­appreciation­of­any­kind­of­media­for­the­sake­of­publishing­—­even­exotic­ones­like­augmented­reality­and­interactive­visualizations­are­considered­(Hall­and­Amerika­2011)­—­UBs­remain­text­focused­publications.­Apart­from­text,­UBs­sometimes­include­YouTube74 videos­or­images.­The­wiki­approach­on­the­other­hand,­despite­all­its­flexibilities,­still­adheres­to­the­format­of­documents­and­texts.­The­key­component­of­a­wiki­is­an­article­or­a­post.­This­situation,­and­the­fact­that­certain technological issues of this choice only appear when more complex

74­ https://www.youtube.com/

136 Beyond the Flow

digital­media­objects­are­in­use,­or­interactions­other­than­reading­are­added,­might­also­have­influenced­the­decision.

In­the­case­of­the­Culture­Machine­Liquid­Books­and­the­Living­Books­About­Life­series­the­backend­is­provided­by­the­proprietary­wiki­software­PBWiki by the PBWorks75­company.­The­AiME­project­has­developed­its­own­software76,­which­resembles­wiki­functionality­but­extends­the­idea­of­doc-uments.­In­the­AiME­software­there­are­four­different­types­of­content.­The­main­content,­glossary­content­for­the­explanation­of­terms,­and­apparatus­content­with­meta-information­and­commentary.

All­three­projects­combine­their­UBs­with­so-called­“frozen”­versions­(Hall­2015).­These­take­the­form­of­PDFs­or­printed­books.­In­the­case­of­Liquid­and­Living­Books,­frozen­versions­are­edited­and­published­by­Open­Humanities­Press.­Frozen­versions­contain­the­content­of­a­UB­at­a­given­point­in­time,­without­the­content­that­is­not­supported­by­the­PDF­format­or­by­printed­books.­It­is­important­to­stress­that­in­both­cases­this­does­not­include­the­hierarchical­categorization­of­publishing­concepts.­Latour­and­Davis­(2014)­call­the­AiME­software­a­software­for­publishing,­while­Hall­associates­frozen­versions­with­the­need­to­monitor­and­control­the­mod-ification­process­of­UBs.

The­decision­to­choose­wikis­was­partially­explained­by­the­lack­of­inter-est­in­technological­challenges­and­the­dependence­on­other­stakeholders­due­to­the­lack­of­necessary­know-how.­However,­this­explanation­only­addresses­one­side­of­the­relationship­of­UBs­and­technology.­Evidently,­UBs­put­emphasis­on­very­different­issues­when­it­comes­to­the­definition­of­aspects­in­science­and­scholarly­publication­that­deserve­to­be­changed.­In­Adema’s­and­Hall’s­description­of­the­book,­the­material­or­technological­aspects­of­the­book­are­only­sufficiently­understood­when­they­are­put­into­their­corresponding­social­and­cultural­context.­Likewise,­digital­publishing­can­also­only­be­developed­successfully­if­new­publication­formats­consider­first­the­affordances,­expectations,­and­conditions­of­the­social­environ-ment­in­which­they­are­implemented.­The­publication­concept­thereby­materializes­itself­while­in­use,­and­not­before.­This­approach­is­in­contrast­with­the­decision­to­solve­technological­issues­first­made­by­other­pub-lication­concepts.­Adema­(2015)­consequently­titled­her­work­“Performing­the­Scholarly­Monograph­in­Contemporary­Digital­Culture.”­Additionally,­Zylinska­(2011)­remarks­that­Living­Books­About­Life­should­not­only­allow­collaborative­curation­of­content,­but­also­enable­new­methods­for­

75­ http://www.pbworks.com/76­ https://github.com/medialab/aime-core

Publishing 3.0 137

teaching,­thus­connecting­different­stakeholders­like­publishers,­scientists,­or­students­in­new­ways­with­each­other­in­order­to­stimulate­new­forms­of­using­existing­content.

The­lack­of­any­formal­or­technical­model­for­UBs­is­compensated­by­the­great­emphasis­put­on­the­role­of­curation­and­moderation,­at­least­within­the­AiME­project.­The­missing­publication­model­is­substituted­here­by­a­sophisticated­lifecycle­model­that­mediates­contributions­and­mod-ifications­in­the­UB.­In­order­to­stimulate­contributions,­workshops­were­frequently­carried­out.­These­are­organized­by­a­team­of­eight­people­who­were­specially­assigned­and­prepared­for­this­task.­Individual­contributions­made­on­the­AiME­platform­must­be­forwarded­to­a­moderation­team,­who­can­send­it­back­with­demand­for­corrections.­In­the­next­step­the­con-tribution­is­handed­over­to­an­expert­assigned­by­the­moderation­team­for­final­review.­At­a­certain­point­of­time,­contributors­whose­submissions­were­accepted­to­extend­the­UB­were­invited­to­a­conference­in­order­to­discuss­the­new­state­of­the­book­and­its­contents.­Thus,­the­design­process­which­took­place­for­this­UB­more­than­anything­else­concerned­itself­with­processes­and­interactions­instead­of­format.

Despite­the­fact­that­the­emphasis­put­on­the­complexities­of­social­and­cultural­aspects­of­publishing­identified­a­blind­spot­in­many­digital­pub-lication­formats,­it­caused­other­issues­as­well.­More­precisely,­the­focus­shift­causes­technical­issues­which­demonstrate­a­certain­potential­to­undermine­the­UB­concept.­For­instance,­the­whole­online­issue­of­“Force­of­Binding”­by­Hall­and­Amerika­(2011)­was­not­accessible­from­time­to­time,­due­to­Flash­related­issues.­In­contrast­to­the­emphasis­put­on­open­access,­the­Living­Books­About­Life­and­Cultural­Machine­Liquid­Books­series­use­proprietary­wiki­software­and­third-party­services.­The­negative­effects­such­approaches­have­on­the­ability­to­reuse­and­remix­UBs­is­barely­con-sidered­anywhere.

Furthermore,­media­resources­are­often­not­identifiable­in­a­persistent­way,­or­separable­from­the­surrounding­wiki­environment­when­uploaded­into­the­wiki.­When­content­comes­from­third­party­services­like­YouTube,­as­is­often­the­case,­the­video­files­are­just­embedded­by­mechanisms­provided­by­YouTube.­Both­strategies­endanger­the­integrity­and­stability­of­UBs.­In­contrast­to­the­goals­of­UBs­it­also­reduces­options­of­reuse­dramatically.

Finally,­it­is­also­important­to­mention­that­despite­the­intent­in­most­cases­no­print-on-demand­option­for­frozen­versions­is­provided.­It­is­very­likely­that­this­fact­relates,­at­least­in­parts,­to­the­technological­issues­as­

138 Beyond the Flow

well.­Due­to­the­wiki­approach,­frozen­PDF­versions­of­Living­Books­About­Life­are­badly­layouted­and­hard­to­read.­The­possibility­to­enable­quality­print­publications­on­the­ground­of­digitally­curated­content­does­often­not­go­well­with­so-called­WYSIWIG77­environments.­The­prioritization­of­accessibility­and­inclusion­suggests­that­important­technical­issues­were­underestimated.

Single-Resource PublicationsMany­of­the­concepts­described­above­stress­the­possibility­of­using­any­kind­of­media­resource­in­digital­publications.­There­are­however­differences­regarding­the­exact­use­of­media­resources­other­than­text.­Particularly­the­early­publication­concepts,­but­SPs­as­well,­refer­to­these­resources­only­vaguely­and­in­a­general­way:­the­use­of­the­prefix­“multi”­in­multi-media,­and­the­umbrella­term­“supplementary”­in­supplementary­material­demonstrate­this­very­well.­The­latter­term­also­adds­the­notion­of­a­hierarchy­between­different­media­types,­a­hierarchy­which­appeared­in­concepts­such­as­ROs.­With­this­in­mind,­there­are­few­important­aspects­of­particular­resources­or­media­types­that­should­be­discussed.

A­common­and­broad­way­of­referring­to­the­benefits­of­publishing­different­media­resources­is­to­highlight­how­they­present­evidence­in­research.­Often,­this­approach­does­however­not­add­more­specification,­which­becomes­obvious­in­the­case­of­ROs.­In­ROs­the­differences­between­media­resources­conflate,­since­for­ROs­these­resources­are­important­only­as­data.­Semiotic­or­perceptual­differences­between­different­media-types­are­not­even­considered.­This­is­because­ROs­are­just­about­computation,­and­computation­treats­all­resources­as­data.­The­evidential­value­of­image­data­within­a­workflow­is­derived­as­the­result­of­a­computation,­not­by­an­evaluation­of­how­an­image­represents­a­situation­differently­than­other­media­types.

Finally,­many­publishing­concepts­calling­for­the­inclusion­of­different­media­resources­do­not­always­take­care­of­questions­such­as­how­these­resources­might­form­publications­of­their­own­right.­For­instance,­OLBs­

77­ WYSIWIG­is­the­acronym­for­“what­you­see­is­what­you­get”.­It­is­an­approach­for­the­authoring­of­content­in­which­the­user­interface­makes­it­possible­to­curate­content­in­the­way­it­should­appear.­In­contrast­the­“what­you­see­is­what­you­mean”­(also­referred­to­as­WYSIWYM)­approach­only­permits­to­curate­functional­aspects­of­the­content.­Its­appearance­is­addressed­in­another­step.­In­the­WYSIWIG­approach,­for­instance,­a­header­is­defined­by­visual­properties­while­the­WYSIWYM­would­use­certain­syntactic­elements­in­order­to­annotate­a­passage­as­having­the­function­of­a­header.

Publishing 3.0 139

advocate­the­publication­of­data­and­visualizations­by­any­means­pos-sible.­The­publication­concept,­however,­remains­the­concept­of­OLBs.­This­is­different­when­Long­and­Mobley­(2015)­discuss­the­new­form­of­Single Figure Publications.­Some­authors­have­equated­publishing­to­the­act­of­uploading­resources­to­the­web.­This­might­be­a­blog­environment,­or­a­Google­service,­or­anything­else.­This­way­any­resource­which­could­be­found­on­the­web­would­constitute­a­publication,­because­the­web­as­such­is­considered­a­public­sphere.

By­not­accepting­this­simple­definition,­a­variety­of­projects­evaluate­what­it­might­mean­to­publish­different­media­resources­as­individual­publications.­“Individual”­means­that­presented­models­do­not­describe­publications­as­consisting­of­several­and­different­media­resources.­The­scope­of­pub-lishing­that­is­addressed­refers­to­resources­of­one­specific­media­type­and­one­type­only.78

With­some­limitations­the­UB­series­Living­Books­About­Life­could­also­have­been­mentioned­in­this­section.­Despite­the­fact­that­this­series­forms­part­of­a­broader­concept,­it­also­builds­on­the­idea­that­videos­should­be­treated­like­written­articles.­By­leaving­aside­the­scope­of­an­anthology­or­the­edition­of­a­journal,­the­article­is­a­publication­of­its­own­right­and­Living­Books­About­Life­advocate­considering­video­files­in­this­very­self-sufficient­light.

A­similar­case­is­provided­by­the­Journal of Digital Humanities79­(also­referred­to­as­JDH).­One­of­the­key­ideas­of­this­journal­is­to­look­out­for­resources­of­different­media­types­that­are­already­accessible­online­somewhere­else.­Again,­a­YouTube­video­is­considered­such,­but­the­JDH­more­frequently­addresses­blog­posts­from­private­research­blogs,­conference­posters,­or­tweet sets on Twitter80.­In­this­context­the­term­media­is­used­to­denote­a­specific­communication­channel.­The­element­these­resources­have­in­common is the fact that the environment in which this content appears is­more­volatile­than­one­would­expect­when­applying­common­pub-lication­principles.­Within­this­changeable­situation­the­Journal­of­Digital­Humanities­looks­for­resources­and­content­considered­to­be­high­quality.­If­such­content­is­identified,­it­initiates­a­review­and­editing­process­and­

78­ The­author­is­aware­of­the­fact­that­the­term­media­is­hard­to­define­and­often­used­in­a­very­fuzzy­and­problematic­way.­The­second­part­of­the­study­at­hand­provides­more­information­on­the­present­understanding.­Up­to­this­point­the­use­of­the­term­just­reflects­its­use­in­the­discussion­itself.­This­normally­means­that­text,­images,­audio,­and­video­files­are­treated­as­media­of­their­own­right.

79­ http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/80­ https://twitter.com/

140 Beyond the Flow

finally­publishes­the­content­in­one­of­its­issues,­thereby­pulling­it­out­of­the­ongoing­stream­of­communication.

In­the­examples­above­the­publication­of­different­media­resources­was­tested­as­a­substitute­for­research­articles­in­the­historical­frame­of­a­journal­or­anthology.­The­informal­bl.ocks.org81 platform sets up a whole­website­for­the­publication­of­one­specific­type­of­resource­only,­that­being­software­code.­Driven­by­the­opinion­that­online­software­repositories­alone­do­not­suffice­for­publishing,­bl.ocks.org­defines­a­set­of­components­which­need­to­be­attached­to­the­code­so­that­it­meets­the­expectations­people­have­of­a­publication.­The­contents­added­to­the­code­are­automatically­parsed­by­the­software­in­order­to­create­a­publication­as­a­website.­Effectively,­the­platform­became­a­platform­for­the­reproducible­publication­of­data­visualizations.

The­bl.ocks.org­project­is­a­private­initiative­and­focuses­on­the­identification­of­metadata­components­and­mechanisms­for­the­pub-lication­of­software­code.­Due­to­its­informality,­it­has­the­status­of­a­reference­project­and­does­not­integrate­with­services­other­than­GitHub.­Beyond­this,­it­deals­with­no­other­publishing­issues,­such­as­for­instance­long-term-preservation.­Accordingly,­bl.ocks.org­presents­and­promotes­software­as­a­resource­worthy­of­being­considered­an­academic­pub-lication,­but­it­does­not­create­sustainable­publications­out­of­it.­This,­however,­is­the­very­goal­of­the­Code as Research Objects­initiative­initiated­by Mozilla Labs­(Mozilla­Science­Lab­2013a;­Mozilla­Science­Lab­2013b).

This­initiative­brings­together­GitHub,­Figshare,­and­Mozilla­in­order­to­provide­an­easy­workflow­for­the­creation­of­sustainable­publications­out­of­software.­In­this­context,­sustainable­means­that­the­software­becomes­citable­and­is­stored­in­an­environment­that­claims­sustainability.­One­of­the­outcomes­is­a­bookmarklet82­and­a­website­which­automatically­creates a DOI83­for­the­underlying­software­repository­in­GitHub­and­for­the­duplication­of­the­contents­in­Figshare.

Figshare­is­a­freemium­service­maintained­by­the­Macmillan Publishing Group84.­Its­goal­is­to­create­a­trustworthy­and­sustainable­environment­

81­ https://bl.ocks.org/82­ A­bookmarklet­is­a­small­piece­of­code­that­can­be­added­to­browsers­as­a­bookmark.­

Instead­of­opening­a­specific­webpage­the­bookmarklet­runs­its­code­when­the­user­clicks­on­it.

83­ A­DOI­is­a­provider­of­persistent­identifiers,­supported­by­a­consortium­and­implementing­a­standardized­scheme­for­the­creation­of­DOI­URLs.

84­ http://macmillan.com/

Publishing 3.0 141

for­the­publication­of­non-textual­research­output.­It­is­therefore­also­the­attempt­of­a­commercial­publisher­to­get­involved­into­the­publication­of­digital­resources.­Figshare­does­not­focus­on­particular­resource­types,­as­the­name­might­suggest.­It­nevertheless­implicitly­introduces­a­minimal­standard­of­requirements­necessary­in­order­to­level­up­such­resources­to­the­status­of­publications.­In­this­point­of­view,­it­is­of­particular­importance­that­the­company­behind­Figshare­is­a­publisher,­since­the­credibility­the­company­possesses­as­a­publisher­was­a­great­influence­on­the­perception­of­non-textual­research­output­as­resources­worthy­of­publishing.

The­key­components­of­the­aforementioned­standard­are:­(a)­descriptive­metadata,­(b)­a­persistent­identifier,­(c)­and­a­long-term­archiving­environ-ment­that­feels­trustworthy­for­many­researchers.­The­last­criterion­raises­the question of whether a private company in a competitive environment with­its­own­interests­is­really­able­to­provide­such­a­trustworthy­environ-ment.­As­mentioned­above­this­capacity­is­challenged­in­particular­by­NPs.­Chapter­4­will­provide­an­example­of­a­comparable­project,­but­one­which­is­funded­by­the­European­Union­as­part­of­a­broader­initiative­towards­OA­publishing­in­Europe.

The­final­example­for­single-resource­publications­is­a­particularly­inter-esting­one­because­it­invalidates­certain­distinctions­that­are­common­in­the­field­of­digital­publications.­Distinctions­between­data­and­rep-resentation,­form­and­content,­research­object­and­research­results­are­harder­to­make­for­this­example­and­so­is­its­assignment­to­the­current­or­the­following­section.­It­takes­the­form­of­the­so-called­video-essay.

A­video-essay­is­a­short­video­produced­by­film-critiques,­film-scholars­or­film-passionates.­The­exact­properties­of­video-essays­as­scholarly­publications­are­still­a­matter­of­debate­(Bernstein­2016).­McWhirter­(2015,­396)­argues­that­a­video-essay­“is­essentially­a­short­analytical­film­about­films­or­film­culture.”­As­such­it­reuses­footage­from­existing­films­and­rearranges­it­in­order­to­make­a­point.­Visosevica­and­Myersb­(2017)­even­go­so­far­to­assert­that­it­is­“thesis-driven”­and­is­produced­within­an­“analytical­framework.”­There­are,­however,­also­viewpoints­which­emphasize­the­artistic­and­poetic­dimension­of­the­audio-visual­form:­“while­one­[video-essay]­has­an­overt­lesson­with­evidence­and­research­and­bullet­points,­the­other­simply­has­a­series­of­images­and­leaves­it­up­to­the­viewer­to­take­from­it­what­they­will”­(Renee­in­Bernstein­2016).

In­any­case­authors­tend­to­highlight­the­hybrid­nature­of­video-essays.­They­are­supposed­to­bring­together­the­allegedly­conflicting­sides­of­language­and­discourse­and­visual­aesthetics,­of­film­and­essay­and­thereby­

142 Beyond the Flow

of­a­historically­collaborative­endeavor­and­the­explorative­work­of­an­individual­(Bresland­2010)­who­is­enabled­by­digital­technologies.

Although­the­origins­of­the­video-essay­are­tracked­down­to­the­nineteen-forties­and­the­similarly­underspecified­genre­of­the­film-essay­(McWhirter­2015,­371)­and­although­examples­of­video-essays­are­given­that­come­from­the­nineteen-eighties­(Bresland­2010)­nearly­all­advocates­agree­that­digital­technologies­play­the­most­significant­role­in­its­development.­The­reasons­include­the­decrease­of­costs­of­production,­the­advanced­technological­control­of­aspects­of­film­making­by­individuals­with­possibly­minor­technological­know-how,­the­potentials­of­remixing­offered­by­the­digital­representation­film­material­and,­of­cause,­the­internet­as­an­accessible­dissemination­and­publication­space.­Consequently,­McWhirter­(2015,­377)­notes­that­“the­video­essay­is­clearly­one­element­of­the­digital­revolution­that­genuinely­offers­the­possibility­of­a­transformative­change­to­film­criticism­and­film­scholarship.”

This­being­said,­the­video-essay­is­on­its­way­to­become­a­significant­element­of­film­and­media­studies­scholarship.­Accordingly,­in­2012,­the­Society for Cinema and Media Studies85­conference­offered­a­workshop­on­video-essays­as­“film­scholarship’s­emergent­form”­and­the­University­of­St. Andrews­asked­whether­video-essays­represent­the­“film­and­moving­image­studies­re-born­digital”­(quoted­in­McWhirter­2015,­375).­Film­studies­journals­such­as­the­Frames Cinema Journal86 or the European Journal of Media Studies87­include­video-essays­into­their­issues­while­the­journal­[in]transition88,­a­cooperation­between­the­media-commons­network89­and­the­Society­of­Cinema­and­Media­Studies­offers­the­first­video-essay-only­peer-reviewed­journal.

Video-essays­adhere­to­the­principles­of­single-resource­publications­insofar­they­are­one-file­digital­resources,­relatively­small­in­scope­(up­to­fifteen­minutes)­and,­most­importantly,­insofar­they­try­to­give­the­status­of­scholarly­publications­to­objects­that­were­not­considered­as­such­before.­There­are,­nonetheless,­some­differences­compared­to­the­abovementioned­approaches.­Although­video-essays­become­part­of­common­film­studies­research­culture­they­often­continue­to­live­in­technologically­questionable­environments.­Even­when­published­in­journals­like­the­ones­mentioned­above,­they­are­most­often­hosted­on­

85­ http://www.cmstudies.org/86­ http://framescinemajournal.com/87­ https://necsus-ejms.org/88­ mediacommons.org/intransition/89­ mediacommons.org/

Publishing 3.0 143

proprietary platforms such as Vimeo90­and­only­embedded­into­the­journal.­This­and­other­reasons­lead­to­the­fact­that­technical­requirements­proofed­to­be­necessary­or,­at­least,­beneficial­for­publications­to­fulfill­certain­functions­(see­above)­are­hardly­met.­Services­such­as­the­AV-Portal of German National Library of Science and Technology,­therefor,­try­to­offer­more­sophisticated­services­for­the­publication­of­audio-visual­resources­(regardless­of­the­research­field)­in­a­more­trustful­environment­(Drees,­Kraft,­and­Koprucki­2018).

Transmedia PublicationsThe­last­section­addressed­the­issue­of­specific­media­resources­which,­by­virtue­of­digital­technologies,­should­become­publications­in­their­own­right.­It­has­been­argued­before­that­terms­media­and­multi-media­often­refer­to­unspecified­inclusions­of­non-textual­resources­to­publications.­This section presents a publication concept that in contrast to the afore-mentioned­observation­builds­upon­a­very­precise­idea­of­the­entan-glement­between­different­media­types.­A­term­which­seems­appropriate­for­including­all­publications­in­this­section­is­the­term­Transmedia­Pub-lications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­TPs).

The­term­Transmedia­Publications­is­derived­from­one­of­its­early­projects,­more­specifically­from­The Institute for the Future of the Book­(Meade­2013),­one­of­whose­major­protagonists­used­the­term­“transmedia­writing”­in­order­to­describe­the­type­of­work­the­institute­wanted­to­support.­It­is­introduced­as­an­umbrella­term­in­the­study­at­hand­for­a­variety­of­projects­sharing­a­common­view­of­the­specific­use­of­media­for­publishing,­which­could­be­well­described­by­the­term­transmedia­meaning­across­media.

In­some­contexts,­the­term­“multimodal”­is­also­used­instead­of­trans-media­in­order­to­refer­to­the­same­aspects­(McPherson­2008;­Svensson­2010).­Nonetheless,­transmedia­seems­preferable­at­this­point,­because­the­word­multimodal­will­be­used­in­the­second­part­of­this­work­in­order­to­describe­properties­of­digital­publications­that­are­broader­in­scope.­Another­term­that­sometimes­appears­in­related­discussions­is­“webtexts”­(Ball­and­Eyman­2015).­The­disadvantage­compared­to­the­term­Transmedia­Publications­in­this­particular­case­lies­in­the­fact­that­webtexts­address­a­particular­technological­environment­for­TPs.­However,­this­environment­is­not­a­necessity­for­the­main­elements­of­this­concept.

90­ https://vimeo.com

144 Beyond the Flow

It­is­now­clear­why­video-essays­are­in­fact­an­edge­case.­Obviously,­they­also­combine­different­modalities­in­order­to­carry­out­a­multimodal­dis-course.­Video-essays­are­not­only­one­medium­because­its­technological­representation­packages­it­into­one­file­associated­technologically­with­a­so-called­media type91.­In­the­context­of­the­analysis­of­digital­publication­formats­the­media­type­aspect,­however,­is­not­without­value.­Publication­formats­are­a­conflation­between­conceptual­and­technological­definitions.­The­present­study,­accordingly,­refers­to­Transmedia­Publications­as­pub-lications­combining­both­different­media­in­the­sense­of­presenting­a­multi-modal­discourse­as­well­as­of­different­technological­media­types.

The Story of Transmedia Publications

The­beginning­of­the­TP­concept­could­be­set­around­2005­with­the­release­of Vectors,­a­Journal of Culture and Technology in a Dynamic Vernacular92 as well as Sophie,­an­authoring­tool­for­the­creation­of­“networked­multi-media”­publications93.­In­their­brief­overview­on­TPs­Ball­and­Eyman­(2015)­pinpoint­the­beginning­of­TPs­much­earlier,­starting­from­1996­with­the­release of the kairos94­journal­of­which­the­authors­are­the­editors.­Never-theless,­they­admit­that­at­that­time­these­publications­were­not­fully­trans-media­but­html­documents­on­the­web.

The­Institute­for­the­Future­of­the­Book,­which­was­behind­the­development­of­Sophie,­was­a­project­of­the­University­of­South­Carolina­with­different­partners­around­the­world.­Its­goal­was­the­exploration­of­the­“book’s­rein-vention­in­a­networked­environment”­(Institute­for­the­Future­of­the­Book­2008).­For­this­purpose,­several­tools­were­developed.­Similarly,­the­Vectors­journal­became­not­just­a­journal­but­a­project­which­led­to­institutional­cooperation­and­the­creation­of­social­infrastructure,­as­will­be­described­in­greater­detail­in­the­next­section.

In­2014­the­international­Anthropocene Project at the Haus der Kulturen der Welt­in­Berlin95­tried­to­imagine­new­ways­of­doing­and­representing­science,­intended­to­match­up­with­the­scale­of­problems­today­(Welt­2015).­It­awarded­three­examples­of­so-called­“Future­Storytelling”­which­

91­ https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml92­ http://vectors.usc.edu93­ http://web.archive.org/web/20150206051256/http://www.sophieproject.org/­

(archived­version­from­the­Internet­Archive)94­ http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/95­ http://hkw.de/en/programm/projekte/2014/anthropozaen/

anthropozaen_2013_2014.php

Publishing 3.0 145

were­supposed­to­best­represent­this­attempt.­These­publications­were­all­designed­as­TPs.­More­recent­examples­of­TPs­comprise­the­journal­Thresholds96­and­the­project­Vega-Pub97­(Ball­2017).­Vega-Pub­tries­to­develop­an­editorial­management­software­for­the­publishing­workflow­of­TPs.

Due­to­the­theoretical­background­of­TPs­explained­in­the­next­paragraphs,­TPs­are­mostly­created­in­the­humanities.­Nonetheless,­examples­like­the­Rich Interactive Narratives­authoring­tool­developed­by­Microsoft Research (Takeda­et­al.­2013)­or­e-book-oriented­approaches­from­the­field­of­med-icine­(Stirling­and­Birt­2014)­provide­examples­from­other­domains­as­well.

Transmediality, the Outcome of a Another Perspective on Digital Technology

When­defining­transmedia­in­TPs,­it­is­helpful­to­review­the­ways­in­which­the­inclusion­of­different­media­has­been­discussed­until­now.­In­many­cases,­the­issue­of­multiple­media­resources­was­addressed­by­the­phrase­of­“supplementary­material.”­This­points­to­a­certain­hierarchy­between­media.­At­the­top­of­that­hierarchy­there­might­be­text,­or­in­the­case­of­digital­publications,­data.­As­has­been­argued­before,­other­resources­are­delegated­the­function­to­support­what­is­written­or­computed.­The­latter­case­is­more­complicated­insofar­as­data­may­represent­any­type­of­modality­such­as­sound­or­images.­However,­if­ROs­or­SPPs­speak­of­sup-plementary­material­instead­of­data­they­are­referring­more­to­the­type­of­engagement­with­this­material.­Thus,­while­audio­files­as­data­in­the­work-flow­are­computed,­audio­files­as­supplementary­material­are­most­likely­meant­to­be­listened­to.

In­TPs­the­use­of­different­media­serves­a­completely­different­purpose,­which­precisely­emphasizes­the­different­ways­in­which­media­resources­are­produced­and­perceived.­They­do­so­because­they­follow­the­idea­that­the­unique­features­of­different­media­offer­unique­ways­to­represent­and­communicate­knowledge.­Compared­to­the­concept­of­supplementary­material,­there­is­no­conceptual­hierarchy­between­media­resources­as­such.­Each­media­may­contribute­its­own­truth­values­to­the­scientific­discourse­in­a­publication.­The­relationships­between­these­ways­of­representation­are­multiple­and­no­use­of­one­media­can­be­fully­sub-stituted­by­the­use­of­another­one.­Accordingly,­it­does­not­make­sense­to­maintain­any­hierarchical­relationship­between­media­as­it­is­problematic­

96­ http://openthresholds.org97­ https://vegapublish.com/

146 Beyond­the­Flow

to­view­diff­erent­media­only­from­the­viewpoint­of­a­specifi­c­media­type.­The­Vectors­journal­stresses­that­“we­publish­only­works­that­need,­for­whatever­reason,­to­exist­in­multimedia”­(“Vectors­Journal”­2013).

Nevertheless,­the­term­multimedia­remains­ambiguous,­since­it­is­also­used­in­earlier­and­diff­erent­applications­of­multiple­media­resources.­It­does­not­make­any­strategy­behind­these­usages­clear,­at­least­none­that­goes­beyond­aggregation.­This­is­the­reason­why­the­term­transmedia­suits­better.­It­emphasizes:

…­a­fusion­of­old­and­new­media­in­order­to­foster­ways­of­knowing­and­seeing­that­expand­the­rigid­text-based­paradigms­of­traditional­scholarship.­(“Vectors­Journal”­2013)

Transmedia­publications­seek­to­represent­a­form­of­knowledge­which­does­not­reside­within­the­media­resources­but­“in­the­spaces­between”­(McDonald­and­Trettien­2016).­

[Figure­3.2]­The­“Lo.-Fi.­Manifesto”­published­in­the­Kairos­Journal.­The­picture­was­

modifi­ed­for­print.­In­order­to­get­the­authentic­color­impression­refer­to­http://kairos.

technorhetoric.net/20.2/inventio/stolley/.­

Publishing 3.0 147

In­his­“Lo-Fi­Manifesto­2.0,”­Stolley­(2016)­gives­a­good­example­of­how­simple­transmediality­is­used­by­publications­in­the­Kairos­journal­(see­figure­3.2).­The­Manifesto­is­a­plea­for­the­use­of­simple­technologies,­mostly­in­the­spirit­of­the­KISS98­principle­that­was­coined­in­the­UNIX­world­back­in­the­80s.­Stolley­wants­to­challenge­the­development­of­complex­pieces­of­digital­technology­and­software­in­current­time.

[Figure­3.3]­“Totality­for­Kids,”­a­Transmedia­Publication­from­the­Vectors­Journal.­The­

picture­was­modified­for­print.­In­order­to­get­the­authentic­color­impression­refer­to­http://

vectors.usc.edu/issues/7/totality/­.

However,­this­challenge­is­not­only­presented­by­arguments.­The­article­is­written­in­a­monospaced­font­and­uses­colors­from­the­solarized­color­palette.­It­refrains­from­using­any­images­or­media­other­than­text.­In­fact,­there­are­iconographic­elements­such­as­the­header,­but­the­author­uses­characters­in­order­to­draw­the­image.­Both­font­and­color­scheme­allude­to­terminal­environments­and­to­minimalistic­editors­like­vim99 which are operational­before­any­graphical­desktop­environment­has­been­loaded.­By­doing­so,­color­and­font­link­to­a­certain­discourse­and­environment­which­matches­the­main­argument­of­the­text.­In­this­respect,­the­absence­of­

98­ KISS­is­an­acronym­for­Keep It Simple and Stupid­which­describes­a­common­ethos­for­the­design­of­software.

99­ http://www.vim.org/

148 Beyond the Flow

other­media­is­an­explicit­transmedial­design­decision.­There­is­not­just­no­media­but­by­not­using­it,­multi-media­is­addressed­explicitly.

McKenzie­Wark’s­“Totality­for­Kids”­(2013)­chooses­a­completely­different­approach­(see­figure­3.3).­Stolley’s­transmedia­strategy­can­be­described­as­a­repetition­throughout­one­non-textual­media­strategy.­The­visuals­of­the­article­reaffirm­the­statement­of­the­written­text.­Nonetheless,­the­strategy­does­more­than­just­illustrate­the­argument.­In­fact,­it­could­be­said­that­this­constitutes­more­a­contradiction­to­Stolley’s­intent,­insofar­as­it­makes­the­whole­resource­technically­more­complicated­than­it­needs­to­be.­In­contrast­to­Stolley,­Wark­designs­a­dense­entanglement­between­text,­sound,­drawing,­time,­and­interactivity,­in­which­the­line­of­argument­truly­grows­out­of­all­these­components­combined.

The publication investigates the story of the situationist international in Paris,­between­the­early­fifties­and­the­seventies.­It­does­so­by­embedding­snippets from the line of arguments in situationist theory into historical events­that­are­presented­as­a­graphic­novel.­Thereby­the­visuals­speak­of­history­while­the­text­develops­a­theoretical­discourse.­Another­peculiarity­is­that­there­is­the­notion­of­pages.­However,­the­shift­between­pages­is­automatic­and­is­always­scheduled­in­such­a­way­that­the­reader­cannot­get­everything­that­is­on­the­screen.­This­decision­creates­the­effect­of­tran-sitoriness,­which­does­not­only­emphasize­the­historicity­of­the­whole­dis-course,­but­also­produces­the­feeling­that­something­is­lost­or­situational.­This­feeling­coincides­with­the­end,­in­which­the­objective­of­the­movement­itself­is­lost,­an­objective­that­consisted­of­changing­the­socio-cultural­reality­of­capitalism.

It­is­also­possible­to­interrupt­the­automatically­scheduled­flow­of­pages­by­mouse­clicks,­enabling­the­reader­to­get­further­text­explanations,­pas-sages­from­theoretical­texts,­and­other­material.­More­than­just­giving­context­information,­this­feature­enables­a­shift­between­a­theoretical­and­a­historical­perspective­on­the­very­same­content,­by­means­of­designing­time­and­interactivity­as­medium­to­create­discourse.

Another­strategy­to­relate­different­media­together­to­create­an­argument­is­presented­by­Scalar100.­Scalar­offers­the­possibility­of­rendering­the­pub-lication­or­parts­of­it­in­different­views.­Views­vary­in­terms­of­text-focused­or­visually­focused­presentation­of­content.­For­instance,­the­path­view­enables­to­see­how­different­components­in­a­publication­might­relate­with­

100­ https://scalar.usc.edu/scalar/

Publishing 3.0 149

each­other­in­other­ways­than­the­intended­reading­path.­Other­views­may­provide­statistical­information­or­visual­access­to­the­content.

Sayers­and­Dietrich­(2013,­11)­call­this­strategy­a­design­of­multiple­“modes­of­attention,”­in­which­the­narrative­strategy­behind­those­views­is­the­con-struction­of­specific­types­of­perception­of­components­in­a­publication.­The­underlying­claim­is­that­there­is­no­argument­or­information­which­is­independent­of­the­environment­in­which­it­is­created,­and­which­has­to­be­experienced­(Svensson­2010,­para.­150).­In­fact,­this­claim­turns­the­whole­approach­of­radically­isolating­content­from­form­experienced­in­other­digital­publication­formats­upside­down.­Accordingly,­digital­technologies­allow­a­clearer­view­of­the­fact­that­form­is­always­content,­and­permit­making­use­of­this­aspect­for­more­powerful­publications.

The­ability­of­the­user­to­actively­change­between­views,­or­to­decide­when­she­wants­to­interrupt­the­automatic­flow­of­the­default­line­of­arguments­introduces­interactivity­as­its­own­“medium”­for­strategic­narrative­purposes.­The­design­decisions­concerning­interactivity­not­only­shape­how­much­freedom­a­reader­has­but­also­in­which­aspects­within­the­line­of­arguments­interactivity­takes­place­and­in­which­not.­Thereby,­interactivity­does­not­necessarily­undermine­the­authored­line­of­argument.­It­can­also­make­it­more­convincing.­For­instance,­certain­points­may­seem­more­authentic­when­they­are­experienced­by­the­reader­“on­her­own.”

These­examples­for­the­term­transmedia­substantiate­an­understanding­of­digital­media­which­is­fundamentally­different­from­those­found­in­other­concepts.­The­approach­to­technology,­in­this­case­digital­technology,­informed­by­common­arguments­from­cultural­theory­and­the­humanities,­is­very­different­as­well.

Correspondingly,­McPherson,­in­a­lecture­at­the­Rewiring the Future of Pub-lishing­conference­(summarized­by­Adema­2014),­criticizes­the­so-called­stack­model­of­computer­architecture.­In­this­model,­computer­architecture­is­represented­in­a­hierarchy­which­from­the­bottom­up­consist­of:­plat-form,­code,­function,­interface,­and­reception.­It­has­been­shown­that­in­approaches­to­publishing­that­are­informed­by­computer­science,­this­hierarchy­equates­to­an­epistemological­hierarchy.­Form­can­be­subtracted­from­content­because­levels­below­the­interface­level­do­not­interfere­with­the­reception­level.

McPherson­argues­that­this­model­is­inconsistent­in­two­ways.­First,­it neglects that the fabrication of the platform is the result of a cul-tural­decision-making­process­and­thereby­equally­as­contingent­as­the­

150 Beyond the Flow

interface.­Second,­the­different­levels­might­be­useful­for­understanding­digital­technology,­but­only­if­their­relationship­is­considered­non-hierarchical­and­reciprocally­influential­in­continuously­changing­ways.­Thus,­it­could­be­argued­that­the­proliferation­of­different­digital­devices­and­platforms­is­provoked­by­the­reception­level­which,­far­from­being­pas-sive,­strongly­influences­the­refurbishing­of­platforms.

Ultimately,­no­one­view­is­a­direct­representation­of­data.­Rather,­each­shapes­audience­perception­and­constructs­both­a­subject­and­an­argument­(which­are­steeped­in­disciplinary­histories­of­inter-pretation).­(Sayers­and­Dietrich­2013,­10)

Views­and­their­entanglement­with­different­media­address­different­ways­of­perceiving­the­world,­but­also­different­ways­of­engaging­with­it.­The­array­view­of­an­image­as­a­numerical­three-dimensional­array101 is meant for­a­computational­context,­while­the­“image”­view­suggests­“experience.”­Yet­the­effect­of­one­type­of­consideration­can­change­the­activities­of­the­other­and­vice­versa.

The­framing­of­technological­concepts­as­socio-cultural­angles­which­interact­with­other­socio-cultural­concepts­on­an­equal­level­is­pushed­further­by­McPherson­(2010).­In­this­paper­she­criticizes­computational­approaches­to­digital­publishing,­as­well­as­certain­types­of­disapproval­of­digital­publications­from­humanities­scholars.­The­author­remarks­that­both­discourses­deal­with­narrative­organization­of­arguments,­linear­structure,­and­interpretative­methodology­as­properties­that­belong­to­the­text­and­print­world,­while­digital­technologies­have­a­need­of­different­methodological­and­organizational­principles­(network­structures­and­quantitative­methodology).

McPherson­argues­that­this­assumption­is­wrong,­since­a­text­does­also­provide­non-linear­relationships,­and­digital­technologies­enable­authoring­of­much­more­than­what­is­done­in­e-Science.­She­states­that­this­mismatch­is­caused­by­two­binaries:­the­binary­of­databases­and­monographs­on­the­one­hand­and­of­interpretation­and­quantification­on­the­other.­While­both­binaries­are­two­different­things­—­artifacts­and­methodology­—­they­are­treated­as­one­and­the­same­thing­in­the­discourse­about­digital­publishing,­just­as­it­is­suggested­by­a­purely­technical­interpretation­of­the­stack­model­above.

101­ The­openCV­python­client­for­the­implementation­of­software­projects­in­computer­vision­does­represent­images­in­a­three-dimensional­numpy-array­where­each­dimension­encodes­information­about­one­color­channel­in­the­Red,­Green,­Blue­spectrum.

Publishing 3.0 151

The­concept­of­TPs­is­therefore­part­of­a­broader­scientific­endeavor­in­the­humanities,­that­of­challenging­the­usage­of­certain­binaries­that­are­often­driven­by­common­viewpoints­of­digital­technologies:

Thus,­it­[Scalar]­mediates­a­whole­set­of­binaries:­between­close­and­distant­reading,­user­and­author,­interface­and­backend,­micro­and­macro,­theory­and­practice,­archive­and­interpretation,­text­and­image,­database­and­narrative,­and­human­and­machine.­(McPherson­2014,­185)

Transmedia Publications as Humanist Forms of Experimentation

It­would­fall­short­to­only­present­the­theoretical­background­of­TPs­in­contrast­to­other­viewpoints.­Transmedia­Publications­are­also­part­of­a­research­program­in­the­humanities­which­sets­and­promotes­its­own­goals.­It­could­even­be­said­that­up­to­a­certain­extent­TPs­are­not­just­a­new­type­of­presenting­research­results,­but­the­primary­goal­of­a­certain­research­line­itself.

Accordingly,­Svensson­(2010),­in­his­pioneering­overview­“The­Landscape­of­Digital­Humanities,”­calls­the­Vectors­journal­the­epitome­of­a­certain­type­of­humanities.­Alluding­to­McPherson,­he­calls­this­research­field­“Multi-modal­Humanities.”­He­describes­it­as­driven­by­the­attempt­to­challenge­common­ideas­of­form­and­content,­leading­to­a­notion­of­research­as­artistic­practice­and­science­as­an­area­of­activism­and­intervention.­The­last­point­is­based­on­the­argument­that­scientists­never­just­represent­the­world,­but­by­representing­it­automatically­shape­it­to­the­liking­of­the­representation.

In­this­respect­TPs­investigate­“what­might­count­as­scholarly­argument”­(McPherson­2010,­2).­It­was­indicated­that­even­outside­of­a­political­notion­of­science­this­research­question­does­by­no­means­constitute­a­goal­in­itself.­Accordingly,­the­Future­Storytelling­contest­was­set­up­around­the­argument­that­the­problems­of­our­time­can­only­be­adequately­represented­in­a­transmedia­fashion.­There­has­been­a­strong­base­for­such­thinking­in­humanities­research­for­a­long­time.­In­1991,­Flusser­(1994,­40)­already­wrote­that­“es­ist­offensichtlich­geworden,­dass­die­Probleme,­die­sich­vor­uns­auftun,­es­erforderlich­machen,­sie­durch­sehr­viel­raffiniertere,­exaktere­und­reichere­Codes­und­Gesten­als­die­des­Alphabets­zu­denken.”102

102­ “…­it­has­become­evident­that­the­problems­we­experience­today­require­thinking­in­terms­of­codes­and­gestures­that­are­much­more­sophisticated,­exact,­and­richer­than­those­of­the­alphabet.”­(author’s­translation)

152 Beyond the Flow

The­plurality­of­representation­strategies,­however,­does­not­mean­that­TPs­are­all­about­the­creation­of­new­publications.­They­sometimes­make­explicit­references­to­a­historical­publication­format­that­is­closely­related­to­the­humanities­and­that­is­considered­to­be­in­danger­today:­the­monograph.­Consequently,­McPherson­asserts­that:

…­new­forms­of­experimentation­and­bookishness­are­necessary­if­we­are­to­advance­(and­perhaps­save)­scholarly­publishing­in­the­humanities.­(McPherson­2010,­2)

Corresponding­with­the­cultural­critique­of­a­techno-deterministic­angle­on­publications­and­with­the­field’s­interpretation­of­research­as­an­act­of­social­engagement,­the­preservation­of­the­humanities­monograph­cannot­be­carried­out­in­a­normative­top-down­manner.­Instead­it­needs­to­be­laid­out­as­a­social­process­in­which­new­forms­of­publishing­should­be­the­result­of­a­hopefully­democratic­process­of­negotiation:

…­the­book­should­be­seen­as­a­process­of­mutual­becoming:­a­form­of­intra-action­between­different­agents­and­constituencies­(human­and­non-human).­(Adema­2015,­viii)

This­is­also­the­reason­why­McPherson­talks­about­new­forms­of­bookish-ness­in­terms­of­experimentation­and­why­she­encourages­exper-imentation.­Accordingly,­a­broad­range­of­approaches­will­provide­more­input­for­the­future­of­the­monograph­and­assure­the­democratic­character­of­the­process.­In­this­respect­McPherson­remarks­that­“Vectors­is­part­and­parcel­of­this­broader­culture­of­experimentation­and­change”­(McPherson­2010,­5).

This­ethos­of­experimentation­is­very­much­celebrated­across­all­TP­projects.­Thus,­the­if:book­initiative,­which­forms­part­of­the­project­behind­Sophie,­defines­its­primary­goal­in­“exploring­digital­possibilities­for­lit-erature­and­the­future­of­the­book”­(Meade­2013).­The­Future­Storytelling­contest­is­set­up­on­the­question:­“What­kinds­of­crossmedial­stories­can­be­told­about­the­Anthropocene”­(Welt­2015)­and­TP­journals­choose­names­like­the­Journal of Visual Experiments, and Audiovisual Thinking.

Two Types of Consequences of a Different Notion of Technology

It­has­been­pointed­out­several­times­that­all­the­significant­differences­between­TPs­root­in­a­different­evaluation­of­technology­in­general,­and­of­digital­technology­in­particular,­for­the­prospect­of­scholarly­publications.­Svensson­(2010­par.­31)­explains­this­difference­by­stressing­

Publishing 3.0 153

that­the­research­field­in­which­TPs­are­created­is­concerned­with­digital­technologies­as­a­cultural­phenomenon­and­a­research­object­instead­of­technology­as­an­“instrumental­tool.”­The­last­paragraphs­explained­why­this­is­so­and­what­the­consequences­of­this­fact­for­the­many­goals­of­TPs­are.­The­consequences­for­the­technological­implementation­for­TPs­and­their­environment,­however,­still­need­to­be­discussed.

A­crucial­issue­also­stressed­by­other­projects­already­concerns­the­support­of­the­authoring­process­of­digital­publications.­For­obvious­reasons,­the­creation­of­TPs­is­an­extremely­demanding­process,­varying­according­to­the­transmedial­complexity­of­the­particular­case.­Maybe­it­was­the­fact­that­this­challenge­is­so­evident­that­made­the­field­of­TPs,­in­contrast­to­other­approaches,­respond­to­it­from­the­very­beginning­and­why­they­have­created­a­set­of­sophisticated­authoring­tools.­Besides,­it­can­also­be­seen­easily,­from­what­has­been­described­so­far,­that­this­is­also­the­result­of­efforts­to­enable­researchers­in­the­humanities­to­engage­in­digital­technologies.

Among­these­tools­are­Sophie,­the­Rich Interactive Narrative Framework103,­Scalar­or­the­Dynamic Backend Generator­(Vectors­Journal­2008)­some­of­which­were­even­awarded­in­general­purpose­computer­magazines­(Fenton­2013).­The­main­purpose­of­these­tools­is­to­make­different­digital­resources­manageable­for­the­construction­of­multimedia­narratives­and­to­make­the­result­exportable.­The­tools­intentionally­try­to­abstract­from­a­view­which­reflects­technological­needs­and­perform­the­task­of­transforming­the­con-ceptually­defined­publication­into­a­technological­implementation.

Although­these­tools­exist,­they­are­often­not­used.­The­cases­where­a­TP­is­designed­by­a­team­consisting­of­humanist­researchers­and­computer­scientists­are­not­so­rare­instead.­This­situation­might­also­reflect­the­fact­that­the­perspectives­of­transmediality­create­needs­which­can­never­be­fully­supported­by­standardized­tools,­because­the­areas­where­standardization­takes­place­in­other­contexts­have­to­be­available­to­the­individual­purposes­of­researchers­simply­by­concept­design.­This­aspect­also­indicates­how­resource­intensive­the­creation­of­TPs­can­be.

So­far,­the­discussion­of­the­theoretical­background­of­TPs­has­mostly­high-lighted­issues­that­benefit­from­a­transmedia­approach,­while­the­last­para-graph­indicated­that­there­are­also­issues­which­become­more­problematic­and­which­have­not­been­wholly­sorted­out.­At­least­one­of­these­issues­is­tightly­bound­to­the­theme­of­the­critiques­of­binaries,­given­by­McPherson,­

103­ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/rich-interactive-narratives/

154 Beyond the Flow

especially­the­goal­of­“melding­form­and­content­to­enact­a­second-order­examination­of­the­mediation”­(“Vectors­Journal”­2013).

Although­serious­arguments­for­this­critique­exist­on­the­theoretical­level,­all­of­which­are­discussed­above,­the­binary­of­content­and­form­does­also­reflect­some­very­pragmatic­needs.­For­instance,­it­enables­a­dis-tinction­between­core­and­contingent­properties­of­an­object­of­interest.­Theoretically­and­politically­such­a­prioritization­might­appear­problem-atic,­but­when­it­comes­to­the­question­of­maintaining­and­sustaining­multimedia­narratives­as­publications,­prioritization­of­additional­criteria­is­valid.­When­related­stakeholders­are­able­to­develop­a­profile­for­certain­publication­types,­it­means­that­they­are­able­to­support,­maintain,­and­build­an­environment­around­it.­This­is­one­of­the­reasons­e-Science-oriented­publication­concepts­so­eagerly­and­radically­separate­the­two.­Striving­for­a­complete­conflation­between­form­and­content­jeopardizes­the­sustainability­of­publications­as­socio-cultural­objects,­as­will­be­shown­in­the­following­paragraphs.­Thus,­the­issue­is­not­that­a­line­between­form­and­content­exists­as­such,­but­that­imposing­and­implementing­such­a­line­is­a­conceptual­tool­to­make­digital­publications­manageable.­Consequently,­Ball­(2016,­52)­admits­that­“webtexts­[TPs]­can­be­difficult­to­stabilize­due­to­their­technological­and­media­innovations.”

Ball­and­Eyman­(2015)­give­a­very­good­example­for­the­aforementioned­consequences.­In­2015­already,­the­authors­stated­that­no­editorial­work-flow­exists­for­TPs.­In­their­study­they­list­a­variety­of­reasons,­all­related­to­the­individual­complexity­of­TPs­and­the­topic­of­the­conflation­of­form­and­content.­They­illustrate­how­these­issues­create­complicated­conditions­for­requirements­such­as­the­review,­citation,­dissemination,­or­archiving­of­TPs.

The­problem­of­archiving­can­be­demonstrated­well­using­the­Scalar­project.­Compared­to­other­projects­Scalar­does­in­fact­provide­a­sophis-ticated­model­for­the­export­of­TPs.­For­the­publication­of­TPs,­Scalar­provides­a­web­platform­which­organizes­some­of­the­aforementioned­tasks.­Nonetheless,­the­export­model­(in­2016)­only­describes­parts­of­a­TP.­More­precisely,­it­only­considers­the­resources­included­in­a­TP­as­well­as­the­links­(paths)­between­them.­The­Scalar­views­which,­as­has­been­said,­form­a­crucial­aspect­of­the­Scalar­logics­are­not­part­of­the­export­model.­Additionally,­some­design­elements­that­are­provided­by­the­authoring­software­and­the­Scalar­platform­are­not­represented­either.­In­consequence,­the­data­model­re-introduces­a­separation­between­core­elements­of­a­publication­and­its­representation,­a­separation­that­was­

Publishing 3.0 155

substantially­challenged­by­the­project­before.­Only­the­platform­assures­the­status­of­TPs­as­transmedial.­The­export­into­the­aforementioned­data­model­only­turns­them­into­an­aggregation­such­as­those­described­in­section­3.2.1­without­the­possibility­of­reproducing­them­as­TPs­somewhere­else.

Scalar­is­still­a­positive­exception.­It­exports­publications­as­RDF,­thereby­complying­with­certain­technical­standards.­Other­TPs­are­even­more­dependent­on­their­environment­and­often­do­not­provide­a­machine-readable­or­software-independent­version.

Issues­regarding­archiving,­long-term-preservation,­and­integrity­belong­to­the­most­substantial­challenges­caused­by­the­peculiar­relationship­of­TPs­to­technology.­Svensson­(2010,­para.­149)­even­goes­a­step­further­and­remarks­that­“the­technology­itself­does­not­seem­to­be­a­primary­focus.”

Although­this­assertion­is­quite­harsh,­many­observations­support­it.­Many­TPs,­for­instance,­are­implemented­in­Flash.­Flash­is­an­old­proprietary­technology­which,­for­example,­is­not­supported­anymore­by­browsers­in­mobile­devices­and­which­poses­much­more­challenges­to­the­issues­of­the­type­discussed­concerning­archiving­before.

Vector­publications­like­the­“Roaring­Twentieth”­(Thompson­2013)­do­not­provide­either­a­linted104­nor­persistent­citation­URL.­In­a­modern­browser­environment105­audio­streams­sometimes­work­and­sometimes­do­not­work.­This­is­a­substantial­issue­in­a­publication­which­is­primarily­con-cerned­with­sound.

Many­Vectors­publications­let­the­browser­get­stuck­in­the­tab­of­the­publication­so­that­the­browser­had­to­be­restarted­in­order­to­be­able­to­change­tabs­again.­The­Photomediations­(Zylinska­et­al.­2015)­publication­by­Joanna­Zylinska­creates­a­second­scroll­bar­on­the­website­for­design­purposes.­However,­in­certain­situations­this­seems­to­conflict­with­the­browser­scrollbar­and­scrolling­is­not­possible­at­all­anymore.­Some­links­from­the­index­page­do­not­open­the­corresponding­page­after­a­certain­sequence­of­previous­steps.

104­ In­the­present­context­linting­means­to­use­an­understandable,­clean,­and­stand-ardized­structural­scheme­to­define­links­that­subtracts­from­the­technological­environment­in­which­the­link­is­defined.

105­ The­publication­was­rendered­in­a­Firefox­browser­version­46.

156 Beyond the Flow

Summary

All­things­considered,­TPs­introduce­a­substantially­new­approach­to­the­design­of­digital­publications.­This­approach­is­so­radically­different­from­those­that­were­outlined­already­that­TPs­seem­to­represent­an­opposing­point­of­view.­The­difference­is­based­on­a­very­specific­evaluation­of­the­role­of­digital­technologies­for­publishing.­More­precisely,­TPs­address­technology­as­a­catalyst­for­new­forms­of­meaning­and­communication,­and­not­as­a­mechanism­to­make­scholarly­communication­more­efficient,­implying­an­understanding­of­the­term­shaped­by­information­and­computer­science.­This­is­based­on­the­fact­that­for­TPs­digital­technologies­are­themselves­expressions­of­cultural­constructs­and­thus­can­also­be­appropriated­in­different­ways.­They­are­thereby­not­able­to­impose­a­certain­type­of­logic.

Transmedia­Publications­resemble­a­line­of­argument­which­common­in­the­humanities.­Without­doubt­these­arguments­are­a­blind­spot­in­the­conceptual­space­of­other­publication­concepts.­On­the­other­hand,­it­has­been­demonstrated­that­more­complex­reflections­on­technology­in­digital­publications­instigate­more­complex­challenges­for­the­socio-technological­environment­of­corresponding­publications.­Hence,­the­question­of­efficiency­remains,­albeit­in­a­different­guise.­Beyond­sustainability,­it­calls­for­additional­viewpoints­such­as­the­readability­of­TPs.­While­other­con-cepts­were­focused­on­the­readability­of­publications­for­machines,­TPs­need­to­consider­the­readability­for­humans­and­for­the­sake­of­scholarly­communication­as­well.­Unfortunately,­the­discourse­on­TPs­rarely­approaches­this­question.

The­benefit­of­existing­TPs­can­furthermore­be­challenged,­if­it­is­compared­with­the­field’s­goal­to­create­new­types­of­meaning­and­more­powerful­modes­of­representation.­Many­media­properties­of­TPs­concentrate­on­atmospheric­aspects­or­on­mirroring­the­main­points­of­the­text.­While­supporters­of­the­concept­would­probably­argue­that­the­term­atmos-pheric­already­introduces­a­problematic­distinction­between­necessary­and­unnecessary­features,­the­application­of­multimedia­is­without­question­far­removed­from­the­“more­exact­and­richer­codes”­that­sometimes­frame­the­discourse.

[ 4 ]

Publishing-Com Bubble

The­period­between­2007­and­2013­was­indeed­highly­dynamic­and­shaped­by­an­impressive­number­of­individual­projects­and­initiatives.­Despite­their­fundamental­differences,­all­these­activities,­from­ROs­to­TPs,­had­one­aspect­in­common.­They­all­emphasize­the­“revolutionary­force”­of­digital­technologies­in­one­way­or­another.­The­way­in­which­this­force­is­inter-preted­varies.

The­success­of­these­activities,­in­contrast,­remains­limited,­especially­if­evaluated­by­their­key­agents.­Consequently,­De­Roure­(2014b,­233),­a­key­figure­behind­ROs,­remarks­in­2014­that­“scientific­publication­still­looks­remarkably­as­it­did­in­years­past.”­A­group­of­prominent­contributors­to­SPs­and­NPs­similarly­state­that:

…­two­decades­of­emergent­and­increasingly­pervasive­information­technology­have­demonstrated­the­potential­for­far­more­effective­scholarly­communication.­But­the­use­of­this­technology­remains­limited.­(Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­2012,­41)

In­a­more­emotional­manner,­Bardi­(2014),­involved­in­LPs,­asks­the­rhetorical­question:­“Scholarly­Communication:­What’s­Wrong­with­It?”­At­the­same­time­these­judgements­were­made,­the­funding­for­many­of­the­project­environments­maintaining­these­activities­ended.

Another­possible­observation­is­the­emergence­of­a­greater­number­of­pub-lication­concepts­stemming­from­the­humanities­at­the­end­of­this­period.­As­has­been­emphasized,­these­concepts­introduce­new­ideas­about­digital­publication­or­re-interpret­existing­ideas.­There­is­one­aspect­among­these­differences­that­stands­out­regarding­its­meaning­for­future­developments,­especially­visible­in­the­AiME­project.­This­project­put­an­amount­of­effort­

160 Beyond the Flow

into­the­organization­of­reliable­social­structures­around­its­UB­publication­that­is­unequalled­by­other­publication­concepts­up­to­that­time.­It­is­true­that­the­scope­of­funding­behind­this­project­facilitated­this.­However,­it­also­represents­a­higher­appreciation­of­social­aspects­influencing­the­success­of­digital­publications.

The­next­phase­in­research­on­digital­publications­distinguishes­itself­by­the­way­it­takes­into­account­the­social­context­of­scholarly­publications.­There­are­differences­between­different­publications­concepts­when­it­comes­to­the­exact­way­by­which­this­context­is­acknowledged.­Nonetheless,­its­being­considered­in­the­first­place­marks­a­sea-change­for­all­of­them.

Hybrid PublicationsOne­of­the­publication­concepts­belonging­to­those­mentioned­above­is­that­of­Hybrid­Publications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­HPs).­It­makes­sense­to­start­with­HPs­insofar,­as­they­are­a­development­that­involved­people­who­also­contributed­to­the­last­publication­concept­of­the­chapter­above­(TPs).­HPs­are­a­concept­representing­substantial­ideas­that­have­not­been­discussed­yet­in­this­form.

The­first­time­that­the­term­Hybrid­Publishing­was­used­in­conjunction­with­a­clearly­marked­research­agenda­was­probably­by­McPherson­(2010)­in­her­already­cited­article­“Scaling­Vectors.”­In­the­second­part­of­the­article,­the­author­describes­insights­from­experiences­gained­during­the­years­of­the­Vectors­Journal.­Additionally,­she­introduces­the­formation­of­the­Alliance for Networking Visual Culture­(also­referred­to­as­ANVC),­an­organization­of­researchers,­libraries,­archives,­and­university­presses,­as­a­means­of­solving­issues­that­had­been­identified­during­the­publishing­of­the­Vectors­Journal.

One­of­the­key­insights­from­the­Vectors­project­reflects­on­the­status­of­TPs­as­experimental­spaces.­McPherson­states­that­this­approach­has­certain­limitations­and­concludes­that:

…­we­need­to­evolve­more­“standardized”­structures­and­interfaces­that­will­allow­us­to­delineate­more­stable­genres­and­to­scale­multi-modal­scholarship.­(McPherson­2010,­6)

This­standardization­should­enable­the­creation­of­technological­and­social­infrastructure,­as­well­as­minimize­the­effort­for­scholars­when­producing­TPs.­On­the­other­hand,­the­quote­shows­that­TPs­are­not­considered­capable­of­allowing­such­developments.­The­Scalar­publication­platform­

Publishing-Com Bubble 161

mentioned­above­is­one­of­the­outcomes­of­this­process­and­the­alliance.­The­relationship­between­the­two­names­“Vectors”­and­“Scalar”­highlights­very­well­how­the­alliance­and­the­Scalar­platform­are­shaping­the­issue­of­digital­publications.­The­goal­is­to­find­scalars­on­the­vectors­of­digital­publishing.

The­section­on­NPs­contained­a­dense­description­of­strategies­by­which­those publications try to transfer certain requirements of publications from­social­agents­to­technological­platforms.­This­transfer­should­make­it­possible­to­remove­stakeholders,­namely­publishers­and­editors,­from­the­ecology­of­publishing.­The­HPs’­approach­and­its­underlying­convictions­are­the­opposite­of­NPs­in­this.­Both­the­evaluation­of­stakeholders­and­their­relationships,­as­well­as­the­social­function­of­reference­implementations­are­based­on­different­points­of­interest.

The­difference­starts­with­the­type­of­discussion­that­takes­place­around­the­issue­of­standardized­structures.­In­the­spirit­in­which­they­are­addressed­by­the­NPs­example,­standards­are­often­conceptually­taken­for­granted.­They­follow­a­strategy­where­certain­standards­are­advo-cated­against­existing­social­structures,­which­need­to­adapt.­Accordingly,­Cameron­Neylon­discusses­in­his­blog:

…­that­the­best­way­to­get­researchers­to­be­serious­about­the­issue­of­modernizing­scholarly­communications­was­to­let­the­scholarly­monograph­business­go­to­the­wall­as­an­object­lesson­to­everyone­else­(Neylon­2012,­para.­1)

In­the­HPs­approach,­many­of­the­issues­that­in­the­eyes­of­people­like­Cameron­Neylon­are­already­sorted­out­actually­are­not.­The­identification­of­standardized­structures­—­social­and­technological­ones­—­depends­on­greater­insights­into­questions­like:­“how­will­editorial­functions­and­their­temporalities­shift­…?,”­“who­will­be­responsible­for­updating­and­sustaining­digital­publications?,”­“what­relationships­might­evolve­between­presses,­libraries,­and­archives?”­or­“how­best­to­organize­the­digital­archive­to­facilitate­scholarly­analysis?”­(McPherson­2010,­10–12),­questions­that­have­not­been­answered­comprehensively­enough.

It­is­true­that­HPs­ask­these­questions­mainly­for­publications­following­the­TPs­and­related­concepts.­Nevertheless,­the­attitude­is­very­different,­and­the­Scalar­portal­is­a­means,­not­of­establishing­a­point­of­reference,­but­of­creating­an­“experimental­space­for­publishing­focused­on­under-standing­the­entanglement­between­publishing­technology­and­culture”­(Adema­2015,­38).­Furthermore,­this­new­type­of­experiment­is­a­joint­

162 Beyond the Flow

venture­of­all­stakeholders­in­the­publishing­sector,­as­the­alliance­consists­of­representatives­of­all­of­them.

An Integrative Perspective on Digital Publications

The­difference­with­this­fresh­attempt­to­digital­publications­is­visible­in­a­variety­of­discussions­and­activities­that­take­place­in­the­context­of­HPs.

The­best­example­are­the­topics­of­open­access­and­open­science.­It­is­transparent­throughout­this­work­that­strong­ethical­arguments­are­made­about­open­access­publishing.­However,­of­similar­importance­is­the­aspect­that­the­success­of­many­of­the­publication­concepts­depends­significantly­on­the­availability­of­open­access­resources.­The­discussions­of­these­pub-lication­designs­and­open­access­mutually­support­each­other.

As­Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015)­point­out­in­their­“Guide­to­Open­and­Hybrid­Publishing,”­this­is­not­significantly­different­for­HPs.­Hybrid­Pub-lications­do­not­reject­open­access.­The­title­of­the­guide­mentioned­above­even­extends­the­name­of­HPs­with­the­term­“open.”­The­Vectors­journal,­furthermore,­was­an­open­access­publication­from­the­very­beginning.­However,­advocates­of­HPs­also­stress­the­difficulties­of­open­access.

More­precisely,­they­argue­that­there­are­lots­of­unanswered­questions­barring­open­access­from­becoming­a­socially­and­economically­sustainable­endeavor,­especially,­but­not­limited­to,­the­case­of­new­digital­publication­formats­(McPherson­2010,­11).­As­it­will­become­clear­later­on,­HPs­do­not­reject­historical­publication­formats.­In­the­humanities,­this­format­is­typically­the­monograph­that­people­like­Neylon­want­to­see­going­to­the­wall.

Burkhardt­(2015)­from­the­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab,­as­well­as­Eve­and­Edwards­(2015),­clearly­state­that­common­open­access­business­models­do­not­work­out­for­monographs.1­Reasons­relate­to­the­format­itself­and­to­different­social­conditions­such­as­funding­schemes­in­the­humanities.2 However,­instead­of­giving­up­on­these­formats,­initiatives­of­HPs­try­to­form­alliances­with­open-minded­presses­like­those­involved­in­the­ANVC,­in­order­to­develop­special­open­access­models­that­might­work­within­

1­ In­the­common­open­access­publishing­business­model­it­is­the­author­who­has­to­pay­a­fee­that­covers­the­publication­and­dissemination­costs.­Arguments­for­why­this­is­problematic­in­the­case­of­the­monograph­are­given­by­Herb­and­Schöpfel­(2018).

2­ For­further­details­on­this­matter­see­also­Collins,­Milloy,­and­Stone­(2015),­Milloy­and­Collins­(2016),­Ferwerda,­Pinter,­and­Stern­(2017).

Publishing-Com Bubble 163

particular­environments.­To­this­end,­the­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab­formed­the­OA­publisher­Meson Press­and­also­contacted­De Gruyter,­an­important­publisher­in­the­humanities­but­not­particularly­known­for­pushing­open­access­forward.­Vectors­became­part­of­the­Open­Humanities­Press,­an­open­access­publisher­for­the­humanities,­when­this­initiative­was­launched­in­2009­(Open­Humanities­Press­2015).­Finally,­Scalar­cooperates­with­more­than­one­press.

Another­integrative­approach­to­open­access,­regarding­the­issue­of­revenue­and­financial­sustainability,­is­proposed­by­Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015)­in­their­“Guide­to­Open­and­Hybrid­Publishing.”­The­authors­define­a­strategy­called­“subsequent­monetization.”­Subsequent­monetization­does­not­undermine­the­core­of­open­access­in­HPs,­but­proposes­derivatives­and­reformatted­versions­of­the­original­content.­They­summarize­that:

Open­and­Hybrid­Publishing­learns­from­open­access,­it­sometimes­borrows­from­OA;­it­may­incorporate­OA­strategies,­but­it­can­also­go­beyond­them.­(Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­2015,­4)

The­discussion­of­open­access­is­probably­the­one­topic­in­which­peculiarities­of­an­integrative­approach­to­digital­publications­can­be­illustrated­best.­Significant­differences­can­nevertheless­be­observed­in­other­areas,­too.­Scalar,­for­instance,­follows­best­practices­of­the­Critical Commons­initiative­(Critical­Commons­2016).­As­the­name­suggests,­Critical­Comments­refers­to­the­Creative­Commons­initiative.­However,­instead­of­just­focusing­on­licensing­issues,­Critical­Commons­evaluates­best­practices­of­fair­use­and­reuse­of­media.­The­ethical­issues­of­open­access­are­thereby­crucially­extended.­Additionally,­the­approach­emphasizes­that­positive­effects­on­the­field­of­publishing­do­not­just­derive­naturally­from­the­introduction­of­certain­licensing­models.

It­is­also­significant­that­Scalar­publications­—­which­are­also­aggregated­publications — use semantic web technologies for the integration of resources­but­do­not­limit­the­issue­of­interoperability­to­this­one­solution.­Scalar­makes­contracts­with­partner­archives­such­as­the­Internet Archive3or the Visual History Archive4 of the Shoah Foundation5.­These­contracts­assure­that­criteria­of­fair­use­in­the­sense­of­Critical­Commons­are­kept­beyond­issues­of­licensing,­and­that­interoperability­is­maintained­beyond­the­technological­protocol.­From­the­study­of­(Doorenbosch­and­Sierman­2011),­

3­ https://archive.org/4­ http://vhaonline.usc.edu5­ https://sfi.usc.edu/

164 Beyond the Flow

outlined­in­the­EPs­section,­it­became­obvious­that­such­an­approach­is­critical­when­dealing­with­distributed­media­resources.

This­type­of­interoperability,­which­could­be­called­social­interoperability,­extends­the­perspectives­of­technological,­structural­and­semantic­inter-operability­of­computer­science­addressed­in­previous­publication­designs.­In­the­ten­recommendations­to­creating­HPs­by­Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015),­none­actually­tackle­issues­of­technological­interoperability.­Fur-thermore,­the­transformation­of­one­publication­version­into­another­—­for­instance,­a­website­which­is­turned­into­a­print­book­—­is­described­as­a­process­based­on­human­intervention.­The­authors­do­not­just­ignore­aspects­of­interoperability,­but­follow­the­implicit­critique­in­HPs­that­technological­and­formal­perspectives­on­interoperability­are­not­always­the­most­effective­ones­and­have­limited­impact­on­the­social­world­on­a­general­level.

Defining Hybrid Publications

A­clear­definition­for­HPs,­albeit­addressed­as­a­specific­publication­type,­does­not­exist.­It­is­true­that­the­concept­of­HPs­emerged­partially­out­of­TPs.­Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015)­furthermore­reference­UBs­as­one­of­its­predecessors.­Nonetheless,­its­key­aspect­is­an­argument­by­which­it­opposes­the­attitude­of­many­other­publication­formats.­Accordingly,­HPs­argue­that­it­is­not­possible­anymore­to­focus­on­one­specific­publication­format­as­the­new­model­for­publications.­Instead,­a­plurality­of­formats­is­the­way­to­go,­including­non-digital­formats.

McPherson­(2010)­first­used­the­term­Hybrid­Publication­in­order­to­sum-marize­that­digital­publishing­is­successful­—­as­early­as­2010­—­wherever­it­does­not­try­to­substitute­print­or­text­publications.­As­Liu­et­al.­(2016,­31)­put­it­in­the­context­of­their­hybrid­book­approach:­“previous­research­suggests­that,­while­digital­content­has­its­advantages,­printed­content­still­offers­benefits­that­cannot­be­matched­by­digital­media.”­McPherson,­furthermore,­draws­upon­experiences­in­the­Vectors­Journal,­revealing­that­Vectors­articles­were­often­re-edited­and­re-published­in­print­or­in­a­blog­publication.­In­the­opposite­direction,­existing­publications­were­sometimes­re-edited­in­order­to­become­articles­in­Vectors.­She­outlines­that­the­background­of­such­strategies­is­the­need­to­address­different­audiences­and­different­media­needs,­making­it­impossible­to­address­all­of­them­in­just­one­format.

Publishing-Com Bubble 165

Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015)­similarly­call­HPs­collections­of­resources,­remixed­and­reformatted­in­order­to­satisfy­the­need­of­different­devices,­economical­needs,­and­social­channels,­and­which­only­completely­exist­when­all­are­considered­together.

More­clearly,­the­authors­state­that­HPs­are­the­one­principle­which­undermines­the­top-down,­one-to-many,­and­“one­size­fits­it­all”­approach­of­other­publication­concepts.­In­the­author’s­view­the­one­player­who­controlled­publishing­in­a­top-down­fashion­was­the­publisher,­whose­mechanism­of­control­was­the­print­publication.­In­contrast,­HPs­advocate­publications­in­multiple­formats­using­different­resources­by­potentially­different­agents,­where­the­network­of­related­publications­forms­the­abstract­notion­of­a­HP.

Having­said­all­this,­the­task­of­HPs­is­not­to­define­a­publication­but­to­cata-logue­and­support­different­publication­formats­as­well­as­the­conversions­between­them.­The­first­effort­was­started­by­Worthington­and­Furter­(2014).­Even­if­incomplete,­of­low­quality,­and­not­a­taxonomy­in­a­strict­sense,­their­publication taxonomy was still the most comprehensive attempt to­list­publication­designs­up­to­that­point­in­time.

Examples of Hybrid Publication Bundles

The Photomediations­project­is­an­outstanding­example­for­a­Hybrid­Pub-lication.­Photomediations­started­in­March­2013­with­Photomediations Machine­(Zylinska­2015).­Ever­since­then,­it­has­been­a­journal-like­online­publication,­associated­with­the­Culture­Machine­journal­previously­mentioned.­It­publishes­reviewed­and­curated­text­as­well­as­visual­content­around­the­topic­of­photography.

In­the­year­2015,­Joanna­Zylinska,­the­main­editor­of­Photomediations­Machine,­published­Photomediations: An Open Book­(Zylinska­et­al.­2015).­This­online­book­is­comprised­of­eight­chapters­differing­both­in­con-tent­and­form.­The­first­chapter­is­a­comprehensive­introduction­into­photomediation­as­a­specific­theory­on­photography.­The­next­four­chapters­include­over­two­hundred­images­grouped­and­described­in­terms­of­light,­motion,­hybridity,­and­relationship.­The­photos­were­not­originally­created­for­the­book,­they­are­reused­versions­of­mostly­open-licensed­

166 Beyond the Flow

photos­gathered­from­Photomediations­Machine,­Europeana6,­Flickr Commons7,­or­Wikimedia8,­following­the­spirit­of­remixing.

Whereas­the­beginning­chapters­are­meant­to­be­in­a­finished­state,­chapters­six­to­eight­are­open­for­ongoing­updates­and­extensions.­Chapter­six­is­an­open­compilation­of­general­essays­about­photography,­while­chapter seven consist of a Tumblr9­blog,­conceived­as­a­“social­space”­for­discussion­on­the­topic­of­the­book.­The­last­chapter­reorganizes­selected­contents­of­the­book­into­an­“exhibition”­designed­in­conjunction­with­Europeana Space.­Last­but­not­least,­Open­Humanities­Press­published­a­print­publication­of­the­sixth­chapter­of­the­open­book­in­2016­(Kuc­and­Zylinska­2016).

Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015,­6)­call­the­whole­Photomediations­Hybrid­Publication­“an­experiment­in­open­and­hybrid­publishin­—­as­well­as­a­celebration­of­the­book­as­a­living­object.”­It­is­an­outstanding­example­of­this publication concept because it showcases excellently how the con-cept­of­hybridity­in­HPs­responds­to­the­so-called­binaries­introduced­by­McPherson­(see­3.11.2):­it­contains­multimedia­content,­it­is­a­cluster­of­work­in­progress­and­finished­parts,­it­remixes­existing­content­and­creates­new­contents,­there­are­digital­and­non-digital­versions,­and­finally­it­includes­other­publication­concepts.­This­list­also­provides­a­better­understanding­of­the­difference­between­TPs­and­HPs,­even­if­there­is­a­deep­entan-glement­between­the­two.

Further­examples­of­HPs­focusing­on­particular­issues­of­the­research­field­are­provided­by­the­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab­(Worthington­2015),­for­instance the Hybrid Lecture Player­developed­here.­The­Player­is­more­like­a­web­environment­for­publishing­recordings­from­academic­lectures­in­combination­with­images,­other­additional­materials,­and­transcriptions.­The­idea­is­again­to­republish­material­already­published­somewhere­else,­but­in­a­new­format­that­creates­its­own­additional­value.

In the Merve Remix­use-case,­the­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab­digitized­existing­print­monographs­published­by­the­publisher­Merve­and­turned­them­into­web-publications­(Worthington­2016,­4–7).­The­goal­was­to­get­certain­insights­about­the­reformatting­processes.­The­use-case­is­also­well­suited­for­highlighting­again­that­HPs­are­not­necessarily­“digital-first”­publications.­A­publication­becomes­part­of­HPs­the­moment­different­

6­ https://www.europeana.eu/portal/de7­ https://www.flickr.com/8­ https://commons.wikimedia.org9­ https://www.tumblr.com/

Publishing-Com Bubble 167

publication­formats­—­digital­and­non-digital­—­exist.­The­Debates in the Digital Humanities­series­(Gold­2012;­Gold­2016a)­presents­a­HP­approach­in­which­the­printed­books­are­published­in­parallel­to­a­web­version,­providing­sophisticated­tools­for­annotation-based­discussions­and­computational­analysis­of­reading­behavior­(Gold­2016b).

Tensions

In­contrast­to­the­obsolescence­of­the­“one­size­fits­it­all”­principle­declared­by­Hall,­and­as­the­main­point­of­the­last­paragraph,­the­understanding­of­the­multi-format­aspect­in­HPs­remains­contradictory.­Accordingly,­Burkhardt­(2015,­4)­also­calls­multi-format­publishing­“single-source­pub-lishing”­(see­also­Rasch­2017).­However,­they­are­not­the­same.­The­concept­of­hybridity­as­it­is­used­in­Photomediations,­Scalar,­or­Merve­Remix­is­intentionally­not­set­up­around­the­principle­of­one­source­from­which­all­other­formats­emerge.­The­abovementioned­principle­and­the­concept­of­social­interoperability­are­in­fact­precisely­arguing­against­it.­Nevertheless,­the­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab­has­designed­a­software­called­A-Machine which seeks­to­provide­a­tool­for­single-source­publishing­as­part­of­HPs­(Hybrid­Publishing­Consortium­2015).

Hall­called­Photomediations­an­“experiment”­(above).­McPherson­(2010,­6)­similarly­depicts­Scalar­as­a­space­for­“experimental­work.”­On­the­other­hand,­it­was­said­at­the­beginning­of­this­chapter­that­HPs­somehow­overcome­the­phase­of­experimentation­inherent­to­TPs­and­e-Science­approaches.­The­difference­is­a­different­type­of­experimenting­that­is­going­on­even­if­the­term­is­still­used.

While­in­the­field­of­e-Science,­experiments­or­so-called­reference­implementations­are­made­to­push­forward­the­idea­of­a­future­consid-ered­to­be­clear,­HPs,­if­experimental,­are­such­in­order­to­evaluate­possible­futures.­While­in­the­spirit­of­e-Science­reference­implementations­serve­to­make­clear­how­agent­groups­should­adapt,­in­HPs­they­serve­to­find­out­what­the­reconfiguration­of­the­publishing­roles­might­look­like.

This­significant­difference­is­well­expressed­in­the­self-description­of­the­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab.­It­says­that­“Unser­Ziel­ist­das­Produzieren­von­Wissen­durch­den­Prozess­des­Machens”10­(Burkhardt­2015,­4).­Thus,­exper-imental implementations are necessary in HPs because publishing is in a phase­of­radical­change­where­many­things­become­uncertain­(McPherson­2010,­1)­and­not­because­they­can­be­considered­certain­but­not­realized­yet.

10­ “Our­goal­is­to­create­knowledge­using­the­process­of­doing”­(author’s­translation).

168 Beyond the Flow

Resume

The­HP­concept­further­develops­the­unique­attitude­chosen­by­some­con-cepts­of­the­humanities,­in­order­to­deal­with­the­challenges­in­digital­pub-lishing.­It­has­been­shown­on­multiple­occasions­that­this­unique­attitude­consists­of­a­cultural­perspective­on­digital­technologies­and­a­more­open­understanding­of­digital­publishing.

Hybrid­Publications­nevertheless­do­not­leave­certain­tensions­—­already­experienced­with­TPs­—­completely­behind:­those­between­a­theoretical­evaluation­of­digital­publications­and­the­application­of­technology.­The­issue­of­multi-format­versus­single-source­publishing­is­part­of­this­tension.­Single-source­publishing­exactly­represents­the­stack­model­in­computer­science,­criticized­by­McPherson­and­Adema.­Likewise,­there­is­a­great­tension­between­the­attempt­to­foster­the­publishing­ecology­and­that­of­creating­better­conditions­for­sustainable­publications,­outlined­by­McPherson­and­the­set­of­HPs­best­practices­listed­by­Hall.­These­practices­include­recommendations­to­use­services­like­WordPress,­Flickr,­Google,­or­GoDaddy,­which­create­serious­issues­for­publishing­on­a­technical,­legal,­and­ecological­level.­These­issues­are­not­evaluated­in­a­serious­manner,­instead­the­ease­of­use­is­emphasized.

These­tensions­also­continue­to­frame­the­theoretical­discourse­in­HPs.­The­publication­taxonomy,­for­instance,­introduces­a­simple­binary­between­new­and­old­publication­formats.­It­thereby­reproduces­an­essentialist­way­of­thinking,­criticized­above,­and­contradicting­the­base­line­of­arguments­in­HPs.­Correspondingly,­Burkhardt­(2015)­reproduces­the­motif­in­the­e-Science­discourse­on­digital­publications,­stating­that­the­sciences­are­far­ahead­of­the­humanities­in­this­topic.­Contrastingly,­the­original­attempt­of­HPs­was­to­escape­this­very­logic.

Scaling Digital Publication ConceptsThe­Hybrid­Publishing­approach­might­have­been­the­first­publication­concept­to­take­up­a­different­approach­to­the­social­aspects­of­technology­in­publishing.­It­did,­however,­not­remain­the­only­initiative­to­choose­this­direction.­In­the­previous­chapter,­the­concept­of­Liquid­Publications­was­introduced.­It­was­argued­that­a­dominant­aspect­of­LPs­is­the­idea­of­applying­principles­from­computer­science­to­publications.­The­LPs­lit-erature­is­full­of­concrete­suggestions­and­metaphorical­terminology­in­this­respect.­In­the­end,­a­publication­is­compared­to­a­software­repository.

Publishing-Com Bubble 169

Many­authors­like­Manghi­and­Castelli,­who­participated­in­the­LPs­project,­re-engaged­with­the­topic­by­taking­part­in­the­OpenAIRE11­project.­This­project­took­up­many­of­the­activities­carried­out­by­the­DRIVER­project,­namely­a­database­of­open­access­publications­in­the­European­Union­and­the­concept­of­EPs.­Apart­from­maintaining­the­work­of­projects­that­had­ended,­OpenAIRE­was­launched­to­“supporting­the­diffusion­and­adoption­of­the­European­Commission­Open­Access­mandate”­(Manghi­et­al.­2010,­31).­Additionally,­the­project­was­to­make­it­possible­to­evaluate­the­impact­of­this­mandate.

The­first­OpenAIRE­project­started­in­2009­and­ended­in­2012.­OpenAIRE­plus,­which­extended­the­activities­of­OpenAIRE,­went­on­between­2011­and­today.­While­OpenAIRE­focused­on­the­inclusion­of­EU-funded­open­access­article­publications­and­the­provision­of­core­services,­the­OpenAIRE­plus­project­extended­the­scope­to­all­article­publications­in­the­EU­region­and­to­data­publications.­The­service­portfolio­was­extended,­and­a­conceptual­framework­introduced­to­update­the­concept­of­EPs­later­on­and­under­the­new­funding­scheme­of­Horizon 202012.

Manghi,­Bolikowski,­et­al.­(2012,­3)­list­four­different­goals­for­both­OpenAIRE­and­OpenAIRE­plus.­According­to­this,­the­projects­are­aimed­at­“building­support­structures­for­researchers­in­depositing­FP7­research­publications,”­the­“establishment­and­operation­of­OpenAIRE­e-Infras-tructure­for­peer-reviewed­articles­and­other­forms­of­scientific­results,”­the­“exploration­of­and­experimentation­with­scientific­data­management­services,”­and­the­“sustainability­of­the­OpenAIRE­e-Infrastructure.”

It­is­worth­mentioning­that­compared­to­the­language­used­in­the­LPs­project,­these­goals­are­expressed­far­more­moderately­and­open.­This­is­significant­in­so­far­as­the­progress­could­also­have­in­time­permitted­the­expectation­of­more­defined­and­ambitious­goals.­In­fact,­the­step­back­from­the­highly­innovative­but­also­very­specific­ideas­offered­by­projects­like­LPs­is­the­major­one­in­the­OpenAIRE­projects.­This­will­become­more­transparent­when­the­problems­behind­digital­publications­as­presented­by­OpenAIRE­are­described­below.­It­will­become­obvious­that­the­OpenAIRE­approach­is­motivated­by­comparable­reflections­on­the­situation­of­digital­publications,­such­as­have­been­presented­by­Tara­McPherson.­However,­the­reaction­to­these­issues­is­still­fundamentally­different­and­emphasizes­a­different­way­of­thinking.

11­ https://www.openaire.eu/12­ Horizon­2020­is­the­programmatic­framework­for­research­funding­in­the­European­

Union­between­2014­and­2020.

170 Beyond the Flow

A New Problem Awareness

Like­McPherson,­Bardi­and­Manghi­(2014)­now­acknowledge­the­richness­and­variety­of­existing­digital­publication­formats.­The­authors­similarly­began­to­realize­that­this­situation­is­the­result­of­broad­experimentation­on­possible­scenarios,­with­the­aim­of­integrating­scholarly­publications­and­digital­technologies.­In­correspondence­with­the­experiences­of­the­Vectors­Journal,­they­also­stress­that­this­notion­of­experimentation­is­a­significant­reason­for­the­lack­of­broader­success­of­newly­defined­digital­publication­objects­in­real­life.­Moreover,­and­now­in­contrast­to­HPs,­they­regret­that­a­conceptual­common­ground­for­these­publication­objects­is­missing.

The­OpenAIRE­project­is­the­first­environment­discussed­in­this­work­in­which­people­from­the­area­of­information­and­computer­science­acknowledge­that­conceptual­heterogeneity­is­the­major­characteristic­of­digital­publications­and­also­its­major­challenge.­It­is­true­that­the­topic­of­heterogeneity­is­crucial­to­all­of­the­approaches­connected­to­these­domains.­In­all­of­these­cases,­the­discussion,­however,­focused­on­heterogeneity­in­terms­of­formal­semantics­and­technological­implementation,­not­on­the­heterogeneity­of­approaches­to­digital­pub-lications­as­such.­Even­the­DRIVER­project­evaluated­different­approaches­as­part­of­the­same­development.

Another­new­and­significant­aspect­is­the­fact­that­the­problematization­of­heterogeneity­is­now­also­applied­to­protocols­used­for­data­exposure.­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)­specifically­mention­OAI-PMH,­OAI-ORE,­and­the­LOD,­among­others.­Curiously­enough,­these­protocols­were­originally­introduced­to­reduce­heterogeneity.­By­stating­that­just­these­three­protocols­already­create­significant­confusion­around­the­implementation­of­digital­publication­services,­the­authors­implicitly­admit­that­the­goals­of­these­protocols­could­not­be­reached.­Indeed,­in­the­current­study­approaches­were­described­which­use­“pure”­LOD­strategies­(NPs),­or­which­adopted­OAI-ORE­(ROs)­by­claiming­that­“Linked­Data­is­not­enough­for­scientists”­(De­Roure­et­al.­2013).

According­to­OpenAIRE,­all­the­abovementioned­problems­cause­another­type­of­problem:­stakeholders­hesitate­to­invest­into­digital­publication­infrastructures­due­to­uncertainty­about­the­direction­into­which­digital­publications­will­develop­(Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­2013).­In­contrast,­digital­publication­producers­hesitate­to­make­use­of­existing­services­or­are­unable­to­find­service­providers­that­meet­the­requirements­of­a­certain­type­of­digital­publication.­Consequently,­these­environments­are­

Publishing-Com Bubble 171

most­often­set­up­from­scratch,­use­standards­and­technologies­from­the­environment­in­which­they­were­built,­and­are­therefore­considered­non-reusable­by­OpenAIRE­(Bardi­and­Manghi­2015a).

Although­the­notion­of­standardization­as­the­only­valid­solution­remains­in­the­background­of­this­evaluation,­it­is­the­wording­that­marks­a­contrast­with­former­evaluations­of­the­same­type.­This­difference­is­the­fact­that­the­situation­of­stakeholders­within­the­changing­landscape­of­digital­pub-lishing­is­addressed­in­a­more­understanding­way.­Agents­not­only­refuse­to­use­standards­and­technologies,­they­are­themselves­faced­with­a­compli-cated­situation.­Accordingly,­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­stress­that:

The­problem­is­mainly­cultural,­since­shifting­behavioral­norms­is­a­slow­process­and­requires­all­stakeholders,­from­librarians­and­repository­managers­to­data­managers,­to­understand­and­dissemi-nate­the­benefits­of­data­citation­for­researchers.­(Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­2013,­sec.­4.1)

In­the­quote,­data­citation­is­meant­to­be­the­crucial­condition­for­EPs.­Thus,­while­the­authors­share­the­old­claim­that­the­main­problem­for­digital­publications­is­the­mental­state­of­stakeholders,­they­differentiate­this­by­acknowledging­that­changes­need­to­be­introduced­in­a­subtle­process.­Another­quote­by­Manghi­et­al.­(2010),­presenting­the­goals­of­the­OpenAIRE­project,­shows­the­consequences­of­this­apparently­tiny­distinction:

Experiences­…­show­that­acceptance­and­broad­take-up­by­the­scientific­community­critically­depends­on­accompanying­support­mechanisms,­….­(Manghi­et­al.­2010,­33)

Hence,­implementers­of­digital­publications­started­to­shift­from­just­demanding­standardization­to­evaluating­how­to­achieve­standardization.­A­major­goal­of­OpenAIRE­is­to­define­and­develop­the­aforementioned­support­mechanisms.­Likewise,­support­mechanisms­are­a­much­broader­concept­than­tools­for­the­creation­of­digital­publication­concepts.­The­first­quote,­furthermore,­gives­testimony­of­the­fact­that­OpenAIRE­attempts­to­address­specific­stakeholders­in­a­specific­way.

Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)­look­at­the­situation­of­data­centers­and­research­libraries.­In­the­eyes­of­the­authors,­these­are­the­most­important­stakeholders­for­the­development­of­digital­publications.­Besides­the­uncertainty­about­future­directions­mentioned­above,­they­argue­that­there­is­another­uncertainty­about­the­service­profile­both­institution­types­would­have­to­provide­in­the­future.­Digital­publications,­so­it­is­argued,­require­the­implementation­of­completely­new­services.­Castelli,­Manghi,­

172 Beyond the Flow

and­Thanos­(2013)­stress­that­it­is­not­clear­which­stakeholder­should­include­which­service,­i.e. how­specific­tasks­are­distributed­within­the­network­of­existing­stakeholders.­In­consequence,­different­stakeholders­respond­differently,­and­the­already­existing­heterogeneity­in­digital­pub-lications­increases­further,­resulting­in­more­expensive­infrastructure­development.

Assante­et­al.­(2015)­similarly­investigate­the­role­of­different­types­of­digital­research­infrastructures­for­digital­publications.­They­argue­that­infra-structures­following­different­purposes­are­not­sufficiently­integrated­with­each­other­to­leverage­the­real­value­of­the­publications­that­they­provide.

The­examples­clearly­demonstrate­that­OpenAIRE­does­not­seek­to­promote­digital­publications­by­creating­new­demonstrators­or­formal­models­again.­This­also­distinguishes­OpenAIRE­from­its­predecessor­DRIVER.­Instead,­it­highlights­problems­that­suggest­engaging­with­stake-holders­and­reconsidering­their­relationships.­Accordingly,­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013,­167)­argue­that­digital­publication­initiatives­need­to­integrate­into­larger­“eco-systems.”

Scaling the Network

Different­measures­were­taken­in­order­to­provide­orientation­and­support­for­stakeholders­following­the­definition­of­the­problem­above.­Manghi,­Bolikowski,­et­al.­(2012)­summarize­some­of­these­efforts.­Accordingly,­OpenAIRE­tries­to­“efficiently­disseminate­best­practices,­guidelines,­initiatives,­and­events”­(sec. 1)­and­seeks­to­engage­with­existing­projects­such as DataCite,13 Mendeley14,­ORCID15,­EUDAT16,­REIsearch17.

In­order­to­sufficiently­achieve­this­agenda,­OpenAIRE­establishes­a­“European­helpdesk­system”­(Rettberg­and­Schmidt­2012;­Manghi­et­al.­2010;­Koukounidou­2017).­This­helpdesk­is­a­centrally­coordinated­network­of­national­agents­from­the­research­repository­domain.­According­to­Manghi­et­al.­(2010),­it­is­used­for­several­purposes.­First,­being­a­network,­it­should­facilitate­the­aforementioned­dissemination­process;­secondly,­it­should­provide­help­for­issues­regarding­the­management­of­open­access­repositories­and­for­facilitating­the­publication­of­research­results­in­it;­finally,­the­helpdesk­should­foster­relationships­with­external­stakeholders­

13­ https://www.datacite.org/14­ https://www.mendeley.com/15­ https://orcid.org/16­ https://eudat.eu/17­ http://reisearch.eu/

Publishing-Com Bubble 173

in­order­to­extend­the­network­of­open­access­publishing­stakeholders.­The­helpdesk­explicitly­addresses­multiple­stakeholders­and­not­just­repository­managers.­Among­them­are­also­individual­researchers­as­well­as­research­institutions.

The same applies to the OpenAIRE Guidelines­(OpenAIRE­plus­2013;­Príncipe­et­al.­2014).­These­guidelines­consist­of­three­different­sections­targeting­data­archives,­document­repositories­and­Current Research Information Systems­(also­referred­to­as­CRIS)­services18.­It­mainly­describes­how­metadata­should­be­presented­by­repositories­and­what­metadata­formats­should­be­used­in­order­to­describe­resources­in­repositories­in­a­machine-readable­way.­The­guidelines­aim­in­two­different­directions.

One­goal­is­to­enable­easy­harvesting­of­information­by­OpenAIRE­for­the­creation­of­the­OpenAIRE­platform­(see­below).­Another­goal­is­the­definition­of­a­minimal­set­of­best­practices­and­standards­which­are­communicated­from­above­by­using­the­“hierarchical­organization”­(Manghi,­Bolikowski,­et­al.­2012,­sec.­1)­of­OpenAIRE.­By­doing­so,­OpenAIRE­addresses­the­stakeholder’s­lack­of­orientation­described­above.­Con-sequently,­Príncipe­et­al.­(2014)­note­that­these­guidelines­will­facilitate­the­creation­of­EPs­and­promise­that­OpenAIRE­will­do­so­on­top­of­collected­information.

Scaling Engagement

Guidance­and­leadership­are­one­way­to­harmonize­the­landscape­of­digital­publications.­The­other­one­is­direct­intervention.­The­last­paragraph­indi-cated­that­OpenAIRE­collects­digital­publication­metadata­from­all­over­Europe.­The­platform­is­supposed­to­provide­an­overview­of­open­access­publications­and­European­research­funding,­in­line­with­the­general­goals­of­the­project­described­at­the­beginning­of­this­section.

As­a­result­of­this,­OpenAIRE­is­confronted­with­the­same­heterogeneity­as­data­centers­and­repository­managers.­In­this­respect,­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)­regret­the­lack­of­best­practices­in­data­publications.­The­authors­stress­that­the­format­of­metadata,­its­granularity­and­quality­vary­significantly.­Manghi,­Bolikowski,­et­al.­(2012)­diagnose­that­the­integration­of­digital­resources­in­a­publishing­environment­struggles­with­missing­information­and­redundancy.­Thus,­the­orientation­returns­to­a­narrative­familiar­from­former­publication­concepts.

18­ CRIS­services­present­information­about­research­activities­in­Europe.­It­will­be­dis-cussed­below­in­further­detail.

174 Beyond the Flow

Kobos­et­al.­(2014)­offer­detailed­insights­into­the­efforts­OpenAIRE­carried­out­to­process­data­from­repositories.­Metadata­was­not­only­harmonized­and­corrected,­it­was­also­created­by­virtue­of­content­mining­techniques,­applied­to­resources­where­such­metadata­did­not­exist.­The­outcome­of­this­curation­process­is­not­only­the­creation­of­the­OpenAIRE­platform­but­an­improvement­and­enhancement­of­the­situation­of­available­publication­metadata­as­such.­Since­truly­digital­publications­in­the­eyes­of­many­authors­related­to­OpenAIRE­are­metadata­descriptions­of­linked­published­resources,­the­machine-readable­exposure­of­this­metadata­automatically­impacts­the­conditions­of­creating­these­publications.

Scaling Technology

The­harmonization­and­exposure­of­information­on­research­publications­in­Europe­is­not­the­only­objective­of­the­OpenAIRE­platform.­As­a­service­on­its­own,­it­represents­a­specific­approach­to­solving­the­technological­issues­of­digital­publications.­This­approach­is­generalized­and­presented­by­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)­under­the­name­of­Scholarly Com-munication Infrastructures­(SCIs).­Scholarly­Communication­Infrastructures­is­a­reaction­to­the­need­for­extended­service­requirements­in­order­to­create­and­use­digital­publications­(above).

The­main­point­behind­SCIs­is­a­specific­response­to­this­problem,­because­it­is­claimed­that­neither­data­centers­nor­research­repositories­should­extend­their­service­profile.­They­should­focus­on­the­work­they­have­done­before.­Instead,­a­new­type­of­service­should­be­implemented,­a­service­which­integrates­existing­but­isolated­services.­Scholarly­Communication­Infrastructures­is­the­initiative­to­organize­and­harmonize­fragmentation­of­digital­publications­on­a­higher­level­and­by­infrastructural­means.

Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)­present­the­main­ideas­of­SCIs­in­a­diagram­which­shows­four­layers­of­abstraction­and­which­is­presented­in­a­simplified­version­in­figure­4.1.­The­lowest­layer,­which­could­be­called­the­source layer,­consists­of­existing­stakeholders­such­as­research­libraries,­data­centers,­and­similar,­common­workflows­as­well­as­digital­resources.­Each­of­these­provide­different­content­and­services,­thereby­reflecting­the­current­heterogeneous­situation.­The­second­and­third­layer­form­the­SCI­approach.­First,­the­mediation layer­connects­the­different­interfaces­by­which­content­and­functionality­of­the­first­layer­are­exposed.­This­allows­access­to­different­environments­within­a­new­environment.­Secondly,­in­the­SCIs’­application layer,­there­are­three­types­of­services­in­these­layers:

Publishing-Com­Bubble 175

– organization­of­a­consistent­access­to­all­the­underlying­environments,

– harmonization­and­linking­of­all­of­the­content­metadata­from­the­underlying­environments,

– abstraction­and­exposure­of­functionality­from­the­underlying­services.

The­fourth­layer­consists­of­scientifi­c­stakeholders,­already­involved­in­the­fi­rst­layer,­but­not­interacting­directly­with­this­layer.­Instead,­they­interact­with­it­by­means­of­the­services­provided­by­SCIs.

[Figure­4.1]­Simplifi­ed­and­slightly­modifi­ed­version­of­the­concept­of­SCIs­as­defi­ned­in­Cas-

telli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)

A Fallback Solution

While­the­OpenAIRE­portal­tries­to­harmonize­and­bundle­existing­environ-ments,­the­Zenodo19­research­repository­addresses­another­problem.­In­the­description­of­its­goals­at­the­beginning­of­this­section,­OpenAIRE­notably­seemed­to­emphasize­article­publications.­Indeed,­the­publication­of­other­resource­types­was­considered­mainly­in­the­second­project­phase.

Corresponding­literature­now­also­chooses­to­put­a­stronger­focus­on­conceptual­components­of­publications,­as­can­be­seen­in­Assante­et­al.­

19­ https://zenodo.org/

176 Beyond the Flow

(2015),­or­Bardi­and­Manghi­(2015a).­This­seems­reasonable­if­the­project’s­underlying­analysis­revealed­that­the­efforts­existing­at­that­time­had­not­brought­to­light­the­conditions­necessary­to­realize­truly­digital­pub-lications.­The­fact­that­most­of­these­issues­were­social­or­cultural­does­not­mean­that­technical­and­infrastructural­issues­did­not­also­remain.

Zenodo­is­a­direct­intervention­in­this­situation.­It­is­a­research­repository­for­the­deposition­of­so-called­“orphan”­resources­(Manghi,­Bolikowski,­et­al.­2012).­The­term­“orphan”­denotes­resources­which­have­no­other­place­to­be­stored.­The­lack­of­access­to­appropriate­repositories­by­researchers­is­one­reason­for­this­situation,­as­highlighted­at­the­beginning­of­the­section.­However,­the­term­is­not­misused­when­applied­to­situations­in­which­no­repository­exists­for­a­specific­resource­type.­Consequently,­Zenodo­notes­on­its­website­that­it­accepts­“all­research­outputs”­and­“any­file­format.”

Zenodo­contributes­to­this­situation­in­multiple­ways.­First,­it­implements­a­research­repository­following­the­guidelines­OpenAIRE­seeks­to­establish.­Secondly,­it­establishes­an­operational­infrastructure­for­a­service­that­is­rare­within­the­scope­of­its­goal.­Third,­it­thereby­provides­better­conditions­for­the­future­creation­of­digital­publications,­which­can­make­use­of­its­services,­its­content,­and­its­assured­sustainability­in­a­consistent­way.­Fourth,­it­extends­the­OpenAIRE­platform­by­integrating­Zenodo­in­the­spirit­of­SCIs.­Finally,­it­substantiates­and­materializes­a­certain­notion­of­digital­scholarly­publishing­which­remained­silent­in­earlier­activities,­but­start­to­be­heavily­promoted­in­this­situation.

Accordingly,­Assante­et­al.­(2015)­introduce­“modern­scientific­com-munication­workflows”­which­are­defined­by­two­main­criteria.­One­is­to­publish­“during”­the­research­activities­as­opposed­to­“on­date”­(sec. 4).­The­other­was­already­addressed­in­the­last­paragraphs­and­states­that­any­type­of­resource­—­technical­as­well­as­conceptual­—­should­be­published.­Thus,­in­the­eyes­of­the­authors,­modern­scientific­communication­work-flows­are­increasingly­“blurring­the­distinction­between­research­life-cycle­and­research­publishing”­(sec. 1).

This­model­needs­the­support­of­a­special­type­of­repository­yet­to­be­created.­The­authors­call­such­repositories­science 2.0 repositories.­These­repositories­are­closely­integrated­with­Virtual­Research­Environments­as­“the­place­where­research­is­conducted”­(sec. 1).­The­strong­references­to­themes­discussed­under­the­term­of­e-Science­above­are­obvious.­Zenodo­is­a­service­which­implements­a­small­selection­of­the­ideas­of­science­2.0­repositories.

Publishing-Com Bubble 177

Scaling Standardization

Despite­these­similarities­with­many­digital­publication­concepts,­there­is­a­significant­difference.­This­difference­becomes­obvious­when­OpenAIRE­changes­the­focus­from­infrastructure­and­ecology­of­publications­back­to­the­structure­of­publications­themselves.­The­main­point­of­similarity­between­the­publishing­process­described­above­and­e-Science­publication­concepts is the notion of a publication that integrates most of the output of an­entire­research­process.

The­model­of­science­2.0­repositories,­completely­in­line­with­its­general­approach­to­resolve­obstacles­in­the­creation­of­digital­publications­incrementally,­provides­a­pragmatic­model­for­the­design­process­of­such­publications.­For­instance,­it­simplifies­the­act­of­single-resource­pub-lication,­because­curating­an­entire­digital­publication­is­more­expensive­than­publishing­a­single­resource.­It­detaches­the­description­of­relation-ships­between­resources­from­publishing­these­resources­in­the­first­place.­The­full­benefit­science­2.0­repositories­intent­to­provide­will­nevertheless­be­experienceable­only­if­published­resources­are­semantically­put­together­by­forming­a­digital­publication­as­a­compound­object.

In­fact,­OpenAIRE­creates­EPs­on­its­own.­More­precisely,­the­project­creates­and­uses­specific­metadata­on­publications,­collected­from­research­repositories,­in­order­to­make­connections­between­single­resources.­The­semantics­used­by­the­project­are­described­in­the­“Data­Model­of­the­OpenAIRE­Scientific­Communication­e-Infrastructure”­(Manghi,­Houssos,­et­al.­2012).­This­model­is­primarily­a­re-use­of­existing­semantics,­namely­from­DataCite­and­CRIS­(see­above).­While­DataCite­focuses­on­the­appropriate­citation­of­digital­resources,­CRIS­provides­classes­and­terms­that­really­connect­resources.

As­the­name­suggests,­CRIS­defines­entities­and­terms­that­should­make­it­possible­to­formally­describe­research­activities,­their­output,­and­their­context.­It­particularly­offers­possibilities­of­expressing­which­institutions­were­involved­in­a­research­process,­the­project­context,­the­relevant­line­of­funding,­and­comparable­mostly­administrative­information.­By­doing­so,­EPs­in­the­OpenAIRE­portal­form­broad­agent-networks­in­which­research­output­is­the­result­of­socio-economically­meaningful­actions.

The­EPs­model­of­OpenAIRE­is­consistent­with­the­approach­expressed­in­science­2.0­repositories­in­two­ways.­First,­it­supports­the­publication­of­individual­research­output,­independent­from­publications­as­compound­objects­and­simultaneous­to­research­itself.­Secondly,­the­semantics­that­

178 Beyond the Flow

connect resources prefer social relationships in research in favor of any epistemological­or­methodological­relationship­found­in­concepts­like­ROs.­This means that the level of semantic integration of research output scales up­with­the­possibilities­and­the­need­of­doing­so.

It­could­be­argued,­however,­that­this­approach­just­resembles­the­fact­that­the­projects­follow­a­clear­political­agenda­(above).­The­semantics­of­the­OpenAIRE­model­allow­monitoring­of­the­impact­and­success­of­this­agenda.­Grassano­et­al.­(2016)­evaluate­the­OpenAIRE­infrastructure­in­just­such­a­way.

Following­the­same­logic,­OpenAIRE­also­made­attempts­to­contribute­to­the­model­of­digital­publications­at­the­end­of­the­second­project­phase,­and­after­other­goals­had­been­pushed­forward.­In­2014,­Bardi­and­Manghi­(2014)­presented­a­significant­evaluation­of­digital­publication­concepts­dating­back­to­the­nineties­and­to­MAs.­Although­it­tries­to­be­com-prehensive,­the­presentation­still­ignores­some­concepts,­mainly­those­belonging­to­the­humanities.­Compared­to­the­same­attempt­in­the­DRIVER­project,­it­is­nevertheless­more­consistent­and­systematic.­It­does­not­only­pick­out­some­aspects­of­selected­approaches­to­assert­a­homologous­development,­it­is­precise­enough­to­grasp­significant­differences.­Accordingly,­the­study­aims­at­“introducing­common­terminology­and­clas-sification­schemes­in­order­to­shed­some­light­and­put­some­order­in­such­a­rich­but­foundationless­realm”­(265).

The­authors­try­to­introduce­this­terminology­without­making­too­many­implications.­For­instance,­they­try­to­give­orientation­to­existing­approaches­by­grouping­them­according­to­“scientific­motivation.”­These­motivations­are:­“packaging­with­supplementary­material,­improving­read-ability­and­understanding,­interlinking­with­research­data,­and­enabling­repetition­of­experiments”­(253).

Despite­this­attempt,­the­evaluation­clearly­reveals­its­foundation­in­e-Science­and­computer­science.­This­becomes­even­more­obvious­when­not­only­motivations­of­publication­objects­but­also­components­are­evalu-ated.­The­authors­follow­the­categorical­distinction­between­text­and­data­as­description­and­evidence­(241),­which­appeared­in­e-Science­approaches­and­which­was­cemented­by­the­EP­model­in­the­preceding­DRIVER­model.­Like­DRIVER,­it­refers­to­EPs­as­an­overarching­concept­for­digital­pub-lications,­although­its­basic­elements­already­exclude­some­of­the­concepts­presented­in­this­study.

Publishing-Com Bubble 179

The­entanglement­between­certain­practices­in­research­and­specific­resource­types­can­be­found­in­most­of­the­motivations­and­components­presented­by­the­article.­The­implicit­decisions­about­which­practice­corresponds­with­which­resource­type­also­clearly­follows­the­e-Science­agenda.­Accordingly,­the­attempt­to­re-approach­EPs­differently,­lying­at­the­center­of­many­related­activities­in­OpenAIRE,­fails­when­it­comes­to­a­con-ceptualization­of­EPs­themselves.

This­conceptualization,­nevertheless,­is­not­an­end­to­itself­but­a­means­to­realize­Enhanced Publication Management Systems­(Bardi­and­Manghi­2015b;­Bardi­and­Manghi­2015a).­The­term­alludes­to­Database Management Systems,­a­software­environment­built­around­a­database­in­order­to­organize­user­and­software­interactions­on­data­and­data­models­in­a­database.­In­the­same­way,­Enhanced­Publication­Management­Systems­(also­referred­to­as­EPMS)­should­support­and­facilitate­the­creation­of­EP­models­and­EPs.

The­strategy­of­EPMS­is­comparable­to­the­one­behind­SCIs.­One­the­one­hand,­it­accepts­that­context­specific­heterogeneity­exists,­on­the­other­hand­it­tries­to­standardize­EP­under­OpenAIRE’s­specific­notion­of­generic­features­of­digital­publications.­In­the­context­of­EPMS,­it­led­to­the­proposal of an Enhanced Publication Data Model Definition Language­(Bardi­and­Manghi­2015a,­sec.­2).­They­intended­to­create­a­consistent­starting­point­for­the­development­of­new­digital­publications­and­publication­environments.­This­is­the­point­where­a­self-declared­ecological­approach­to­digital­publications­finally­goes­back­to­the­more­common­top-down­approach­of­former­concepts.

At­the­beginning­of­this­section,­OpenAIRE­was­introduced­as­a­project­forming­part­of­a­general­tendency­to­address­social­issues­of­digital­publishing­over­the­last­years.­Indeed,­OpenAIRE­reflected­on­the­situ-ation­of­some­stakeholders,­tried­hard­to­offer­multifaceted­explanations­of­obstacles,­and­tried­to­work­with­the­situation­as­it­is­instead­of­as­it­should­be­from­the­project’s­point­of­view.­In­this­respect,­it­differs­from­many­former­approaches.­The­value­of­recognizing­and­engaging­with­this­situation­and­its­stakeholders,­however,­remained­a­means­to­an­end.­In­other­words,­OpenAIRE’s­strategic­orientation­in­this­respect­is­based­on­the­acknowledgment­that­the­creation­of­models­and­reference­implementations­is­insufficient­for­the­broader­uptake­of­digital­publication­objects.­In­contrast,­the­main­ideas­about­these­objects,­their­features,­and­the­focus­on­specific­conditions­that­need­to­be­satisfied­for­digital­pub-lication­objects­to­succeed­remain­the­same­as­in­former­approaches­from­

180 Beyond the Flow

the­last­phase.­These­aspects­became­more­and­more­dominant­in­the­work­on­SCIs­and­EPMS.

This­is­significantly­different­from­the­direction­taken­in­HPs.­Partnership­organizations­like­the­Alliance­for­Networking­Visual­Culture­were­formed­because­people­were­convinced­that­sustainable­solutions­will­arise­only­in­such­an­inclusive­environment,­solutions­that­are­not­yet­known.­In­HPs,­the­evaluation­of­means­and­end­are­thus­part­of­the­same­process.­Correspondingly,­OpenAIRE­falls­back­on­the­creation­of­infrastructure,­whereas­HPs­maintain­their­emphasis­on­social­organization.­Infrastructure­creates­the­boundaries­for­thematically­related­future­activities.­This­holds­true­especially­where­its­creation­is­so­closely­connected­to­research-policy­making,­and­where­its­funding­is­set­on­a­continental­level.­In­this­respect,­the­infrastructural­approach­is­an­efficient­way­to­steer­social­processes­into­a­certain­direction.­For­OpenAIRE,­this­direction­and­the­way­to­get­there­is­concisely­summarized­by­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos:

The­idea­of­enabling­a­“global­scientific­communication­infrastructure,”­unifying­and­giving­access­in­a­systematic,­discipline-specific,­author-ized,­and­reusable­way­to­the­whole­outcome­of­world’s­research,­must­rely­on­common­practices­and­standard­ways­….­(Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­2013,­167)

Thus,­the­OpenAIRE­approach­is­indeed­a­top-down,­globally­oriented­approach,­driven­by­certain­ideas­about­the­shape­of­future­scientific­com-munication­that­are­supposedly­generic.­Moreover,­the­totality­of­scholarly­communication­is­conceived­of­as­a­derivative­of­a­consistent­technological­environment.

Data PapersCompared­to­OpenAIRE,­the­concept­of­Data Papers­(hereafter­referred­to­as­DPs)­concentrates­on­a­certain­type­of­publication­only.­The­key­aspects­highlighted­in­DPs,­however,­vary­significantly­from­those­promoted­in­other­publication­concepts.­Obviously,­DPs­are­about­the­publication­of­digital­data,­even­if­the­term­“paper”­seems­strange­in­this­respect.­In­order­to­clarify­this­apparent­contradiction,­it­helps­to­refer­to­the­working­paper­of­Rees­(2010)­which­was­an­important­stepping­stone­in­the­broader­adoption­of­the­data­paper­approach.­Rees­(2001,­1)­states:­“A­data­paper­is­a­publication­whose­primary­purpose­is­to­expose­and­describe­data,­as­opposed­to­analyze­and­draw­conclusions­from­it.”­­This­description­normally­includes­a­de-referenceable­reference­to­the­described­dataset­

Publishing-Com Bubble 181

in­the­form­of­a­URI.­However,­this­description­still­does­not­reveal­why­data­papers­are­different­in­a­way­that­would­suffice­to­include­it­as­a­concept­of­its­own.­The­main­argument­is­the­fact­that­the­publication­of­data­itself­is­only­a­superficial­reason.­Common­declarations­on­the­value­of­data­sharing­are­not­lacking.­Chavan­and­Penev­(2011,­2)­highlight­the­problem­of­“dark­data”­(unpublished­data),­and­Robertson­et­al.­(2014,­1)­stress­the­need­for­massive­“data­mobilization.”­Similarly,­strategies­for­the­publication­of­data­as­a­resource­existed­before,­as­has­become­clear­throughout­the­last­sections.­Accordingly,­DPs­are­perceived­in­the­research­community­as­one­specific­strategy­to­publish­data­in­addition­to­others­(Reilly­et­al.­2011;­Garcia-Garcia,­Lopez-Borrull,­and­Peset­2015).­Following­Pampel­and­Dallmeier-Tiessen­(2014)­and­Garcia-Garcia,­Lopez-Borrull,­and­Peset­(2015),­and­in­line­with­the­present­analysis,­other­strategies­publish­data­as­a­resource­of­its­own­(single-resource)­or­as­an­isolated­component­of­a­broader­publication­(ROs,­EPs).

Compared­with­these­two­approaches,­DPs­were­the­latest­to­appear­in­the­field.­Their­development­was­driven­significantly­by­the­observation­that­the­situation­of­data­publication­is­precarious,­even­though­the­afore-mentioned­strategies­existed­already.­Thus,­Rees­(2010,­1)­declares­that­a­“data­re-use­failure”­exists.­Additionally,­Chavan­and­Penev­(2011,­4)­quote­earlier­research­in­which­results­show­that­at­the­time­of­writing,­only­three­percent­of­published­research­data­could­actually­be­located.­Con-sequently,­the­authors­summarize:­“However,­these­efforts­are­yet­to­yield­any­significant­results­because­existing­data­remain­unpublished,­undis-covered­and­thus­underused”­(Chavan­and­Penev­2011,­4).­

There­are­several­weaknesses­in­data­publication,­addressed­in­greater­detail­by­the­concept­of­DPs,­which­will­receive­more­attention­below.­The­key­aspect­of­DPs­is­the­fact­that­most­advocates­do­not­consider­specific­issues­to­be­the­main­reasons­for­the­aforementioned­evaluation.­Instead,­they­argue­that­the­problem­resides­in­a­different­way­of­dealing­with­all­these­issues.­Rees­argues:

We­encourage­everyone­involved­in­data­sharing­and­reuse­to­take­a­holistic­view­of­the­data­reuse­problem.­The­attention­that­the­various­pieces­of­the­problem­are­receiving­is­welcome,­but­it ’s­not­just­about­review,­or­publication,­or­deposit­guidelines,­or­archiving.­All­parts­of­the­system­must­work­together­if­we­are­to­create­the­incentives­needed­for­adequate­publication­….­(Rees­2010,­3)

Thus,­the­initial­statement­that­DPs­stand­out­in­the­area­of­digital­pub-lication­concepts­was­made­because­of­this­shift­of­perspective.

182 Beyond the Flow

Rees’­paper­is­a­working­paper,­published­in­2010.­The­context­was­his­engagement­with­the­Creative­Commons­initiative­mentioned­above.­This­working­paper­was­the­first­attempt­to­promote­the­concept­of­DPs­on­a­broader­scale.­There­were­two­articles­the­year­before,­presenting­comparable­initiatives­(Callaghan­et­al.­2009;­Newman­and­Corke­2009).­These­initiatives,­however,­focused­on­specific­environments,­i.e. meteorology­and­robotics.­These­efforts­were­furthermore­linked­to­a­concrete­project­and­an­existing­journal.­A­significant­step­towards­the­later success of the DP concept was the cooperation between the pub-lisher Pensoft20­and­the­Global Biodiversity Information Facility21,­presented­by­Chavan­and­Penev­(2011).­This­initiative­produced­one­of­the­most­successful­data­paper­projects­as­yet.­It­is­thus­reasonable­to­argue­that­2010­marks­the­beginning­of­the­DPs­approach.

Garcia-Garcia,­Lopez-Borrull,­and­Peset­(2015),­Candela­et­al.­(2015)­and­Chen­(2017)­made­the­first­attempts­to­summarize­the­recent­history­of­DPs.22­While­the­first­survey­presents­examples­and­compares­submission­guidelines,­the­second­and­third­extracts­key­features­in­a­more­systematic­form.­In­contrast­to­the­last­paragraphs,­Garcia-Garcia,­Lopez-Borrull,­and­Peset­(2015)­set­the­starting­point­of­DPs­in­the­year­1956.­More­precisely,­the­authors­include­six­journals­founded­between­1956­and­2002­in­the­concept­of­DPs.­The­reason­for­this­deviation­is­the­fact­that­the­authors­do­not­focus­on­any­technological­linkage­between­a­dataset­and­a­paper­but­instead­on­the­main­purpose­of­describing­a­data­set.

The­accentuation­of­different­facets­of­the­DP­approach­across­projects­is­a­general­phenomenon­in­this­research­field­(Candela­et­al.­2015).­It­does­not­reflect­inconsistency,­but­is­an­immediate­consequence­of­its­general­approach.­In­total,­Candela­et­al.­(2015)­count­116­data journals­already­in­2015­that­permit­the­submission­of­DPs­or­exclusively­publish­DPs.­The­subject­matters­range­from­health­sciences,­life­sciences,­physical­sciences,­social­sciences,­and­humanities­to­multidisciplinary­journals.­Additionally,­stakeholders­like­Thompson Reuter begin to show interest in the DP format (Force­et­al.­2016).

20­ https://pensoft.net/21­ https://www.gbif.org/22­ A­list­of­data­journals,­i.e. journals­which­focus­on­publishing­DPs­was­temporally­

curated­by­Akers­(2014).

Publishing-Com Bubble 183

A Family Resemblance Between Different Key Functions

The­next­paragraphs­will­summarize­how­different­functions­of­DPs­are­accentuated­in­different­environments.­This­will­help­to­elaborate­a­more­substantial­idea­of­DPs.­It­will­also­clarify­the­small­distinctions­which­led­to­different­evaluations­of­the­temporal­frame­of­DPs.

Rees’­quote­from­the­beginning­of­this­section­indicated­that­the­concept­of­DPs­is­often­described­in­a­very­minimalistic­way.­Rees­highlights­exactly­one­function­of­DPs,­the­need­to­contextualize­data­sets­that­are­available­on­the­web.­Newman­and­Corke­are­even­more­minimalistic­by­stressing­that:

A­data­paper­should­provide­a­crisp­statement­of­how­the­data­was­collected­and­a­summary­of­its­salient­properties­and­intended­audience.­(Newman­and­Corke­2009,­1)­

In­this­respect­DPs­have­the­purpose­of­bridging­an­information­gap­between­articles­that­present­research­results­on­top­of­a­dataset­and­metadata­about­this­dataset,­which­in­turn­might­be­available­in­the­cor-responding­data­repository.­The­main­argument­behind­this­function­is­the­claim­that­neither­resource­provides­the­type­of­information­necessary­to­reuse­the­dataset­efficiently.­Filling­this­gap­with­information­is­the­content­function­of­DPs.

Newman­and­Corke­further­writes­that­beyond­the­necessary­properties­to­fulfill­this­function:

…­data­papers­will­be­treated­in­the­same­fashion­as­regular­papers,­undergoing­the­standard­peer-review­process­and­appearing­in­print­in­regular­journal­issues,­and­authors­should­expect­their­data­papers­to­be­cited­just­as­regular­papers­are.­(Newman­and­Corke­2009,­1)

Chavan­and­Penev­(2011,­3)­similarly­state­that­the­creation­of­DPs­should­require­as­few­technological­skills­and­resources­as­possible.­Furthermore,­the­creation­and­publishing­workflow­of­DPs­should­be­closely­connected­to­existing­stakeholders­and­publishing­processes.­By­doing­so,­advocates­of­the­DP­approach­hope­to­develop­data­publication­practices­more­efficiently­than­has­been­the­case­for­more­ambitious­attempts­before.­This­function­of­DPs­could­also­be­called­the­embedding­function­of­DPs.

Embedding­for­now­takes­the­form­of­conceptual­congruence­with­his-torical­article­publications.­However,­the­main­point­addressed­here­is­not­the­form­of­the­article­but­the­already­organized­social­environment­existing­around­this­form.­This­fact­becomes­more­evident­by­analyzing­

184 Beyond the Flow

more­ambitious­DP­projects,­such­as­the­Biodiversity Data Journal.­In­the­context­of­this­journal,­the­publisher­Pensoft­developed­a­sophisticated­authoring­tool­called­the­Pensoft Writing Tool­(Smith­et­al.­2013).

One­of­the­major­benefits­of­this­tool­is­the­ability­to­distribute­different­tasks­in­the­context­of­technologically­very­ambitious­data­publications­across­different­stakeholders,­and­within­existing­stakeholder­roles.­The­development­of­the­tool­is­contrasted­with­data­publication­strategies­that­requires­stakeholders­to­be­technologically­specialized­themselves­(Chavan­and­Penev­2011,­2),­or­sophisticated­infrastructure­such­as­in­OpenAIRE­(Robertson­et­al.­2014,­2).­A­“data­paper­enables­a­division­of­labor”­(Chavan­and­Penev­2011,­9).

Accordingly,­the­embedding­function­does­not­mean­that­only­a­few­things­should­be­changed.­Actually,­the­Pensoft­Writing­Tool­provides­a­lot­of­automated­processes­for­including­features­of­SPs­and­HPs.­Embedding­means­that­the­design­of­DPs­is­intended­to­activate­stakeholders­and­resources­where­they­currently­are,­in­order­to­advance­data­publication­and­digital­publishing.­Hence,­the­creation­of­authoring­tools­like­the­Pensoft Writing Tool or the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit­(Robertson­et­al.­2014)­are­not­only­ways­to­make­the­creation­of­a­new­type­of­publication­easier.­They­are­active­interventions­into­a­publishing­ecology,­for­the­sake­of­better­connecting­its­pieces.­Compared­to­OpenAIRE,­this­intervention­is­neither­top-down­nor­motivated­by­policy­(Smith­et­al.­2013).

Another­closely­connected­function­is­the­scaling­function­of­DPs,­comparable­to­the­OpenAIRE­approach.­By­starting­with­the­simplest­idea,­consisting­of­only­changing­the­topic­and­content­of­articles,­the­level­of­innovation­introduced­for­specific­DPs­can­be­defined­in­a­flexible­way.­DPs­exist­on­a­scale­of­innovation­that­adapts­to­the­conditions­found­in­a­specific­context.­Depending­on­the­capabilities­of­a­publisher,­for­instance,­the­size­of­the­data­and­authors’­access­to­it­is­sometimes­embedded­in­the­paper,­stored­in­a­repository­owned­by­the­publisher,­or­in­an­official­data­archive­(Garcia-Garcia,­Lopez-Borrull,­and­Peset­2015).

Data­Papers­are­sometimes­also­published­as­printed­articles­(Newman­and­Corke­2009),­as­websites23,­as­a­parsable­“metadata­documents”­(Chavan­and­Penev­2011),­and­sometimes­all­options­exist­together­as­in­HPs.­An­overview­of­similar­variations­of­DPs­is­offered­by­Candela­et­al.­(2015).­Together­with­the­goal­of­embedding­the­concept­of­DPs­into­social­reality,­the­idea­of­scaling­enables­to­“downstream”­(Robertson­et­al.­2014,­5)­

23­ http://dhcommons.org/journal/

Publishing-Com Bubble 185

technological­sophistication­without­preventing­it.­With­downstreaming,­the authors refer to a stepwise enrichment of DPs with features commonly discussed­in­the­field­of­digital­publishing,­a­process­which­takes­place­while­DPs­move­from­the­author­across­other­stakeholders­in­the­pub-lishing­process­to­specific­environments­with­specific­needs.

Another­feature­of­DPs,­of­particular­interest­for­some­authors,­is­the­fact­that­DPs­create­a­layer­of­abstraction­among­datasets.­Therefore,­these­authors also sometimes call DPs Overlay Papers­(Moyle­and­Polydoratou­2007;­Callaghan­et­al.­2009).24­This­function­does­not­introduce­something­completely­different­compared­to­the­aforementioned­functions.­However,­it­is­a­generalization­of­an­aspect­implicit­to­the­other­functions.

By­highlighting­this­function,­the­possible­scope­for­the­application­of­DPs­can­also­be­extended.­More­precisely,­authors­like­Callaghan­et­al.­(2009)­or­Whyte­et­al.­(2013)­propose­that­this­type­of­article­can­also­be­used­to­create­articles­about­software­and­models,­among­others.­In­fact,­many­online­journals­appearing­in­the­last­years­had­this­very­purpose.­Especially­in­the­humanities,­publication­series­like­DH­Commons­Journal,­or­RIDE­(see­also­Steinkrüger­2016)­give­evidence­of­the­success­of­this­approach.

Callaghan­et­al.­define­the­function­of­their­overlay­journal­as­followed:

The­overlay­journal­database­itself­consists­of­a­number­of­overlay­doc-uments,­which­are­structure­documents­created­to­annotate­another­resource­with­information­on­the­quality­of­the­resource.­(Callaghan­et­al.­2009,­sec. Overlay­Journals)­

Apart­from­illustrating­the­overlay­function­of­DPs,­the­quote­also­addresses­another­set­of­arguments­for­why­this­abstraction­is­necessary.­It­has­been­mentioned­before­that­the­discourse­on­DPs­also­concerns­specific­data­publication­problems,­despite­changing­the­whole­perspective­on­data­publication­issues­itself.­Here,­one­of­the­concrete­problems­is­the­lack­of­assessment­of­the­data­meant­to­be­published.

Callaghan­et­al.­(2009)­make­no­exception­here.­There­is­no­article­about­DPs­that­does­not­stress­that­DPs­are­a­means­of­offering­necessary­review­and­quality­control­for­resources­other­than­text­publications.­From­Callaghan­et­al.­(2009)­and­Rees­(2010),­to­Chavan­and­Penev­(2011),­to­the­DH­Commons­Journal­and­RIDE,­each­initiative­would­confirm­that­these­

24­ An­overview­of­different­terms­used­to­denominate­the­concept­of­DPs­is­presented­by­Candela­et­al.­(2015,­1752-1753)

186 Beyond the Flow

publications­“bridge­the­‘evaluation­gap’”­( Jackson­2014,­544)­between­making­something­accessible­and­considering­it­a­fully­published­resource.

Similar­to­the­issue­of­quality­is­that­of­credit.­In­most­contributions­about­DPs­“the­lack­of­professional­reward­structures­of­incentives”­(Chavan­and­Penev­2011,­4)­is­addressed­as­a,­if­not­the­major­obstacle­for­the­implementation­of­successful­data­publication­practices.­Accordingly,­Callaghan­et­al.­(2009)­present­results­from­a­survey­in­which­sixty-seven­percent­of­researchers­said­that­they­would­publish­data­if­reliable­reward­mechanisms­existed.

Such­a­credit­system­requires­that­the­creation­and­curation­of­data­can­be­rewarded­independently­from­the­presentation­of­research­results­in­a­common­article,­and­also­from­the­act­of­deriving­research­results­from­a­dataset.­Thus,­data­publication­requires­a­more­specific­attribution­system,­sometimes­called­“micro-attribution”­(Candela­et­al.­2015,­1754)­in­its­extreme­form.­Data­Papers­try­to­support­this­development­by­exposing­a­publication­which­permits­rewarding­the­creation­and­curation­of­a­dataset­independently­from­other­scientific­achievements.

Both­quality-control­and­rewarding­address­publications­as­important­means­to­arrange­the­research­as­a­socially­organized­space.­Data­Papers­stand­out­compared­to­many­of­the­concepts­that­have­been­discussed­in­the­last­chapter,­by­putting­related­issues­first,­and­by­the­strategy­they­choose­in­order­to­achieve­this­arrangement.

While­the­ethics­of­“radical­sharing”­in­approaches­close­to­e-Science­discourage­any­attempt­to­decide­whether­publications­are­worth­pub-lishing,­this­decision­constitutes­a­crucial­condition­for­the­success­of­data­publishing­in­the­viewpoint­of­DPs.­Additionally,­DPs­complete­this­task­strategically­by­review­and­selection,­in­contrast­to­approaches­like­NPs­in­which­the­social­field­of­research­is­supposed­to­organize­itself.­Therefore,­DPs­tend­to­carry­out­a­social­management­function.­The­underlying­ques-tion­is­how­much­a­process­that­considers­itself­innovative­must­abstract­from­the­materiality­of­technology,­the­unit­of­information,­the­logic­of­sharing,­and­other­aspects,­so­that­digital­publications­might­be­better­received.

In­contrast,­Candela­et­al.­(2015)­accentuate­the­linkage­function.­In­their­survey­on­DPs,­cited­here­several­times­already,­the­authors­complain­that­there­is­a­“lack­of­standards­in­this­area”­(1752).­Standardization­of­DPs­is­conceived­as­a­necessary­step­to­create­better­conditions­for­data­publications.­In­order­to­achieve­such­standardization,­they­present­an­

Publishing-Com Bubble 187

entity-relationship-model,­as­the­DRIVER­project­has­done­for­EPs.­In­this­model­the­structure­of­DPs­is­related­to­the­structure­of­traditional­articles­(see­figure­4.2).

Consequently,­the­data­paper­is­a­subclass­of­the­common­journal­article­form.­The­one­thing­that­distinguishes­it­from­this­form­is­its­connected-ness­to­a­data­resource,­as­shown­in­the­figure.­Framing­DPs­like­this­obviously­implies­more­than­making­the­link­feature­of­DPs­more­under-standable.­It­suggests­a­certain­judgment­which­becomes­transparent­in­the­summary­of­the­survey.­In­this­summary,­DPs­are­described­as­a­con-cept­that­lags­behind­other­concepts­developed­earlier­(1761).­The­authors­suggest­that­DPs­should­borrow­ideas­from­EPs­in­future­versions,­to­over-come­the­problems­of­“no,­slow,­incomplete,­inaccurate,­or­unmodifiable­communication”­(1760).

[Figure­4.2]­Data­Papers­in­an­UML­view­by­Candela­et­al.­(2015)

The­critique­that­DPs­are­a­concept­not­worthy­of­further­development­has­already­been­raised.­In­2013,­Callaghan­defended­the­DP­against­accusations­such­as­their­being­a­“soon-to-be-obsolete­stepping­stone­to­something­better.”­In­light­of­the­overview­of­different­goals­and­functions­of­DPs,­it­is­now­possible­to­assess­this­critique­better.

First,­the­original­argument,­that­DPs­lack­conceptual­standardization,­misses­the­whole­point.­Social­embeddings­and­context-aware­technical­flexibility­are­the­most­important­aspects,­conceptually­opposed­to­the­idea­of­formal­consistency­and­strictness.­With­this­priority,­the­concept­of­DPs­became successful after many other approaches putting a technological model­first­have­failed­to­create­impact.­The­existence­and­success­of­Data­Papers­is­a­testimony­of­this­failure.

Secondly,­the­misunderstanding­of­the­context­of­DPs­leads­to­a­confusing­model­of­DPs.­The­point­is­not­only­that­a­formal­model­of­DPs­has­little­to­offer.­In­fact,­the­inclusion­of­two­link­relations­does­offer­little­compared­to­the­written­evaluation­of­the­last­paragraphs.­It­conceals­the­whole­

188 Beyond the Flow

metaphorical­meaning­of­these­links,­not­just­linking­texts­with­data­but­in­the­end­also­stakeholders,­communities,­and­knowledge­cultures.

Correspondingly,­Parsons­and­Fox­(2013)­ask:­“Is­Data­Publication­the­Right­Metaphor?”­They­argue­that­the­term­data­publication­does­not­well­represent­the­distinct­ways­in­which­research­communities­perceive­and­use­data.­The­different­ways,­however,­in­which­DPs­are­implemented­and­which­are­indicated­in­greater­detail­below,­show­that­this­variety­has­its­place­within­existing­DPs.­It­is­specifically­not­something­that­had­to­be­overcome.

Third,­the­critique­of­a­lack­of­innovation­is­misleading­because­DPs­seek­to­establish­practices­of­innovation­instead­of­presenting­ideas­that­express­a­high­level­of­innovative­thought.­Data­Papers­are­significantly­more­successful­than­other­digital­publishing­concepts.­Accordingly,­Assante­et­al.­write­in­their­conclusion­that:

…­data­journals­are­now­an­established­phenomenon­in­the­scientific­literature.­In­fact,­the­number­of­published­data­papers­and­data­journals­is­rapidly­growing;­23.5%­of­the­existing­data­papers­were­pub-lished­in­2013.­(Assante­et­al.­2015,­1760)

However,­it­is­not­only­the­number­of­publication­channels­for­DPs­giving­evidence­of­their­success.­The­fact­that­also­stakeholders­like­Thomson Reuters­make­heavy­use­of­DPs­to­feed­their­Data­Citation­Index­(Force­et­al.­2016),­as­well­as­the­number­of­different­disciplines­in­which­the­concept­of­DPs­is­adopted­support­this­judgment.

Additionally,­there­are­very­innovative­DPs­in­the­sense­that­is­used­by­Candela­et­al.­(2005).­The­Biodiversity­Data­Journal,­for­instance,­uses­filled­out­metadata­templates­to­generate­written­parts­in­a­manuscript­on­the­fly,­(Smith­et­al.­2013;­Robertson­et­al.­2014)­thereby­automatizing­the­writing­process.­The­semantic­tagging­of­entities­in­the­paper,­similar­to­SPs,­is­semi-automatically­taking­place­within­the­authoring­environ-ment­provided­by­the­publisher­Pensoft.­Information­is­finally­extracted­from­the­DP­once­it­is­published­and­exposed­as­data­on­its­own­(Smith­et­al.­2013,­8).­Thereby,­this­specific­example­of­a­DP­comprises­a­whole­sequence­of­integrated­and­highly­sophisticated­innovations,­going­from­datasets­to­articles­to­processed­standardized­meta-data.­Although­it­is­not­the­purpose­of­DPs­to­comply­with­this­notion­of­innovation,­it­is­not­true­that­DPs­cannot­provide­it­if­it­fits­in­with­the­respective­publishing­environment.

Publishing-Com Bubble 189

A Family Resemblance Between Different Implementations

The­last­argument­draws­attention­to­another­facet­of­DPs.­As­mentioned­previously,­DPs­are­not­meant­to­establish­a­new­fixed­standard­pub-lication­format.­Obviously,­this­means­that­there­are­many­different­DP­implementations.­While­the­aforementioned­Biodiversity­Journal­complies­with­many­ideas­from­the­field­of­e-Science,­the­other­examples­mentioned­above­suggest­different­preferences.­In­fact,­DPs­are­used­by­stakeholders­to­promote­a­variety­of­ideas­depending­on­the­stakeholders’­priorities.

In­Rees’­working­paper,­the­relatively­simple­definition­of­DPs­is­followed­by­a­very­detailed­list­of­recommendations.­These­recommendations­suggest­using­open­standards­for­a­formal­description­of­DPs,­and­putting­particular­emphasis­on­licensing­of­datasets­in­the­public­domain.­As­a­member­of­Creative­Commons,­this­focus­is­a­reasonable­step.­Other­pub-lishers­of­DPs­show­less­interest­in­this­specific­issue.

The­DP­concept­presented­by­Newman­and­Corke­(2009)­includes­the­pub-lication­of­DPs­as­printed­articles.­Mostly,­DPs­are­published­online,­and­many­take­a­hybrid­approach.­The­Biodiversity­Data­Journal­print-,­PDF-,­and­xml-versions­are­all­offered­at­once.­The­connection­between­datasets­and­articles­may­similarly­look­very­different.­Some­DPs­even­embed­chunks­of­the­dataset­they­describe,­others­are­automatically­updated­when­relevant­chunks­of­the­corresponding­dataset­are­updated.­Most­often,­there­is­a­link­with­a­persistent­PID­which­leads­to­the­dataset,­but­sometimes­DPs­policies­do­not­require­this,­either.­Some­DPs­additionally­experiment­with­new­types­of­reviewing,­more­precisely­the­open­peer­review approach25.­Many­of­the­differences­of­DP­implementations­are­sum-marized­by­Candela­et­al.­(2015).

Data Papers as Boundary Objects

Instead­of­creating­isolated­reference­implementations,­DPs­provoke­innovation­from­within­the­existing­publishing­ecologies.

The­summary­of­aspects­and­functions­of­DPs­has­made­clear­how­much­the­concept­is­committed­to­the­idea­of­enabling­innovation­in­scholarly­publishing­instead­of­just­presenting­an­innovative­idea.­These­are­two­different­motivational­needs­which­need­to­be­distinguished­clearly.­

25­ Open­peer­review­is­a­set­of­alternative­propositions­in­order­to­make­the­peer­review­process­more­transparent.­Open­peer­review­may­include­among­other­things­that­the­review­process­happens­online,­that­the­reviews­are­published­together­with­the­publication,­or­that­authors­have­the­ability­to­interact­with­reviewers.

190 Beyond the Flow

Otherwise,­the­assessment­of­DPs­is­not­able­to­grasp­their­most­valuable­features.­This­is­the­problem­of­the­evaluation­by­Candela­et­al.­(2015).­If­the­key­aspect­of­DPs­is­the­provision­of­a­link,­as­the­authors­suggest,­then­this­link­connects­far­more­than­a­text­resource­with­a­data­resource.

Data­Papers­link­stakeholders­to­stakeholders,­different­ways­of­perceiving­and­using­data,­data­with­metadata,­different­ambitions,­and­of­course­also­different­ideas­of­how­publishing­will­change.­Regarding­this­final­aspect­it­is­not­surprising­that­it­is­possible­to­find­key­features­of­other­publication­concepts­in­one­or­the­other­instance­of­DPs.­In­this­section,­SPs,­like­tagging,­the­existence­of­DPs­across­different­formats­as­in­HPs,­and­the­automatization­of­its­creation­process­as­in­APs­was­mentioned­explicitly.­Weilenmann­(2014)­furthermore­discusses­DPs­in­terms­of­new­forms­of­information­units­as­well,­which­is­reminiscent­of­the­argument­of­MAs.­Data­Papers­are­indeed­a­hybrid­concept.­They­are­not­aimed­at­imposing­a­standard­but­at­creating­better­conditions­for­standardization­in­digital­publishing.­Thus,­it­misses­the­point­to­demand­a­more­standardized­version­of­DPs­as­has­been­done­by­Candela­et­al.­(2015).

In­the­end,­DPs­also­do­connect­the­past­of­publishing­with­the­future.­By­virtue­of­being­a­hybrid­concept,­they­function­like­a­boundary­object26 of­which­different­stakeholders­and­research­communities­can­be­a­part.­Therefore,­it­does­not­surprise­that­different­authors­define­a­different­period­for­the­emergence­of­DPs.­It­also­fits­well­in­this­context­that­Rees­(2010)­encourages­writing­DPs­about­datasets­that­were­created­in­the­past­and­are­not­available­in­digital­form.

Like­HPs,­DPs­stand­out­by­the­strong­emphasis­they­put­on­cultural­and­social­aspects­of­publishing.­The­difference­is­that­DPs­as­boundary­objects­are­still­a­hybrid­concept.­It­is­a­concept­used­to­mobilize­the­community­around­scholarly­publishing.­In­the­case­of­HPs,­things­are­the­other­way­around.­Hybrid­Publishing­is­an­attempt­to­mobilize­the­community­so­that­new­sustainable­forms­of­publishing­might­be­forged.

26­ The­concept­of­boundary­objects,­stemming­from­sociology­and­information­science,­is­an­object­that­is­both­flexible­enough­to­adapt­to­the­specific­situation­of­different­socio-cultural­contexts­and­stable­enough­to­share­an­identifiable­idea­across­these­contexts.­As­such,­it­is­an­object­that­is­perfectly­suited­for­linking­different­com-munities­together.­For­further­details­on­the­concept­refer­to­Star­and­Griesemer­(1989).

Publishing-Com Bubble 191

Self-Contained PublicationsThe­final­concept­in­the­current­history­of­digital­publication­formats­could­be­called­Self-Contained­Publications­(hereafter­referred­to­as­SCPs).­At­the­beginning­of­the­second­decade­of­the­new­millennium,­the­ongoing­success­of­the­PDF­format,­despite­all­efforts­to­establish­new­publication­formats,­led­to­a­systematic­evaluation­of­its­strengths.­According­to­Pettifer­et­al.­(2011,­213)­around­eighty­percent­of­digital­publications­were­still­in­PDF­format.

A­comprehensive­overview­of­strengths­is­offered­by­Attwood­et­al.­(2010),­Pettifer­et­al.­(2011),­and­Willinsky,­Garnett,­and­Pan­Wong­(2012).­According­to­them,­PDFs­are­reliably­resistant­to­legal­and­technological­changes,­as­well­as­changes­of­the­content­itself.­They­can­be­used­personally,­on­a­local­machine,­and­offline­by­researchers.­They­are­built­on­top­of­a­mature­technology­associated­with­a­plethora­of­tools­for­their­creation­and­con-sumption.­The­presentation­of­the­content­is­most­often­carefully­designed­in­terms­of­layout­rules­benefiting­from­a­long­history­of­reading­expe-riences.­Relatively­standardized­workflows­exist­for­the­creation­of­PDFs­in­the­publishing­process­between­researcher­and­publisher.­According­to­Willinsky,­Garnett,­and­Pan­Wong­(2012,­sec. Conclusion),­this­is­not­the­case­for­other­publication­formats,­especially­SPs.

In­an­attempt­to­explain­the­success­of­the­PDF,­Pettifer­et­al.­(2011)­discuss­the­state­of­the­discourse­on­digital­publishing­in­relation­to­the­image­Ceci n est pas une pipe27­by­René­Magritte.­In­the­same­way­in­which­the­image­title­seeks­to­highlight­the­difference­between­an­object­and­a­certain­rep-resentation,­people­should­not­confuse­publications­as­real­objects­and­publications­as­abstract­concepts.­The­authors­distinguish­between­works,­expressions­of­such­works,­and­their­manifestations.­A­work­is­an­abstract­entity­which­may­have­several­expressions.­Each­expression­is­realized­while­having­distinct­goals­in­mind.

The­above­listed­benefits­of­PDFs­address­specific­usage­patterns­and­publishing­requirements.­Other­formats­address­different­patterns­and­requirements.­The­main­claim­of­the­paper­is­that­no­technical­format­as­such­should­be­confused­with­the­concept­of­a­publication.­Digital­pub-lishing­in­particular­offers­and­requires­expressions­of­publications­that­aim­at­very­different­usage­scenarios.­The­lack­of­success­of­new­publication­formats­is­due­to­their­goal­of­replacing­the­PDF­and­to­the­devaluation­of­specific­advantages­of­the­PDF­over­other­formats.

27­ “This­is­not­a­pipe”­(author’s­translation)

192 Beyond the Flow

Putting­it­more­concisely,­this­line­of­argument­is­similar­to­the­approach­of­HPs.­The­consequences­are­very­different,­however.­According­to­Attwood­et­al.­(2010,­569),­many­of­the­aforementioned­benefits­result­from­the­fact­that­a­PDF­is­a­“self-contained”­document.­All­its­components,­information­what­to­do­with­them,­and­how­to­render­and­present­them­are­part­of­the­same­object­or­more­precisely­the­same­file.­A­PDF­packages­all­these­things­in­a­way­that­is­very­hard­to­modify.­In­fact,­PDFs­are­even­capable­of­storing­computer­code.­It­is­not­hard­to­see­that­these­characteristics­fundamentally­oppose­main­principles­of­SPs,­ROs,­and­LPs­among­others.­However,­as­Willinsky,­Garnett,­and­Pan­Wong­put­it:

If­we­were­being­cynical,­we­could­easily­suggest­that­it­is­exactly­PDF’s­stodgy­inflexibility­that­has­borne­out­its­success,­and­we­will­for­that­matter­always­have­some­need­for­a­stodgy,­inflexible­document.­(Willinsky,­Garnett,­and­Pan­Wong­2012,­sec. Conclusion)

Contributions­in­this­section­therefore­all­build­upon­the­idea­of­Self-Con-tained­Publications.

Self-Containedness and Emulation

Pettifer­et­al.­(2011)­insist­that­data­should­be­stored­in­the­PDF­and­not­just­referenced­there.­Under­names­such­as­Utopia Documents­(Attwood­et­al.­2010),­or­interactive PDFs­(Labtiva­Inc.­2015),­PDF-like­publications­are­created­that­try­to­implement­some­of­the­features­proposed­in­other­pub-lication­formats­within­the­PDF­framework.­These­initiatives­mostly­start­by­making­changes­on­the­application­level­(reading­software­and­authoring­tools)­and­then­on­the­format­level.­Significantly,­approaches­like­the­one­by­Willinsky,­Garnett,­and­Pan­Wong­(2012)­even­try­to­show­how­a­certain­progress­can­be­achieved­just­by­using­the­existing­potentials­of­PDFs­differently­and­without­any­change­to­the­format.

The­two­main­points­behind­the­line­of­argument­by­Pettifer­et­al.­have­some­weaknesses.­On­the­one­hand,­a­PDF­is­not­really­self-contained.­It­still­needs­software­to­be­presented.­On­the­other­hand,­the­point­of­embracing­multiple­expressions­of­publications­instead­of­pushing­a­specific­expression­is­not­completely­consistent­with­extending­the­scope­of­PDFs­themselves.

However,­the­use­of­the­term­self-containedness,­as­introduced­by­the­authors,­is­problematic­itself.­It­is­hard­to­imagine­any­digital­publication­that­does­not­need­some­type­of­additional­software­environment­in­order­to­function.­Self-Contained­Publications­are­thus­not­really­self-contained,­

Publishing-Com Bubble 193

but­focus­on­the­development­of­publications­that­allow­a­much­higher­degree­of­self-containedness.­Regarding­the­diversity­of­expressions,­it­needs­to­be­said­that­the­authors­just­use­this­argument­to­strengthen­a­publication­format­which­had­become­the­symbol­of­what­needs­to­be­overcome.

The­enhancement­of­PDFs,­furthermore,­is­not­a­complete­refutation­of­the­diversity­argument.­As­opposed­to­all­other­formats,­the­PDF­became­a­standard­because­it­builds­much­more­upon­the­long­history­of­print­publications.­There­are­fewer­elements­in­this­history­which­other­formats­can­refer­back­to,­and­thus­also­fewer­existing­supportive­mechanisms­and­organizational­means­for­these­formats­to­benefit­from.­Its­very­maturity­and­level­of­adoption­compared­to­other­solutions­(see­below)­are­the­reasons­why­the­authors­have­chosen­it.

Scientific­Publication­Packages,­ROs,­and­related­formats­had­already­integrated­software­as­a­key­resource­into­the­publication.­Building­upon­the­idea­of­linked­open­data,­they­nonetheless­do­not­include­software­in­a­self-contained­manner.­Yet­in­2012,­Zhao­et­al.­(2012)­present­a­survey­which­shows­that­at­that­time,­eighty­percent­of­ROs­from­the­myExperiment­portal­could­not­be­used­any­longer­because­the­computational­environ-ment­in­which­they­had­been­created­was­not­reproducible.­Meng­and­Thain­(2017,­705)­also­refer­to­this­issue­as­the­“workflow­decay.”­Boettiger­(2015,­72)­similarly­remarks­that­reproducible­research,­despite­all­these­attempts,­is­not­realized­due­to­issues­like­unmaintained­software,­lack­of­documentation,­and­“barriers­to­adoption­and­reuse­in­existing­solutions.”

Such­experiences­also­initiated­a­development­process­of­SCPs­in­e-Science­domains.­Most­of­these­formats­make­use­of­so-called­emulation.­Put­simply,­emulation­is­the­ability­of­an­operating­system­to­emulate­a­specific­software­environment­within­itself,­such­as­another­operating­system.28 With some technological assistance it is possible at any point in time to save­the­state­of­an­entire­operating­system­to­a­file.­This­file­is­most­often­called­an­image.­When­image­files­are­opened­on­a­computer­capable­of­emulation,­the­user­is­presented­with­the­very­same­operating­system­in­the­state­in­which­it­was­saved­on­the­original­computer.

28­ The­term­emulation­is­not­used­in­the­strict­way­that­complies­with­the­subtle­dis-tinctions­between­this­concept­and­comparable­concepts­like­virtualization­and­containerization­among­others­from­the­field­of­computer­science.­Here­it­is­used­instead­as­an­umbrella­concept­for­all­these­approaches­in­order­to­prevent­the­reader­from­having­to­deal­with­difficulties­that­are­not­crucial­for­the­present­work’s­line­of­argument.

194 Beyond the Flow

Publications­as­images­do­not­only­allow­publishing­of­content,­but­also­of­what­is­required­to­open,­render,­or­execute­the­content.­Of­course,­a­program­to­open­and­run­the­image­itself­is­still­needed.­The­issue­never-theless­shifts­to­a­higher­level­of­abstraction,­as­has­been­noted­before.­The­publication­is­self-contained,­because­it­puts­all­resources,­and­also­all­applications,­programming­libraries,­and­compilers­among­other­things­into­one­file­in­order­to­interact­with­the­resources.­Additionally,­it­could­be­argued­that­this­higher­level­of­technological­abstraction­reduces­technical­heterogeneity.

The­shift­to­emulation­and­the­results­from­the­survey­confirm­from­an­opposite­point­of­view­what­Willinsky,­Garnett,­and­Pan­Wong­(2012)­said­about­the­inflexibility­of­the­PDF.­A­certain­degree­of­inflexibility,­or­better­stability,­appears­necessary­for­publication­formats­to­meet­their­requirements.­Often,­earlier­projects­have­tried­to­achieve­this­sta-bility­by­attempting­to­propose­technological­or­semantic­standards­for­the­structure­of­publications.­The­proliferation­of­publication­formats­described­in­this­work,­together­with­insights­like­the­one­by­Zhao­et­al.­(2012,­see­also­above),­suggest­that­the­predicted­standardization­process­has­not­adequately­taken­place.­Liew­et­al.­(2016,­66:1)­see­the­SCP­approach­as­a­response­to­“the­complexity­and­diversity­of­applications,­the­diversity­of­analysis­goals,­the­heterogeneity­of­computing­platforms,­and­the­volume­and­distribution­of­data.”

Besides­maturity­and­self-containedness,­there­is­another­interesting­facet­of­SCPs.­In­the­same­way­Pettifer­et­al.­(2011)­highlight­the­merits­of­PDFs­in­contrast­to­approaches­appearing­more­digitally­native,­the­authors­stress­the­necessity­of­narrative­form­and­illustrative­content­in­pub-lications.­Their­critique­is­explicitly­directed­at­Mons'­considerations­on­NPs,­but­addresses­any­initiative­that­privileges­computational­features­of­digital­publications.­They­elegantly­turn­the­argument­upside­down­that­these­elements­only­compensate­the­absence­of­data­and­experiments­in­historical­publications.­They­point­out­that­only­the­worst­programmers­leave­code­uncommented.­This­is­so­because­code­itself­is­hard­to­read­and­understand­even­for­the­people­who­wrote­it.­Thus,­code,­data,­text,­and­illustrations­among­others­should­not­just­be­perceived­as­serving­a­purpose­in­their­own­right.­They­should­be­taken­as­different­means­to­serve­one­and­the­same­purpose­—­transmitting­scientific­results­and­truths­—­and­therefore­combined­as­such.

In­fact,­such­an­integrated­global­model­exists­since­the­early­eighties­even­in­computer­science.­This­model­is­called­literate programming­(Knuth­1984).­

Publishing-Com Bubble 195

While­early­models­of­literate­programming­mainly­addressed­the­issue­of­code­documentation,­later­adoptions­extended­it­to­a­unique­way­of­computing­and­for­the­creation­of­digital­publications.­In­so-called­electronic notebooks,­executable­code­alternates­with­layouted­text,­diagrams,­and­rich­media­with­equal­rights­and­in­a­narrative­linear­way.­These­notebooks­are­used­heavily­both­in­computer­science­and­by­researchers­who­use­computation­in­research.

The­popularity­of­projects­like­the­jupyter notebook­(see­figure­4.3;­Perez­and­Granger­2013),­the­beaker notebook29,­but­also­projects­like­knitr30 give evidence­about­the­success­of­this­approach.

[Figure­4.3]­The­Jupyter­Electronic­Notebook

Electronic­notebooks­are­not­only­used­to­produce­informal­publications­like­research­blogs­(Fanghor­2014)­but­also­advertised­for­broader­adoption­(Perkel­2018)­—­not­without­success.­In­2014,­O’Reilly,­one­of­the­biggest­publishers­of­computer­science­books,­announced­that­it­accepts­jupyter­notebooks­from­authors­as­templates­for­books­to­print­(Odewahn,­Kelley,­and­Madsen­2014;­Odewahn­2015).­Additionally,­the­authoring­platform­Authorea31­which­enables­direct­submission­of­authored­publications­to­publishers­from­earth­sciences,­life­sciences­and­astronomy­permits­embedding­jupyter­notebooks­into­the­manuscript.­Thereby­jupyter­

29­ http://beakernotebook.com/30­ https://yihui.name/knitr/31­ https://www.authorea.com/

196 Beyond the Flow

notebooks­are­part­of­publishing­workflows­“at­each­of­the­top­100­research­universities­worldwide”­(jupytercon­2017).

Curiously­enough,­the­jupyter­notebook­was­also­originally­invented­to­provide­“an­open­source­framework­for­interactive,­collaborative,­and­reproducible­scientific­computing­and­education”­(Perez­and­Granger­2013;­Wittek­2014;­Thomas­et­al.­2016).­Nevertheless,­instead­of­separating­articles­from­data­and­software­the­jupyter­notebook­attempts­to­achieve­this­goal­by­tying­all­these­elements­more­closely­together.

However,­this­digression­to­electronic­notebooks­was­not­just­intended­to­demonstrate­that­arguments­similar­to­those­provided­by­Pettifer­et­al.­exist­in­e-Science,­too.­In­fact,­electronic­notebooks­have­recently­become­SCPs­in­their­own­right.­Originally,­they­did­not­include­the­software­libraries­required­by­the­code­in­the­notebook­in­order­to­function.­They­provided­an­environment­that­can­make­use­of­such­libraries­if­they­exist­on­a­computer­in­order­to­execute­parts­of­code­in­place,­or­more­precisely­inside­the­notebook.­In­this­scenario,­electronic­notebooks­may­run­into­the­same­problems­outlined­by­Zhao­et­al.­(2012)­and­others.

To­prevent­this,­projects­using­electronic­notebooks­for­publishing­sim-ilarly­recommend­emulation­strategies.­O’Reilly,­accordingly,­proposes­a­so-called­Docker32­container­which­does­not­only­contain­the­electronic­notebook,­but­also­the­whole­computational­environment­used­by­the­notebook­in­order­to­create­a­“self-contained”­environment­(Cito­et­al.­2017,­323).­A­comparable­path­is­taken­by­the­project­Binder33.

On­the­one­hand,­electronic­notebooks­have­become­SCPs.­On­the­other­hand,­SCP­projects­which­originally­had­nothing­to­do­with­the­approach­of­electronic­notebooks­use­literate­programming­concepts­to­circumscribe­their­key­features.­Therefore,­SCPs­do­not­only­tone­down­the­distinction­between­the­content­of­publications­and­its­carrier,­but­also­the­hierarchy­between­different­modes­of­representation.­It­could­even­be­said­that­SCPs­implicitly­use­some­of­the­arguments­of­TPs.­This­is­important­because­electronic­notebooks­and­emulation­are­deeply­linked­to­e-Science­and­computer­science,­where,­as­was­shown­already,­text­has­been­widely­treated­as­documentation.­Accordingly,­Welch­et­al.­stress:

The­preservation­community­could­benefit­from­widening­its­collecting­scope­to­include­complex­objects­such­at­scientific­desktops,­databases,­machines­running­networked­business­processes­or­

32­ https://www.docker.com/33­ http://mybinder.org

Publishing-Com Bubble 197

computers­….­Such­objects­are­not­just­interesting­in­their­own­right­but­also­have­the­potential­to­provide­a­more­immersive­and­con-textually­rich­experience­than­simpler­digital­object.­(Welch­et­al.­2012)

Up­to­this­point,­two­different­strategies­(PDF­and­emulation)­to­achieve­the­goal­of­self-containedness­have­been­introduced.­Other­strategies­could­be­described­which­try­to­achieve­similar­goals.­However,­it­is­a­comparison­between­the­different­types­of­emulation­techniques­that­offers­most­meaningful­insights­into­the­most­recent­state­of­digital­publications.­Formally,­such­differences­could­be­split­into­two­groups:­differences­pertaining­to­the­questions­of­at­which­point­self-containedness­begins,­and­those­of­applying­different­mechanisms­to­produce­self-containing­objects.­Santana-Perez­et­al.­(2017)­and­Nüst­et­al.­(2017)­also­provide­an­overview­of­scholarly­publications­using­emulation,­but­one­that­is­less­sys-tematic­than­is­intended­for­the­next­section.

What Is a Self-Contained Object?

The­question­concerning­the­nature­of­self-contained­objects­is­a­ques-tion­of­scope­as­well­as­of­content­type.­What­does­a­publication­need­to­include­in­order­to­not­significantly­depend­on­resources­out­of­its­con-trol?­Definitions­vary­between­extremely­simple­and­highly­sophisticated.­In­the­first­category,­there­are­contributions­like­the­one­by­Pebesma,­Nüst,­and­Bivand­(2012),­who­propose­to­use­the­concept­of­a­dependency tree­coming­from­software­package­management­in­the­UNIX­world.­Put­simply,­a­dependency­tree­is­a­description­of­software­packages­that­need­to be available in a software environment so that another software can be executed.­A­formal­description­of­the­additional­software­installed­during­the­process­of­installing­the­original­piece­of­software­can­be­read­by­another­system­in­order­to­reproduce­the­necessary­environment­for­the­presentation34­of­a­publication­on­another­computer.

A­list­of­names­and­version­numbers­of­required­software­is­a­simple­thing.­The­other­side­regarding­scope­is­represented­by­approaches­like­Paper Mâché­(Brammer­et­al.­2011)­and­SHARE­(Mazanek­2011;­van­Gorp­and­Mazanek­2011).­The­underlying­strategy­behind­these­projects­has­already­been­discussed.­These­projects­create­images­of­so-called­virtual­machines­which­contain­the­“frozen”­version­of­a­whole­computer­system,­providing­it­

34­ Here­presentation­includes­both­running­computational­experiments­as­well­as­making­data­sensually­perceptible,­for­instance,­by­showing­a­page­or­visualization­on­the­screen.

198 Beyond the Flow

as­a­transferable­and­copyable­file.­The­approach­is­accordingly­often­called­full­virtualization35.

Dependency­trees­and­virtual­machine­images­could­be­understood­as­the­two­poles­of­the­scope­in­which­it­is­reasonably­possible­to­discuss­the­theme­of­self-containedness.­However,­it­is­the­inclusion­of­other­concepts such as sandboxes­and­containers­through­which­this­discus-sion­gains­theoretical­value.­The­benefit­of­sandboxes­for­SCPs­is­high-lighted­by­Meng­et­al.­(2015).­In­principle,­sandboxes­are­working­spaces­on­a­computer­which­are­gradually­isolated­and­independent­from­the­underlying­operating­system.­As­such,­they­have­their­own­disk­space­and­configuration,­but­may­still­use­core­services­and­software­of­the­operating­system.­One­use-case­for­sandboxes­is­software­development,­where­it­is­used­to­produce­an­environment­important­for­the­software­project­that­does­however­not­affect­the­operating­system.­It­is­possible,­for­instance,­that­a­software­project­needs­another­version­of­a­software­library­than­the­operating­system.­Sandboxes­allow­use­of­a­specific­version­in­the­development­process­without­the­need­to­remove­the­version­on­which­the­operating­system­depends.

Sandboxes­can­be­reproduced­on­another­operating­system.­The­things­they­are­not­able­to­reproduce­are­the­components­of­the­operating­system­that­the­sandbox­requires­in­order­to­function.­Following­Meng­et­al.­(2015),­this­is­the­point­where­containers­come­into­play.­Containers­do­not­contain­a whole operating system but only those software components crucial in­order­to­run­the­main­applications­in­the­container.­Accordingly,­this­approach­is­called­para-virtualization.­Regarding­SCPs,­Pham­et­al.­(2015)­call­containers­a­lightweight­virtualization­approach.­Containers­recently­became­a­very­successful­approach­in­many­areas­in­computer­science.­Besides­the­authors­mentioned­above,­Odewahn­(2015),­Cito,­Ferme,­and­Gall­(2016),­and­Boettiger­(2015)­propose­containers­as­part­of­the­concept­of­SCPs.

The­term­lightweight­indicates­one­of­the­reasons­that­led­to­a­reasonable­shift­to­containers­instead­of­virtual­machine­images.­All­authors­highlight­that­virtualization­is­expensive,­meaning­it­needs­a­lot­of­disk­space­and­computational­resources.­Consequently,­this­issue­poses­the­question­of­

35­ The­reader­should­remember­that­this­study,­for­the­purpose­of­simplicity,­refrains­from­making­all­the­subtle­distinctions­behind­some­of­the­concepts­in­this­field­of­research.­Here,­it­is­possible­to­equate­virtualization­with­emulation.­Full­virtualization­refers­to­the­fact­that­what­is­virtualized­really­is­an­entire­operating­system.

Publishing-Com Bubble 199

what­exactly­is­necessary­for­a­reproducible­publication.­This­question­is­in­turn­just­another­way­to­ask­what­self-containedness­is.

Correspondingly,­Zheng­and­Thain­(2015)­describe­four­different­scenarios­for­containerization­in­which­the­boundaries­of­each­container­are­set­differently.­Terminologically­interesting­is­the­fact­that­boundary­is­defined­by­the­term’s­isolation­and­consistency.­Although­these­terms­have­domain­specific­meaning­in­computer­science,­such­meaning­is­easily­transferable­to­a­theoretical­discussion­on­what­it­means­to­create­a­self-contained­object.­Finally,­the­authors­measure­the­“costs,”­i.e. the­necessary­efforts­to­produce­SCPs,­for­each­container­type.

Indeed,­in­recent­years­the­discussion­on­self-containedness­turned­theoretical­within­the­SCPs­community­itself.­Cranmer­et­al.­(2015),­who­evaluate­different­containerization­strategies­for­the­ATLAS36­archive,­introduce­the­difference­between­reproducibility­and­replicability.­The­latter­addresses­a­strategy­in­which­the­underlying­technologies­of­a­publication­are­constantly­updated­and­not­conserved.­The­goal­is­to­not­reproduce­the­same­software­environment,­but­to­assure­that­the­supposed­key­aspects­of­a­publication­can­be­presented­in­an­always­up-to-date­software­environment.­With­this­distinction,­the­question­of­the­identity­of­publications­completely­shifts­away­from­the­publication­as­a­physical­—­in­the­sense­of­being­stored­on­a­hard­drive­—­object­to­pub-lications­as­ideal­things.

Likewise,­Meng­et­al.­(2015,­139)­discuss­the­distinction­between­repeat-ability­and­reproducibility.­While­the­first­term­describes­the­capacity­to­regenerate­the­same­results­again­and­again,­the­second­concept­emphasizes­the­capability­of­changing­parameters­within­the­same­set-up­that­was­originally­published.­Arguing­that­such­set-ups­are­the­real­outputs­of­a­research­process,­the­question­of­what­the­core­of­the­publication­really­is­once­more­put­into­a­new­context.­Welch­et­al.­conclude­their­con-tribution with questions such as:

What­exactly­comprises­the­object­which­is­to­be­preserved­authentically?­Are­the­numerous­operations­to­reduce­the­original­disk­image­size­identity­transformations?­Could­the­preservation­of­the­integrity­of­the­preservation­target’s­content­be­proven­in­an­automated­way?­How­much­change­of­the­original­image­on­the­block­level­is­acceptable?­(Welch­et­al.­2012,­278)

36­ https://atlas.cern/

200 Beyond the Flow

How to Obtain Self-Containedness

In­consequence­to­different­definitions­of­self-containedness,­different­strategies­exist­for­identifying­all­necessary­components.­On­a­general­level,­such­strategies­distinguish­between­imaging,­tracking,­and­describing.­Additionally,­strategies­could­be­further­categorized­into­imper-ative­and­declarative­approaches.37

Imaging­approaches­were­discussed­at­the­beginning­of­this­section­(see­also­Welch­et­al.­2012).­Automation­strategies­try­to­track­computational­research­processes­in­a­computational­manner.­A­piece­of­software­that­monitors­a­given­research­process­is­supposed­to­identify­and­record­any­of­its­involved­elements.­As­the­boundaries­of­SCPs­vary,­so­does­the­monitoring­software.­Some­approaches­include­the­development­of­software­specifically­designed­for­creating­SCPs­(Pham­et­al.­2015),­others­use­proven­standard­software­such­as­the­UNIX­tool­ptrace­(Meng­et­al.­2015).

Descriptive­strategies­create­SCPs­in­a­manual­fashion.­Boettiger­(2015),­for­instance,­outlines­the­usage­of­the­Docker­containerization­software­for­reproducible­research.­He­highlights­that­for­the­creation­of­such­con-tainers,­all­that­is­needed­is­a­small­shell script.38

Assembling­a­list­of­commands­to­create­a­container­is­one­approach.­Obviously,­it­depends­on­a­specific­computational­environment­such­as­Docker­to­be­functional.­Another­approach­is­to­use­so-called­declarative­semantics.­These­semantics­describe­the­features­of­the­expected­output­environment,­not­the­steps­required­to­get­that­environment.­Accordingly,­different­technological­environments­can­interpret­such­descriptions­in­their­own­way.­Boettiger­(2015,­73)­points­out­that­the­“black­box”­vir-tualization­is­seen­as­a­challenge­to­the­ideas­of­transparency­in­science­by­its­critics,­anyway.­Declarative­descriptions­help­to­overcome­this­situation.

The­use­of­declarative­semantics­for­the­description­of­computer­environ-ments­is­detailed­by­Santana-Perez­et­al.­(2014)­and­Santana-Perez­et­al.­(2017).­The­authors­remark­that­there­is­a­plethora­of­virtualization­and­containerization­software­already,­and­that­therefore­a­standardized­model­is­necessary­to­be­able­to­negotiate­between­projects.­Furthermore,­the­articles­demonstrate­how­the­use­of­such­models­in­research­can­enable­

37­ For­a­different­type­of­classification­see­Nüst­et­al.­(2017)38­ A­shell­script­is­basically­a­small­computer­program­using­a­UNIX­shell­environment.­

In­this­context­it­contains­a­sequence­of­commands­written­by­the­author­of­the­pub-lication­and­parsed­by­a­computer­to­create­the­container­environment.

Publishing-Com Bubble 201

purely­descriptive,­reproducible­digital­publications.­Purely­descriptive­here­means­that­the­software­and­other­resources­are­not­part­of­the­resulting­publications­any­longer.­In­the­context­of­this­work,­it­is­possible­to­say­that­such­publications­are­extended­versions­of­ROs.­They­do­not­only­contain­a­description­of­a­workflow­and­its­resources,­but­also­of­the­environment­in­which­this­workflow­takes­place.­Although­this­approach­addresses­vir-tualization,­it­just­remains­a­description.­Therefore,­it­is­not­really­an­SCP­anymore.­It­nevertheless­it­is­one­outcome­of­the­path­of­SCPs.

Nüst­et­al.­(2016)­and­Nüst­et­al.­(2017)­present­an­approach­that­is­more­of­a­hybrid.­The­concept­of­Executable Research Compendiums­(also­referred­to­as­ERC)­is­still­a­container,­but­a­container­which­follows­a­standardized­model­(also­referred­to­as­ERM)­of­what­SCPs­should­look­like.

The­designs­of­various­scopes­of­SCPs,­as­well­different­approaches­for­their­creation,­demonstrate­that­this­publication­concept­reintroduces­the­idea­of­sound­authoring­of­monolithic­objects,­instead­of­aggregating­information­units.­The­creation­of­containers­in­this­approach­is­a­process­of­decision­making­and­design,­carried­out­by­a­human­creator­in­the­first­place.­Even­if­automated­processes­put­the­container­together­at­the­end,­many­design­decisions­in­terms­of­what­is­required,­and­how­the­required­things­are­gathered­to­obtain­self-containedness,­must­be­made­in­advance.­This­observation­becomes­clearer­if­one­looks­at­four­of­five­major­issues­that­turn­up­during­the­creation­of­containerized­SCPs,­high-lighted­by­Meng­et­al.­(2015,­138–39).­These­issues­deal­with­the­aspects­of­dependencies,­configuration,­selectivity,­and­volatility­in­the­process­of­authoring­SCPs.

The­idea­of­authoring­as­a­human,­decision-driven­design­process­became­extremely­marginal­in­many­publication­concepts­in­the­last­chapter.­OLBs­and­ROs­were­aimed­at­unfiltered­mediation­of­the­research­process.­The­implementation­of­ROs­subsequently­showed­that­it­is­not­only­the­work-flow,­but­also­the­environment­of­the­workflow­that­needs­to­be­tracked.­In­a­final­step,­it­became­clear­that­the­environment­cannot­just­be­tracked,­but­depends­on­authoring­tasks.­This­means­that­while­the­act­of­authoring­seemed­illegitimate­at­the­beginning,­it­is­conceived­of­as­unavoidable­years­later.­To­push­things­further,­it­might­even­be­possible­to­argue­that­SCPs­today­“author”­different­modes­of­authoring­strategies,­such­as­imaging,­tracking,­and­describing.

202 Beyond the Flow

From Artifacts to Aggregations to Artifacts

Self-Contained­Publications­are­comparable­to­DPs­in­precisely­one­aspect.­Like­DPs,­the­concept­of­SCPs­is­an­open­and­inclusive­concept.­Most­approaches­to­SCPs­do­not­prescribe­the­exact­content­of­a­publication.­It­would,­for­instance,­be­easily­possible­to­turn­a­TP­into­a­SCP.­In­fact,­this­could­even­provide­a­solution­to­the­preservation­issue­of­TPs­raised­by­Ball­and­Eyman­(2015).­The­difference­between­DPs­and­SCPs­is­the­property­by­which­such­inclusiveness­is­achieved.­While­DPs­offer­a­flexible­and­open­concept,­SCPs­enable­technological­flexibility.­In­contrast,­this­means­that­DPs­are­criticized­as­in­need­of­technological­improvement­(see­section­on­DPs),­while­only­stakeholders­with­a­high­level­of­technological­under-standing­are­even­capable­of­authoring­SCPs.

As­described­at­the­beginning­of­this­section,­emulation­strategies­in­SCPs­were­also­the­result­of­issues­with­publication­concepts­such­as­ROs,­which­put­a­strong­emphasis­on­reproducibility.­Another­goal­of­ROs­was­to­build­publications­on­top­of­a­distributed­network­of­resources­linked­together­in­a­specific­way­in­each­publication.­Self-Contained­Publications­built­on­the­argument­that­distribution­is­not­a­feasible­way­of­organizing­publication­content.­Studies­from­within­the­research­field­of­SCPs­have­presented­a­lot­of­evidence­in­order­to­support­this­claim.­Emulation­and­packaging­are­the­opposite­approach­to­the­ideas­of­LOD,­but­it­is­considered­necessary­for­achieving­more­reproducibility.

The­consequence­of­this­decision­is­a­discussion­about­the­right­scope,­the­necessary­elements,­and­reliable­authoring­strategies­in­order­to­really­achieve­self-containedness.­This­discussion­has­highly­theoretical­implications,­and­sometimes­even­makes­use­of­poetical­phrases,­such­as­in­Welch­et­al.­(2012,­79),­stressing­that­the­creation­of­SCPs­need­“a­certain­‘cooperation’­of­the­original­operating­system.”­The­theoretical­dimension­of­such­discussions­of­cause­also­challenges­the­theoretical­foundations­behind­other­publication­types,­even,­or­especially,­when,­the­context­is­to­just­solve­concrete­technological­problems.­This­dimension,­more­precisely,­questions­the­scope­of­the­impact­of­notions­like­the­aggregative­nature­of­publications,­or­the­possibility­to­formalize­reproducibility.

The­fact­that­this­discussion­is­carried­on­by­computer­scientists,­and­thus within the same community in which such concepts were born in the­first­place,­supports­this­observation­further.­It­was­Herbert­Van­de­Sompel­who­coined­the­phrase­“From­Artifacts­to­Aggregations,”­and­who­significantly­influenced­a­whole­set­of­digital­publications­by­developing­the­OAI-ORE­model.­Yet,­with­the­emergence­of­SCPs,­the­notion­of­artifacts­

Publishing-Com Bubble 203

is­re-introduced,­and­the­term­re-appears­with­positive­connotation­by­authors­such­as­Welch­et­al.­(2012).

Although­SCPs­solve­some­problems­of­conceptual­and­technological­heterogeneity,­they­also­produce­their­own­type­of­heterogeneity.­This­heterogeneity­is­actively­addressed­by­Santana-Perez­et­al.­(2017),­and­regretted­by­Nüst­et­al.­(2016).­It­drives­a­new­attempt­to­define­formal­semantics­for­the­description­of­computational­environments­(Santana-Perez­et­al.­2014;­Santana-Perez­et­al.­2017),­or­for­the­components­that­scientific­publications­as­containers­should­provide.

In­light­of­the­last­paragraph,­SCPs­remain­a­concept­authentically­residing­in­the­field­of­computer­science.­The­suggestion­of­an­ontology­in­order­to­describe­computational­environments­in­a­standardized­way,­without­preserving­these­environments,­again­tries­to­find­a­technological­solution­to­a­problem­that­concepts­such­as­HPs­and­DPs­predominantly­treat­as­a­social­issue.

An­interesting­aspect­of­SCPs­is­the­fact­that­a­certain­sensibility­towards­social­issues­of­publication­concepts­emerges­in­a­completely­different­area.­The­argument­behind­the­development­of­“light-weight”­container­solutions­instead­of­operating-system­images­has­been­the­inefficient­amount­of­resources­(disk­space­among­others)­these­images­require.­In­other­contributions,­the­term­“costs”­is­used.­Zheng­and­Thain­(2015)­offer­a­comprehensive­evaluation­of­different­cost­types­for­distinct­approaches­to­SCPs.

Although­this­term­is­not­meant­monetarily­in­the­first­place,­it­effectively­addresses­monetary­issues.­Computational­resources­consist­of­hard-ware­and­energy­used­by­this­hardware.­Both­must­be­bought­in­the­same­way­as­time­resources­equate­to­salaries.­Hence,­the­recurring­theme­of­costs­in­SCPs­corresponds­with­an­awareness­of­what­could­be­called­the­social­weight­of­digital­publication­formats,­that­is,­the­perceivable­efforts­necessary­to­treat­these­publication­concepts­as­a­future­standard.­Similar­quantifications­of­efforts­cannot­be­found­for­other­publication­concepts­in­such­detail­as­in­Zheng­and­Thain­(2015).

These­efforts­are­concrete­and­countable,­compared­to­the­more­abstract­references­to­necessary­efforts­in­concepts­like­SPs.­Self-contained­pub-lications­might­make­sense­for­such­issues,­due­to­the­key­decision­to­not­make­a­formal­distinction­between­form­and­content­of­a­publication,­the­allegedly­contingent­social­aspects,­and­the­technologically­pure­parts­of­a­digital­publication.

204 Beyond the Flow

Putting Digital Publications into ContextThe­period­described­in­this­chapter­marks­a­significant­change­in­the­development­of­digital­publications.

Sometimes­openly,­but­in­most­cases­implicitly,­the­four­concepts­in­this­chapter­relativize­many­of­the­paradigms­advocated­in­earlier­projects.­Hence,­in­HPs­the­discourse­of­open­access­was­put­into­perspective,­but­not­abandoned.­Instead,­a­strategy­of­“subsequent­monetization”­was­proposed­that­accepts­certain­social­dependencies.­Hybrid­Publications,­at­the­same­time,­tone­down­the­judgmental­distinctions­between­new­and­old­publication­formats.­They­do­so­by­arguing­that­different­publication­formats­serve­different­needs.­The­idea­that­“old”­needs­disappear,­just­because­digital­technologies­are­able­to­also­serve­other­needs,­appears­as­an­unnecessary­simplification.

SCPs­raised­similar­critiques.­However,­their­counter-approach­to­the­modularization­of­publications­and­their­abolishment­of­the­content/form­distinction­are­clearly­more­important­aspects­of­this­concept.­Although­OpenAIRE­did­not­abolish­the­theme­of­standardization,­its­approach­is­nevertheless­clearly­different­from­the­way­former­projects­pursued­this­goal.­The­project­supported­a­gradual­approach­to­standardization,­in­which­the­responsibility­for­its­achievement­was­in­parts­moved­to­a­high-level­infrastructure­and­to­the­project­itself.

Such­an­approach,­in­which­harmonization­is­pursued­by­acts­of­curation,­has­also­been­taken­by­Overlay­Journals­and,­later­on,­DPs,­concepts­that­intentionally­make­use­of­historical­publication­formats.­The­concept­of­DPs­also­took­account­of­epistemological­issues­when­Parsons­and­Fox­ask:­“Is­Data­Publication­the­Right­Metaphor”­(see­above).­Emphasizing­what­data­means,­and­how­interaction­with­data­takes­place,­and­how­this­differs­between­domains,­means­undermining­the­line­of­argument­of­concepts­in­e-Science,­in­which­data-driven­science­has­one­face­and­one­only.

The­support­for­the­article­form­in­DPs­could­also­be­understood­as­a­sup-port­of­linear­narrativity­as­a­unique­means­to­adequately­contextualize­empirical­research­beyond­just­metadata­(see­also­Gil­and­Garijo­2017).­The­success­of­electronic­notebooks­in­research­fields­that­make­heavy­use­of­computation­gives­reason­to­expect­a­re-evaluation­of­the­affordances­of­linear­narrativity­in­e-Science­on­a­more­general­level­within­the­next­years.­Correspondingly,­Kery­et­al.­(2018,­17:1)­in­“The­Story­in­the­Notebook:­Exploratory­Data­Science­Using­a­Literate­Programming­Tool”­quotes­the­

Publishing-Com Bubble 205

computer­scientist­Knuth­who­once­called­for­“considering­programs­to­be­works­of­literature.”

The­ongoing­rejection­of­great­parts­of­scholarly­stakeholders,­connected­with­the­scholarly­domain,­of­which­the­complaints­in­the­introduction­give­evidence­as­well,­furthermore,­demanded­finding­new­ways­of­engaging­with­these­stakeholders.­The­position­that­agents­who­do­not­want­to­adapt­to­the­alleged­necessity­of­progress­“go­to­the­wall,”­as­Cameron­Neylon­put­it,­was­not­maintainable­any­longer­—­especially­not­for­the­sake­of­advancing­digital­publications.

If­just­going­back­is­neither­desirable­nor­possible,­and­continuing­to­propose­new­innovations­not­sustainable,­an­alternative­strategy­is­to­look­out­for­possibilities­to­better­include­stakeholders­(see­also­Holtermann­2017).­The­focus­needs­to­shift­to­social­issues.­Significantly,­during­the­advent­of­DPs,­Rees­emphasized­its­role­as­a­“social­management­function.”

Each­of­the­concepts­in­this­chapter­reflects­this­turn­towards­a­more­socially­acceptable­notion­of­digital­publications­in­its­own­unique­way.­Hybrid­Publishing­gives­the­most­prominent­example­in­the­sense­that­it­literally­puts­all­stakeholders­(McPherson)­and­publishing­environments­(Hall),­each­with­equal­rights,­at­the­center­of­all­progress­in­digital­pub-lishing.­Data­Papers­deliver­a­mechanism­of­conceptually­and­politically­addressing­publishing­concepts,­and­are­significantly­different­in­terms­of­technology­as­well­as­goals.­That­way­they­redefine­the­fragmented­and­heterogeneous­landscape­of­digital­publications­such­that­it­is­possible­to­perceive­all­these­activities­as­part­of­the­same­process.

Self-Contained­Publications­do­the­same­thing­that­DPs­do­conceptually,­but­in­a­technology-driven­way.­It­is­true­that­due­to­their­vast­technological­requirements,­SCPs­cannot­be­used­by­everyone.­However,­they­allow­the­development­of­consistent­solutions­for­problems­such­as­long-term­preservation­and­access­across­very­different­digital­publications­formats.­Hence,­the­need­to­standardize­form­and­content­of­digital­publications­as­containers­is­minimized.­Creators­of­such­publications­are­less­forced­to­think­about­technological­consequences­of­their­publication­model.

OpenAIRE­is­a­special­case­because­the­project­shifted­into­two­different­directions.­On­the­one­hand,­the­concept­of­SCIs­seems­to­accept­a­pub-lication­landscape­that­remains­at­a­certain­level­of­heterogeneity,­on­the­other­hand­the­scaled­approach­of­OpenAIRE­and­its­interventions­reveals­a­top-down­standardization­strategy.­Such­minor­contradictions,­however,­also­appeared­within­the­publication­concepts­mentioned­earlier.­The­idea­

206 Beyond the Flow

of­Single-Source­Publishing­proposed­by­Burkhardt­(2015),­for­instance,­con-tradicts­the­notion­of­continuous­remediation­outlined­by­Gary­Hall­in­the­context­of­HPs.­Likewise,­there­is­a­tension­between­self-containedness­as­a­solution­to­semantic­heterogeneity­and­the­later­attempt­to­semantically­standardize­containers­in­SCPs.

This­chapter­demonstrated­that­over­the­last­years­a­significant­shift­took­place­in­digital­publishing.­This­shift­significantly­complicates­the­analysis­of­the­development­of­digital­publications.­Before,­development­was­driven­by­strong­ideas­that­offered­orientation­for­personal­engagement­and­commit-ment.­The­relativization­of­such­ideas­partially­takes­this­orientation­away.­Hence,­the­inconsistencies­observed­in­the­last­paragraph­are­not­sur-prising.­The­fact­that­almost­every­aspect­of­digital­publications­since­the­ACM­publishing­plan­is­now­put­into­context­makes­“rewiring­publishing”­a­challenging­task­that­has­just­begun.

[ 5 ]

Post-Digital …

A Less Random Definition of the DigitalAfter­the­first­decade­of­the­new­millennium,­fields­like­media-studies,­cultural­studies,­and­the­arts­were­attracted­by­a­new­concept:­post-digitality.­In­a­first­attempt­to­grasp­an­overlapping­core­behind­the­varying­applications­of­the­term,­Cramer­writes:

More­pragmatically,­the­term­“post-digital”­can­be­used­to­describe­either­a­contemporary­disenchantment­with­digital­information­systems­and­media­gadgets,­or­a­period­in­which­our­fascination­with­these­systems­and­gadgets­has­become­historical­—­just­like­the­dot-com­age­ultimately­became­historical­in­the­2013­novels­of­Thomas­Pynchon­and­Dave­Eggers.­(Cramer­2014)

The­last­chapter’s­title­suggested­that­the­development­of­the­field­of­digital­publishing­can­be­observed­in­a­similar­way.­However,­it­might­not­be­clear­immediately­in­which­way­or­up­to­which­extend­this­is­the­case.­Obviously,­the­field­of­digital­publishing­can­by­definition­not­act­as­disenchantment­from­digital­information­systems.­The­second­part­of­the­quote­seems­to­be­applicable­more­easily­here,­however.­It­has­been­argued­that­projects­discussed­in­the­above­chapter­relativize­former­key­ideas­of­digital­pub-lishing,­each­in­their­own­way.

Even­where­such­ideas­are­still­going­strong,­as­the­case­with­OpenAIRE,­their­status­changes­from­being­seen­as­imperatives­to­providing­points­of­reference­to­aspire­to,­up­to­the­extent­possible­within­a­given­situation.­The­concept­of­SCIs­as­a­unifying­layer­of­abstraction­is­useful­only­because­the­ideals­of­digital­publishing­are­not­expected­to­become­manifest­

210 Beyond the Flow

in­colloquial­scholarly­publishing­soon.­Thus,­it­is­the­OpenAIRE­infra-structure,­and­only­that,­which­sustains­such­ideals.

The­discourse­around­concepts­such­as­ROs­and­LPs­presumed­that­corresponding­ideals­adhere­to­an­inner­logic­of­computation,­which­in­consequence­drives­a­transparent­historical­development­of­science­and­scholarly­publishing­(e-Science­and­open­science).­In­contrast,­the­expe-riences­that­led­to­the­conceptualization­of­SCIs­give­testimony­of­doubts­about­the­inherent­necessity­by­which­such­ideals­will­be­adopted.­By­doing­so,­OpenAIRE­transfers­the­conceived­logics­of­a­historical­process­into­infrastructure­that­creates­social­necessities.

In­the­same­way­it­would­be­wrong­to­say­that­DPs­are­completely­detached­from­key­ideas­of­digital­publishing.­Nevertheless,­if­such­ideas­constitute­what­is­“fancy”­about­digital­publishing,­then­the­most­important­aspect­of­DPs­is­the­fact­that­they­are­significantly­less­driven­by­fascination­about­them,­compared­to­earlier­publication­concepts.­SCPs,­in­contrast,­often­do­follow­a­strong­computational­logic­and­are­also­partially­linked­to­the­e-Science­research­model.­Still,­it­has­been­shown­that­the­way­they­do­so­completely­rearranges­the­conceptual­matrix­of­digital­publications.­They­also­provide­a­solution­which­is­not­only­valuable­for­this­specific­research­model­alone.­Emulation­strategies­can­be­used­to­solve­problems­with­TPs­in­the­same­way­as­with­computational­workflows.

The­case­of­HPs­needs­less­explanation.­As­described­at­the­beginning­of­the­last­chapter,­HPs­by­definition­include­a­critique­of­certain­aspects­and­claims­behind­digital­publications.­In­fact,­both­terms­—­Hybrid­Publishing­and­post-digitality­—­are­mentioned­together­in­Ludovico­(2015).

The­quote­from­the­beginning­of­this­chapter­suggests­that­post-digitality,­as­a­scientific­term,­refers­to­a­certain­kind­of­social­behavior­towards­digital­technologies.­Indeed,­the­term­itself­does­not­come­from­the­scientific­domain,­but­from­performative­arts.­It­was­first­used­by­Cascone­(2000)­and­Andrews­(2002)­to­outline­the­agenda­for­post-digital­art­and­music.­Genuine­scientific­studies­on­post-digitality­took­place­in­closely­con-nected­disciplines.­Accordingly,­Hayward­(2013)­wrote­a­contribution­about­post-digital­cinema­in­a­Routledge­Handbook.

While­according­to­Cramer­the­early­post-digital­movements­seek­to­reject­ideas­of­progress­and­perfection­associated­with­digital­technologies,­the­systematic­scientific­appropriation­of­the­concept­begins­with­the­remark­that while this complete:

Post-Digital … 211

…­withdrawal­may­seem­a­tempting­option­for­many,­it­is­fundamentally­a­naive­position,­particularly­in­an­age­when­even­the­availability­of­natural­resources­depends­on­global­computational­logistics,­and­intelligence­agencies­such­as­the­NSA­intercept­paper­mail­as­well­as­digital­communications.­(Cramer­2014,­sec. Revival­of­“old”­media)

In­this­light­the­growing­phenomena­of­rejection,­disenchantment,­or­decreasing­fascination­provoked­a­more­systematic­evaluation­of­this­phenomenon,­as­well­as­the­concept­of­post-digitality­itself.­Moreover,­it­provokes­rethinking­of­the­concept­of­digitality­in­the­first­place.

Cramer­conducts­such­an­evaluation­as­part­of­a­broader­research­group.­This­group­published­its­findings­on­post-digitality­in­a­special­issue­of­the­APRJA­online-journal­(Andersen,­Cox,­and­Papadopoulos­2014).­He­responds­to­the­leading­question:­“What­is­‘Post-Digital’?”­by­separately­discussing­how­the­prefix­“post”­should­be­understood­and­what­is­addressed­by­digitality.

According­to­Cramer,­“post”­in­post-digital­is­not­meant­in­the­sense­of­the­“post-histoire”­that­is­“the­end­of­history”­as­Francis­Fukuyama­put­it­(Fukuyama­2006).­It­is­not­intended­to­mark­a­clearly­different­new­time­period­that­most­fundamentally­undermines­all­aspects­by­which­former­temporal­periods­could­even­be­identified­as­such.­In­contrast,­the­author­argues­that­the­prefix­functions­like­in­post-feminism­or­post-colonialism.­More­precisely,­it­functions­as­a­marker­for­a­“critically­revised­continu-ation”­of­what­is­prefixed.­In­the­same­way­and­within­a­more­problematic­context,­the­term­post-colonial­does­not­assume­the­end­of­colonialism­but­the­transformation­of­colonialist­relationships­into­more­subtle,­more­com-plex,­and­more­diverse­variations­of­this­relationships.

Cramer­selected­these­two­examples­well,­because­they­indicate­the­ambiguity­of­“post”­in­post-digitality.­On­the­one­hand,­there­is­a­positive­connotation­in­which­a­progressive­concept­undergoes­a­revision­with­the­intent­to­sustain­it.­On­the­other­hand,­it­shows­the­negatively­connoted­indication­that­a­certain­power­structure­may­last,­even­if­the­political­system­around­it­has­changed.­In­both­cases,­the­goal­is­not­to­argue­that­a­certain­phenomenon­no­longer­exists,­but­that­this­phenomenon­has­changed­so­much­that­reflection­on­it­has­to­find­new­viewpoints:

“Post-digital”­describes­a­perspective­on­digital­information­technology­which­no­longer­focuses­on­technical­innovation­or­improvement,­but­instead­rejects­the­kind­of­techno-positivist­innovation­narratives­

212 Beyond the Flow

exemplified­by­media­such­as­Wired­magazine,­Ray­Kurzweil’s­Google-sponsored­“singularity”­movement,­and­of­course­Silicon­Valley.­(Cramer­2014,­sec. Post-digital­=­hybrids­of­“old”­and­“new”­media)

It­was­argued­at­the­beginning­of­this­chapter­that­most­recent­publication­concepts­are­somewhat­aimed­at­such­a­development­in­an­unconscious­way,­full­of­inconsistencies­as­a­consequence­of­the­transitory­moment­in­which­they­emerged.­However,­at­this­point­an­analysis­that­turns­the­observation­of­a­post-digital­moment­into­a­theoretical­foundation­for­digital­publications­is­lacking.­Such­a­foundation­might­help­to­develop­a­more­strategic­idea­of­post-digital­publications.­A­good­starting­point­for­this­task­is­again­Cramer’s­discussion­of­the­term­“digital”­in­“post-digital.”

This­discussion­consists­of­nothing­more­than­a­clarification­of­what­people­actually­talk­about­when­they­talk­about­digitality.­This­clarification­shows­that­the­distinction­between­digital­and­analogue­is­far­less­clear­than­is­often­assumed.­For­instance,­Cramer­gives­the­example­of­ana-logue­computers­that­function­with­water­and­measuring­cups­to­compute­key­mathematical­operations.­In­contrast,­a­“digital”­computer­works­on­the­basis­of­analogue­processes,­more­precisely­voltage-ranges,­that­are­artificially­divided­into­ones­and­zeros.­The­screen­functions­through­pixels­that­are­clearly­separated­from­each­other,­but­the­pixels­themselves­work­within­ranges­of­light­intensity.­Cramer­therefore­calls­the­computer­screen­a­“hybrid­digital-analogue.”

The­meaning­of­digital­and­analogue­underlying­this­line­of­argument­stresses that:

“Digital”­simply­means­that­something­is­divided­into­discrete,­count-able­unit­—­countable­using­whatever­system­one­chooses,­whether­zeroes­and­ones,­decimal­numbers,­tally­marks­on­a­scrap­of­paper,­or­the­fingers­(digits)­of­one’s­hand­—­which­is­where­the­word­“digital”­comes­from­in­the­first­place;­in­French,­for­example,­the­word­is­“numérique.”­Consequently,­the­Roman­alphabet­is­a­digital­system;­(Cramer­2014,­sec. Digression:­what­is­digital,­what­is­analog?)

Analogue,­in­contrast,­refers­to­something­that­has­not­been­made­or­rendered­discrete­and­which­therefore:

…­consists­of­one­or­more­signals­which­vary­on­a­continuous­scale,­such­as­a­sound­wave,­a­light­wave,­a­magnetic­field­(for­example­on­an­audio­tape,­but­also­on­a­computer­hard­disk),­....­(Cramer­2014,­sec. Analog­≠­undivided;­analog­non-computational)

Post-Digital … 213

In­this­respect,­the­distinction­between­digital­and­analogue­is­neither­a­result of the invention of the Turing Machine­(see­below),­nor­are­digital­technologies­today­purely­digital­machinery.­This­argument­has­already­been­discussed­in­a­more­philosophical­context­by­Buckley­(2011).1­However,­it­is­the­fuzzy­application­of­such­terms­that­stimulates­among­other­things­the­aforementioned­“techno-positivist­innovation­narratives,”­and­that­has­also­been­found­behind­a­variety­of­digital­publication­concepts.­As­will­become­clear­later­on,­this­critique­can­be­applied­to­both­e-Science­related­publication­concepts­as­well­as­to­concepts­such­as­TPs,­HPs,­and­UBs.­The­reason­why­this­is­the­case­is­better­understood­when­looking­at­the­con-sequences­of­such­terminological­clarification.­Cramer­continues:

Consequently,­there­is­no­such­thing­as­digital­media,­only­digital­or­digitized­information:­chopped-up­numbers,­letters,­symbols­and­any­other­abstracted­units,­as­opposed­to­continuous,­wave-like­signals­such­as­physical­sounds­and­visible­light.­Most­“digital­media”­devices­are­in­fact­analog-to-digital-to-analog­converters.­(Cramer­2014,­sec. Technically,­there­is­no­such­thing­as­“digital­media”­or­“digital­aesthetics”)

Thus,­if­digital­technologies­do­not­just­quantify­but­convert­between­different­modes­of­representation,­and­are­also­conflations­of­digital­and­analogue­components­themselves,­then­it­becomes­highly­problematic­to­demand­“true­digital­publications.”­The­only­true­thing­about­digital­pub-lications­in­this­point­of­view­is­a­tremendous­potential­to­turn­different­types­and­forms­of­research­input­into­multiple­output­formats,­undefined­in­number.­In­fact,­this­is­exactly­what­the­last­chapters­have­shown,­a­wide­variety­of­publication­concepts­often­referred­to­within­the­field­as­heterogeneous.

Such­concepts­appeared­so­very­different­not­just­because­different­opinions­exist­about­what­they­should­look­like­and­what­the­impact­of­digital­technologies2­is.­They­appeared­so­different­because­these­technologies,­by­virtue­of­their­capabilities­to­convert,­provide­significant­

1­ Buckley­shows­very­well­that­the­distinction­is­at­the­heart­of­a­philosophical­question­going­back­to­the­third­aporia­of­Zenon­of­Melea­about­the­possibility­of­perceiving­movement.

2­ In­the­light­of­the­arguments­above,­it­would­be­more­appropriate­to­use­another­term­such­as­computational­technologies.­The­term­“digital­technologies”,­however,­has become part of colloquial language when referring to technological innovation that­took­place­in­the­second­half­of­the­twentieth­century.­It­will­therefore­be­used­in­the­missing­part­of­the­present­inquiry­as­well.­This­seems­less­problematic­together­with­the­clarifications­in­the­last­few­paragraphs.

214 Beyond the Flow

support­to­giving­technological­shape­to­these­opinions.­This­observation­marks­a­clear­contrast­to­arguments­in­e-Science­or­open­science,­arguing­that­digital­technologies­have­a­clearly­defined­and­predictable­impact­on­scientific­methodology,­as­well­as­on­the­form­of­scholarly­publications.­This­point­will­be­developed­in­greater­detail­in­the­next­sections.

Furthermore,­it­could­be­argued­that­ideas­about­the­true­digital­format­or­the­true­digital­method­further­stimulate­the­proliferation­of­publication­formats.­It­definitely­motivates­focusing­on­one’s­own­format­and­spending­resources­on­its­development,­instead­of­relating­formats­to­each­other­and­building­a­digital­publishing­environment.

However,­it­is­important­to­emphasize­again­that­the­argument­is­not­that­what­is­called­digital­technologies­does­not­have­a­significant­impact­on­science­and­publishing.­The­whole­discussion­is­not­about­the­level­of­impact­at­all.­The­critique­of­the­“techno-positivistic­innovation­narrative”­concerns­the­confusion­between­such­innovation­and­specific­types­of­conversion.­It­is­part­and­parcel­of­this­confusion­to­furthermore­think­that­the­success­of­digital­technologies­includes­their­always­being­appropriate­and­it­being­efficient­to­always­mediate­everything­by­them.­Thus,­even­the­notion­of­“digital”­publications­somehow­distorts­the­whole­picture.­It­follows that:

“Post-digital”­refers­to­a­state­in­which­the­disruption­brought­upon­by­digital­information­technology­has­already­occurred.­(Cramer­2014,­sec. Post-digital­=­anti-“new­media”)

The­question­of­new­versus­old­formats­turns­into­a­question­of­the­best­fit­within­different­publication­scenarios.­Accordingly,­the­rare­cases­of­research­in­post-digitality­which­draw­attention­on­the­topic­of­publishing­highlight­strength­and­weaknesses­of­publishing­formats,­regardless­of­their­relationship­to­digital­technologies.­The­fact­that­such­choices­have­to­be­made­is­the­very­outcome­of­the­success­of­digital­technologies,­and­would­be­impossible­without­them.

In­the­present­work,­contributions­in­the­area­of­HPs­have­weighed­in­most­significantly­in­this­respect.­Especially­Gary­Hall,­Joanna­Zylinska,­and­Janneke­Adema­supported­the­idea­of­publishing­in­formats­that­convene­with­the­specific­needs­of­peculiar­publishing­situations,­instead­of­hunting­the­one­new­format.­The­contingent­list­of­publication­formats­gathered­by­Worthington­and­Furter­(2014)­in­the­so-called­publication­taxonomy­explicitly­references­the­term­post-digitality.­In­fact,­the­taxonomy­is­presented­as­a­reaction­to­the­“parallel­usage­of­different­media-types”­and­

Post-Digital … 215

the­“proliferation­of­tools”­for­production,­in­consequence­of­the­“post-digital­condition”­(Worthington­and­Furter­2014).

While­supporting­the­idea­of­equal­rights­for­different­approaches,­the­quotes­by­Worthington­do­not­completely­open­up­a­view­of­the­con-sequences­of­the­aforementioned­line­of­argument­in­all­its­dimensions.­Following­Cramer’s­clarification­of­the­digital­and­the­analogue,­it­cannot­just­be­the­parallel­use­of­different­media-types­which­distinguishes­post-digital­publishing,­but­also­different­formattings­of­one­media-type­provoked­by­other­media-types3.

This­point­was­also­the­core­of­Pettifer­et­al.­(2011)­argument­in­favor­of­the­PDF.­More­precisely,­the­fact­that­the­PDF­is­a­format­that­is­partially­designed­by­applying­principles­of­paper­articles­and­monographs­is­a­weak­argument­against­it­from­a­post-digital­point­of­view.­The­Photomediations­project­is­another­illustrating­example­of­the­more­subtle­dimension­of­post-digitality­in­publishing,­although­the­online­version­of­Photomediations­includes­many­components­that­exist­because­of­digital­technologies.­It­also­emphasizes­the­concept­of­binding­which,­as­Hall­has­stressed,­belongs­to­the­monograph­world­and­is­by­no­means­necessary­for­the­online­version.­In­reverse,­the­online­version­controls­the­production­cycle­and­content­generation­of­the­printed­versions­of­Photomediations.

Such­examples­illustrate­well­how­these­intersections­and­inter-dependencies4 become invisible if one analyses publishing in the light of a­common­understanding­of­the­digital.­More­precisely,­such­a­careless­definition­of­the­digital­only­makes­sense­as­long­as­convincing­visions­for­digital­publications­exist,­visions­which­make­it­possible­to­trivialize­the­impact­of­such­interdependencies.­The­previous­chapter­showed­that­such­visions­have­lost­plausibility­even­in­the­field­of­digital­publications­itself.­In­consequence,­the­imposed­separation­between­both­worlds­—­the­digital­and­the­analogue­—­becomes­problematic­and­even­hindering.­In­a­more­general­perspective,­Berry­therefore­proposes:

3­ The­term­media-type­needs­a­clarification­here.­In­the­context­of­the­taxonomy­in­which­Worthington­makes­the­quote,­it­refers­mostly­to­what­has­been­called­pub-lication­concept­in­the­study­at­hand.­Nonetheless,­the­term­lacks­precise­definition­within­the­taxonomy.­What­is­meant­in­this­sentence­is­the­fact­that­new­formats­also­pickup­properties­of­existing­formats­or­redefine­their­properties.

4­ For­further­explanations­and­examples­of­these­phenomena­in­the­context­of­pub-lishing­in­a­broader­perspective­refer­to­Ludovico­(2013)­and­Ludovico­(2015).

216 Beyond the Flow

Thus,­the­post-digital­is­represented­by­and­indicative­of­a­moment­when­the­computational­has­become­hegemonic.­…­We­might­no­longer­talk­about­digital­versus­analogue,­but­instead­modulations­of­the­digital­or­different­intensities­of­the­computational.­We­should­therefore­critically­analyze­the­way­in­which­cadences­of­the­computational­are­made­and­materialized.­(Berry­2013)

The­critique­of­the­discourse­on­digital­technology­complied­with­three­logical­steps.­First,­it­was­clearly­defined­what­should­be­considered­digital­and­what­analogue.­Second,­it­was­illustrated­that­this­distinction­as­such­is­not­altered­by­digital­technologies.­More­generally­it­does­not­equate­to­the­distinction­between­digital­technologies­and­other­technologies.­Finally,­it­was­deduced­that­this­means­that­there­is­no­even­more­digital­world­to­come,­but­that­digital­technologies­have­already­happened,­and­innovation­takes­place­elsewhere.

The­quote­by­David­Berry,­however,­mixes­up­two­things,­which,­as­has­been­shown­before,­do­not­categorically­belong­together­in­the­first­place:­digitality­and­computation.­Obviously,­they­appear­together­in­this­quote­because­the­equation­between­digitality­and­computation­is­part­of­the­discourse­on­digital­technologies.­There­are­rare­environments­in­which­this­fact­is­easier­to­observe­than­in­the­field­of­digital­scholarly­pub-lications.­Everything,­from­making­publications­more­machine-readable,­to­breaking­down­the­scope­of­publication­to­data,­up­to­the­publication­of­algorithms­in­computation­workflows,­is­a­process­of­adapting­publications­to­a­supposed­computational­paradigm.­All­these­modifications­were­additionally­framed­in­distinct­ideological­contexts.­From­the­end­of­theory­up­to­open­science,­it­is­argued­that­the­way­knowledge­is­produced,­and­functions­will­significantly­change­due­to­computation.­In­fact,­in­a­kind­of­circular­reasoning­it­was­estimated­that­computation­will­be­the­dominant­paradigm­and­argued­that­because­of­this,­publications­should­resemble­computational­properties.

Topological, Typological and Mathematical Knowledge

In­the­cases­in­which­digital­publications­explicitly­refer­to­computation,­they­in­fact­mean­mathematical­evaluation.­It­is­a­question­outside­the­scope­of­the­current­research­if­this­equation­between­computation­and­mathematics­is­actually­valid.­It­is­however­worth­considering­in­this­context­that­both­a­purely­mathematical­description­—­the­λ-calculus by

Post-Digital … 217

Alonzo­Church­—­as­well­as­a­mathematical­and­technological­description­—­the­Turing­Machine­by­Alan­Turing­—­mark­the­perceived­beginning­of­what­is­called­digital­technologies­today.­But­even­if­computation­were­to­basically­mean­operationalizing­mathematics­itself,­and­the­equation­were­to­turn­out­to­be­valid,­it­is­possible­to­challenge­the­consequences­drawn­on­top­of­this­equation.­Since­in­digital­publications,­the­phenomenon­of­computation­is­used­to­make­claims­about­how­truth­and­evidence­is­best­represented­and­discovered,­it­seems­a­reasonable­next­step­to­try­and­clarify­which­type­of­knowledge­mathematics­engenders.

Among­many­other­researchers,­Jay­Lemke­has­carried­out­this­task­by­comparing­it­in­a­sophisticated­way­to­other­types­of­knowledge.­What­this­means­will­become­clearer­in­the­next­paragraphs.­His­contribution­“Mathematics­in­the­Middle”­(Lemke­2003)­fits­well­into­the­current­context­because­he­actively­links­his­evaluations­to­discussions­of­the­difference­between­digital­and­analogue.­Lemke­elaborates­his­answer­to­the­question­of­which­type­of­knowledge­is­produced­by­mathematics­from­a­so-called­social semiotic­point­of­view.­Social­semiotics­is­a­subfield­of­linguistics­introduced­by­Michael­Halliday­in­the­seventies­(1978;­1985).­In­order­to­understand­Lemke’s­analysis­of­mathematics,­it­is­important­to­understand­some­basic­ideas­of­social­semiotics.

Halliday’s­approach­to­language­completely­rejects­the­idea­of­speaking­as­an­application­of­language­as­it­had­been­introduced­by­the­founding­father­of­linguistics,­Ferdinand­de­Saussure­(Saussure­1959).­Saussure­consid-ered­a­categorical­difference­between­the­use­of­language­by­people­in­a­specific­situation­(parole)­and­the­language­system­of­a­culture­this­person­belongs­to­(langue).­In­his­view­the­relation­between­the­language­of­the­speaker­and­the­act­of­speaking­is­always­one­of­application.­The­system­of­language­exists­beforehand.­Furthermore,­Saussure­assumes­the­existence­of­a­layer­of­rules­—­langage­—­which­restricts­and­enables­the­creation­of­concrete­languages­such­as­English­or­German.

For­Saussure,­the­core­of­language­is­langage,­a­timeless­abstract­formal­system­that­conditions­the­possibilities­of­concrete­languages.­In­con-trast,­Halliday­provides­a­pragmatical­definition­of­language,­intended­to­work­completely­from­the­bottom­up­(O’Halloran­and­Lim­Fei­2014,­chap.­Analysis).­More­precisely,­he­claims­that­when­people­communicate,­they­want­to­do­three­basic­things.­First,­they­want­to­refer­to­something­or­some­state­in­the­outside­world.­Language­is­about­something.­Second,­they­want­to­engage­with­the­outer,­yet­social­world.­People­want­to­tell­somebody­something.­Finally,­language­is­built­up­as­a­composition­of­

218 Beyond the Flow

signs,­words,­or­sentences.­These­elements­of­language­refer­to­each­other­in­some­way.­Halliday­calls­these­three­functions­ideational,­inter-personal,­and­textual­functions.­The­bottom­line­of­Halliday’s­argument­is­that­everything­that­is­capable­of­developing­ideational,­interpersonal,­and­textual­functions­can­potentially­serve­as­means­for­communication.

Consequently,­there­exists­no­realm­of­language­outside­of­its­usage.­Language­emerges­within­certain­practices.­Things­belong­to­language­when­they­fit­these­basic­needs­and­not­because­they­are­recognizable­or­part­of­a­formally­grasped­language­system­being­always­there­before-hand.­Language­—­where­observable­as­a­system,­as­a­cognitive­structure,­or­in­form­of­the­experience­that­we­understand­each­other­—­is­always­embedded­in­concrete­situations,­which­at­the­same­time­change­it­(Halliday­and­Martin­1996,­122–25;­Eggins­1994,­81–83).

Pushing­this­line­of­argument­forward,­vocal­sounds­or­letters­in­an­alphabet­are­also­not­derived­from­an­underlying­system­of­language­to­which­they­both­belong.­They­are­signs­referring­to­different­resources­for­sign­making­—­voice­and­writing­—­which­were­historically­related­to­each­other.­On­the­whole,­signs­are­neither­preconditioned­nor­ultimately­defined.­They­are­created­out­of­appropriate­material­through­the­practice­of­people­who­want­to­communicate.­To­put­it­more­formally,­signs­are­entities­rendered­in­the­process­of­semiosis­(Kress­2010),­or­signing­(Kress­2013),­the­technical­term­that­defines­the­historical­process­of­sign­making.­Signs­may­come­and­go,­and­accordingly­it­is­possible­to­really­study­them­in­terms­of­“their­life­within­society”­as­Saussure­had­originally­planned­to­do.

On­the­basis­of­social­semiotics,­Lemke­is­able­to­actually­ask­the­question­of­what­kind­of­knowledge­mathematics­provide­and­how­mathematics­relate­to­the­type­of­knowledge­that­is­language.­Because­of­social­semi-otics,­mathematics­does­not­appear­as­something­completely­different­from­language.­It­is­the­outcome­of­the­same­human­process­to­produce­meaning­and­tell­something­that­engendered­language.­Social­semiotics­similarly­suggests­carrying­out­such­a­comparison­not­by­means­of­looking­at­the­different­types­of­symbols­and­notations­in­mathematics­and­in­language,­but­by­analyzing­how­both­developed­historically,­the­purposes­of­their­application,­and­which­facts­are­easily­representable­and­which­are­not.

Lemke­(2003,­sec.­2.1)­highlights­that­unique­mathematical­symbols­devel-oped­much­later­than­mathematics­itself.­They­were­originally­derived­from­Greek­words.­A­lot­of­mathematics­existed­in­rhetoric­form,­and­

Post-Digital … 219

approaches­to­mathematics­like­geometry­refrain­from­using­algebraic­symbols.­It­is­therefore­misleading­to­put­a­categorial­difference­between­mathematics­and­language­at­the­starting­point­of­a­comparison­of­its­relationship.­Instead,­Lemke­claims­that­mathematics­has­evolved­his-torically­as­an­extension­to­language­and­out­of­language­in­order­to­rep-resent­things­that­could­not­be­well­represented­in­language.­He­remarks­that­the­first­historical­evidence­of­what­is­considered­mathematics­in­research­are­lists­of­descriptions­to­solve­specific­problems­“with­no­theory”­(sec. 2.1):

I­want­to­argue­that­they­(mathematical­meanings,­author’s­note)­have­evolved­historically­to­allow­us­to­integrate­two­fundamentally­different­kinds­of­meaning-making:­meaning-by-kind­and­meaning-by-degree.­Mathematical­meaning­enables­us­to­mix­and­to­move­smoothly­back­and­forth­between­meaning-by-kind,­in­which­natural­language­specializes,­and­which­I­will­call­categorial­or­“typological”­meaning,­and­meaning-by-degree,­which­is­more­easily­presented­by­means­of­motor­gestures­or­visual­figures­—­the­meaning­of­con-tinuous­variation­or­“topological”­meaning­(connoting­the­topology­of­the­real­numbers).­(Lemke­2003,­sec.­3)

The­description­of­typological­and­topological­knowledge­is­reminiscent­of­the­distinction­between­digital­and­analogue.­Although­it­is­not­Lemke’s­primary­intention­to­relate­these­two­topics,­he­mentions­their­similarity.­In­the­current­research,­their­relationship­can­be­described­as­follows:­while­the­terms­digital­and­analogue­tend­to­address­material­and­technological­aspects,­topological­and­typological­refer­to­two­different­ways­of­perceiving­and­representing­something.­On­one­hand,­bits­are­mechanisms­in­a­computer­that­can­be­on­or­off,­and­a­thermometer­varies­continuously­on­a­scale.­On­the­other­hand,­it­is­possible­to­give­different­names­to­the­color­of­the­sky­on­different­days,­or­to­create­a­diagram­that­draws­these­differences­on­a­scale.

It­is­important­to­distinguish­between­those­two­perspectives,­because­this­distinction­is­at­the­very­heart­of­discussions­about­the­epis-temological­consequences­of­digital­technologies.­As­no­digital­technology­is­fundamentally­digital,­no­phenomenon­enforces­a­topological­or­typological­representation­of­itself.­Instead,­its­representation­depends­to­a­great­extent­on­the­type­of­meaning­people­want­to­produce­and­the­social­practices­in­which­it­is­involved.

According­to­Lemke,­mathematics,­just­like­“motor­gestures­or­visual­figures”­(above),­is­better­at­describing­topological­knowledge­compared­

220 Beyond the Flow

to­language.­However,­to­prevent­another­simplification,­it­is­important­to­remark­that­language­and­mathematics­do­not­exclusively­represent­typological­and­topological­meaning.­Both­domains­provide­examples­for­both­types­of­meaning.­Both,­nevertheless,­developed­their­particular­strengths­in­one­of­these­two­knowledge­domains­and­are­therefore­better­suited­to­one­or­the­other.­Although­language,­for­instance,­is­capable­of­representing­much­more­than­the­fact­that­some­thing­is­something,­it­is­quite­hard­to­precisely­describe­nuances,­such­as­in­color­or­temperature,­with­words.

The­question­now­is,­what­does­mathematics­do­differently­from­other­topological­knowledge­representation­systems­such­as­graphs.­The­difference­is­that­mathematics­describes­such­relationships­in­a­completely­different­way­than­graphs­and­other­topological­knowledge­systems­do.­Mathematics,­more­precisely,­uses­“quasi-linguistic”­elements­which­denote­discrete­things­to­represent­continuous­phenomena­without­boundaries­(Lemke­2003,­sec.­3).­According­to­Lemke,­this­key­strength­of­mathematics­is­best­represented­in­fractions­and­functions:

Nevertheless,­in­a­fraction­such­quantitative-meanings­are­rep-resented­quasi-linguistically­by­two­numbers,­each­of­which­can­be­regarded­as­a­discrete­counting­type­or­category­(the­integers­as­cardinals),­and­by­the­instruction­to­consider­some­relation­between­them­(ratio,­or­multiple­of­a­part,­to­be­evaluated­by­the­algorithm­of­division).­All­of­these­elements­are­typological,­but­the­meanings­which­fractions­represent­as­ratios­are­topological.­If­I­give­you­a­set­of­fractions:­13/19,­11/17,­4/6,­9/13;­you­know­that­there­is­no­simple­way­to­tell­from­these­typological­representations­even­what­the­order­of­sizes­of­these­ratios­is,­without­performing­calculations.­But­if­I­presented­these­same­ratios­visually,­you­would­have­a­much­better­idea­of­their­relationships.­(Lemke­2003,­sec.­3)

In­the­same­way,­functions­are­an­algebraic­and­quasi-linguistic­way­to­describe­continuous­and­sometimes­unbounded­covariance­“in­terms­of­typological­operations­on­typological­variables.”­Consequently,­most­parts­of­mathematics­are­hybrids­in­the­sense­that­their­meaning­is­topological,­but­their­tactics­and­means­are­typological.­This­is­what­the­title­of­Lemke’s­article­“Mathematics­in­the­Middle”­is­intended­to­address.­By­doing­so,­mathematics­is­able­to­represent­topological­knowledge­more­precisely­than­language,­but­gives­more­control­over­such­knowledge­than­for­example­graphs­do.

Post-Digital … 221

A­second­question­now­is­if­mathematics­and­its­development­have­the­power­to­fundamentally­change­the­role­and­relationship­between­typological­and­topological­knowledge­systems.­Is­it­able­to­undermine­key­aspects­of,­for­instance,­language,­so­that­the­use­of­language­becomes­arbitrary­in­the­context­of­scientific­knowledge?­Or­the­other­way­around,­does­mathematics­have­the­potential­to­minimize­the­value­of­topological­representations?­The­last­two­sentences­indicate­already­that­this­is­not­the­case.­Mathematics­will­never­be­able­to­communicate­topological­knowledge­in­such­a­direct­and­clear­way­as­for­instance­graphs­do.­This­is­not­due­to­missing­developments­in­mathematics,­but­because­it­was­devel-oped­towards­a­different­strategy­to­represent.­It­can­describe­topological­knowledge,­but­hardly­communicate­topological­knowledge.­This­is­not­only the reason why visual communication became such an integral part in computational­research­today­—­take­the­jupyter­notebook­as­an­example­—­it­is­also­the­reason­why­complicated­algorithms­are­explained­and­understood­best­by­diagrammatic­explanations.5

Lemke­argues­further­that­even­our­topological­understanding­of­parts­of­mathematics­can­be­most­convincingly­understood­by­topological­dimensions­in­using­mathematics­than­by­its­categorial­content.­The­feeling­for­the­meaning­of­numbers­accordingly­is­a­consequence­of­the­time­that­passes­while­counting,­by­the­length­of­the­line­of­numbers­while­writing­down­a­sequence­of­numbers,­or­by­an­image­of­twelve­apples­in­a­bowl.­The­more­complicated­matters­are,­and­the­more­mathematical­expres-sions­abstract­from­topological­representations,­the­more­its­under-standing­refers­to­the­understanding­of­other­expressions­of­mathematics­itself­(see­the­example­of­fractions).

Similarly,­only­language­offers­the­necessary­means­to­evaluate­the­gap­between­mathematics­and­its­application­in­a­concrete­situation­as­well­as­between­the­result­of­a­mathematical­operations­and­its­interpretation.

After­all­of­this,­mathematics­derives­its­own­domain­of­application­from­the­distinction­of­topological­and­typological­knowledge,­a­distinction­which­historically­became­an­issue­with­the­advent­of­language­and­its­codification.­In­as­much­as­such­codification­broadened­the­gap­between­these­two­types­of­knowledge,­better­mediation­between­them­became­a­major­challenge.­Mathematics,­according­to­Lemke,­is­the­attempt­to­create­the­means­for­this­mediation.

5­ Illustrating­examples­for­this­can­be­found­in­the­documentation­of­the­machine­learning­programing­library­scikit-learn­http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/clus-tering.html­or­in­one­of­the­countless­examples­of­algorithm­tutorials­on­YouTube.

222 Beyond the Flow

The­discussion­of­this­issue­was­carried­out­in­such­great­detail­because­of­the­extent­up­to­which­advocates­of­certain­publication­formats­make­references­to­themes­such­as­the­end­of­theory,­the­fourth­paradigm,­big­data,­massive­computation,­and­the­sufficiency­of­statistical­correlation.­In­the­light­of­Lemke’s­research­on­mathematics,­it­can­be­argued­that­mas-sive­computation­on­the­grounds­of­big­data­will­never­be­able­to­replace­textual­and­narrative­publications,­as­argued­by­De­Roure­and­others.­This­incapacity­resides­in­the­categorial­difference­between­what­mathematics­and­language­were­developed­for.­Articles­and­monographs­are­there-fore­not­just­supplements­of­computational­research­that­humans­need­for­easier­understanding.­They­offer­their­own­type­of­access­to­what­they­describe,­an­access­that­creates­its­own­type­of­understanding,­which­might­be­influenced­by­mathematics,­but­which­also­influences­the­application­of­mathematics.

The­notion­that­big­data­allows­empirical­analysis­of­the­whole­domain­of­a­problem,­whereby­theoretical­descriptions­become­obsolete­(see­De­Roure­and­Andersen)­cannot­change­the­fact­that­the­definition­of­the­whole­—­in­terms­of­its­boundaries­as­well­as­of­its­parts­—­remains­a­theoretical­issue.­The­same­applies­to­decisions­about­the­appropriate­mathematical­model­and­algorithm­best­describing­the­problem­domain­as­well­as­to­what­a­resulting­correlation­denotes.

The­argument­of­the­fourth­paradigm­is­slightly­more­interesting­in­the­current­context.­It­does­acknowledge­that­computation­deals­with­the­relationship­between­two­types­of­knowledge­such­as­those­specified­by­Lemke.­However,­as­far­as­computation­is­concerned­with­mathematics,­this­relationship­is­not­new­in­a­paradigmatic­way,­it­was­introduced­by­mathematics.

Up­to­this­point­it­is­possible­to­summarize­the­extended­discussion­of­a­post-digital­perspective­on­scholarly­publishing­by­emphasizing­that:

– digital­technologies­are­not­only­digital,­and­analogue­technologies­have­digital­aspects;

– computation­is­not­a­process­by­which­everything­becomes­digital.­It­is­about­transformations­between­analogue­and­digital­as­well­as­vice­versa.­This­becomes­most­obvious­in­areas­like­3D­printing,­nano-technology,­robotics,­and­bio-engineering;

– correspondingly,­mathematics­and­computation­are­not­replacements­for­language­in­order­to­eliminate­the­flaws­of­the­former.­They­are­strategies­that­provide­the­unique­possibility­to­

Post-Digital … 223

mediate­between­two­different­representation­strategies,­each­with­its­own­unique­advantages­and­flaws.

Still,­the­question­remains­why­certain­innovations­within­the­technological­landscape­created­such­a­dominant­and­ubiquitous­discourse­of­digital­technologies.­Research­in­post-digitality­does­not­deny­that­the­impact­of­such­innovations­is­fundamental.­Post-digital­research,­however,­does­not­need­to­respond­to­this­question­because­it­reacts­to­the­fact­that­the­discourse­about­digitality­and­the­term­digital­technology­is­already­ubiquitous6.­By­challenging­the­premises­of­this­discourse,­post-digitality­reacts­to­a­social­truth,­which­is­then­toned­down,­qualified,­and­put­into­context.­In­consequence,­the­majority­of­post-digital­research­follows­two­different­types­of­analysis.­The­first­one­analyses­the­simultaneous­usage­of­objects­that­are­considered­digital­and­those­that­are­not.­The­second­type­of­analysis­investigates­how­such­objects­influence­each­other­(see­the­Photomediations­example­above).

Another­argument­that­is­made­by­more­critical­research­on­digital­technologies­claims­that­it­is­the­act­of­asking­alone­which­keeps­alive­both­the­discourse­on­new­technologies­as­well­as­the­dynamics­of­technological­innovation­(Treusch-Dieter­2001).­Accordingly,­every­his-torical­episode­of­innovation­functions­like­a­self-fulfilling­prophecy,­which­is­literally­stimulated­by­occult­powers­(Andriopoulos­2003).­However,­even­if­every­period­of­technological­innovation­were­rooted­in­quasi-prophetic­dynamics,­intervening­with­such­dynamics­within­a­specific­period­of­innovation­would­require­knowing­how­such­dynamics­work­internally.­In­the­end,­it­could­be­argued­that­such­critiques­are­part­of­the­dynamics­of­innovation­in­digital­technologies­themselves,­even­if­claiming­to­question­technology­as­such.­By­trying­to­react­to­the­impact­of­digital­technologies­in­a­way­that­addresses­technology­as­such,­the­authors­are­drawn­into­esoteric­arguments­and­styles­of­writing­which­repeat­the­characteristics­they­attribute­to­their­research­objects.

The­argument­can­thereby­also­be­turned­upside­down.­That­means­it­is­important­to­strive­towards­a­precise­understanding­of­the­structure­of­a­specific­self-fulfilling­prophecy­in­order­to­deal­with­what­seems­to­

6­ A­random­query­for­the­term­“digital­age”­in­a­research­literature­search­engine­brings­up­titles­from­“Government­in­the­Digital­Age”­(Gosling­1997)­to­“The­Role­of­the­Postal­and­Delivery­Sector­in­a­Digital­Age”­(Crew­and­Brennan­2014)­up­to­“Learning­Queer­Identity­in­the­Digital­Age”­(Siebler­2016;­first­page­of­results­in­LIMO­14.03.2017­http://limo.libis.be/).­The­example­shows­how­each­sector­in­society­is­reflecting­itself­based­on­an­epochal­change,­constituting­this­change­with­its­reflection­at­the­same­time.

224 Beyond the Flow

be­problematic­for­the­authors,­by­referring­to­it­in­terms­of­prophecy­and­occultism.­The­critique­or,­in­the­context­of­post-digitality­less­harsh:­qualification,­has­to­come­from­within.­Thus,­both­the­meta-technological­reflections­on­digital­technologies,­as­well­as­the­post-digital­reflections,­cannot­explain­the­emergence­of­a­problematic­but­ubiquitous­discourse­on­digital­technologies­or­digital­publications.­They­only­provide­different­means­of­highlighting­its­problematic­facets.

The­present­study­claims­that­only­further­attempts­to­define­digital­technologies­are­able­to­tone­down­the­problematic­consequences­of­the­discourse­on­digital­technologies,­despite­the­fact­that­these­new­def-initions­will­again­be­lacking.­It­is­precisely­because­discourse­matters­why­neither­the­“deconstruction”­of­discourse­nor­ignoring­it­suffice.­A­set­of­conflicting­definitions­that­take­themselves­seriously­is­therefore­preferable­to­ongoing­attempts­to­show­that­it­is­hardly­possible­to­speak­of­digital­technologies.­Similarly,­computational­ubiquity­does­not­mean­that­the­surface­of­publications­is­structured­by­computational­principles,­as­it­is­often­suggested­(see­the­beginning­of­this­section).­The­remaining­sections­in­this­chapter­will­therefore­try­to­develop­a­definition­of­digital­technologies­that­is­derived­from­the­issues­found­in­the­discussion­of­digital­publications.­It­is­a­definition­driven­by­the­attempt­to­explain­such­issues­on­the­grounds­of­the­line­of­thought­that­was­rolled­out­by­the­field­of­digital­publications­itself.

Representation Strategies, Intermediality and Their Relationships

It­has­been­argued­that­one­of­the­main­motors­of­the­dynamics­of­digital­publishing­is­the­claim­that­digital­technologies­change­all­fields­of­research­in­an­epistemological­way.­The­above­digression­on­Lemke­demonstrated­that­the­way­this­change­is­perceived­in­many­areas­can­be­easily­challenged.­Therefore,­the­question­of­what­digital­technologies­are­in­terms­of­digital­publications­must­now­be­substantiated­in­a­way­that­explains­why­certain­technological­innovations­have­produced­the­impression of a change in the epistemological environment of scholarly publications.­In­the­same­way­as­this­explanation­rejects­the­claims­of­certain­authors,­it­also­has­to­leave­open­the­possibility­of­epistemological­changes.

Post-Digital … 225

In­“Textualität,­Visualität­und­Episteme”7­Sybille­Krämer­(2003)­closely­analyses­how­the­formalization­of­the­mathematical­system­of­signs,­and­the­creation­of­new­mathematical­objects,­makes­use­of­and­depends­on­sensory­aspects­of­writing­and­text.­This­analysis­is­carried­out­against­a­certain­historical­notion­that,­according­to­Krämer,­perceives­writing­primarily­as­a­cognitive­activity.­Text­in­this­respect­belongs­to­the­inner­eye­of­the­mind,­which­is­genuinely­blind­in­terms­of­the­things­the­eyes­of­the­body­may­see.­It­abstracts­from­what­the­physical­eye­might­see.

Within­mathematics,­zero­is­given­as­a­paradigmatic­example,­insofar,­as­it­is­an­entity­with­equal­rights­to­other­numbers,­but­one­which­cannot­be­experienced­in­the­same­way­as­the­others.­Similar­claims­are­possible­about­infinity.­Krämer­argues­that­the­infinitesimal calculus­introduced­by­Leibniz­was­successful,­particularly­because­it­separated­its­mathematical­efficiency­from­the­metaphysical­nature­of­the­question­of­what­infinity­is­and­how­our­experience­relates­us­to­infinity.

Der­Witz­der­Kalkülisierung­ist­es­also,­das­Operieren­mit­Zahlen­zurückzuführen­auf­ein­Operieren­mit­Zeichen­für­die­Zahlen,­und­zwar­nach­Regeln,­die­nicht­mehr­auf­die­mathematischen­Referenzobjekte­der­Zeichen,­sondern­nur­noch­auf­deren­syntaktische­Gestalt­Bezug­nehmen.8­(Krämer­2003,­18)

In­this­respect­the­mathematical­sign­for­infinity­and­the­fact­that­it­is­possible­to­operate­with­it­in­a­grammatic-mathematical­sign­system­con-structs­infinity­as­a­concrete­entity.­Both­the­re-introduction­of­zero­into­mathematics­in­Europe,­as­well­as­the­definition­of­infinity­within­numeric­operations­went­together­with­the­formalization­of­mathematical­signs­and­their­grammatical­relationships.

If­this­process­consists­of­rationalizing­mathematical­objects­and­streamlining­mathematical­calculations,­the­question­arises­how­exactly­sensory­aspects­play­a­key­role­in­it.­Krämer­emphasizes­that­this­process­is part of a general cultural practice of calculation9.­The­cultural­practice­of­calculation­in­the­context­of­mathematics­is­a­practice­which­seeks­to­better­

7­ “Textuality,­Visuality,­and­Episteme”­(author’s­translation)8­ It­is­the­key­aspect­of­Calculus­to­equate­operations­with­numbers­to­operations­

with­signs­for­numbers,­while­the­rules­for­such­operations­now­merely­reference­the­syntactic­content­of­such­signs­and­no­longer­what­these­signs­refer­to­(author’s­translation).

9­ In­German­language,­the­philosophical­meaning­of­the­term­calculation­is­used­more­often­than­the­mathematical­one,­for­which­there­is­another­term,­“rechnen”.­In­this­context,­the­meaning­of­calculation­refers­to­a­way­of­acting­strictly­purposefully­and­functionally.­Hence­the­distinction­between­calculating­as­dealing­with­numbers­

226 Beyond the Flow

control­the­process­of­mathematical­calculation,­i.e. to­make­it­easier,­more­reliable,­and­more­efficient.­Krämer­shows­that­in­the­fifteenth­century­this­meant­turning­the­“implicit­knowledge­and­ingenious­knowing­how”­of­solving­an­equation­into­“Zeichenmanipulationsregeln­bzw.­Mustertrans-formationsregeln”10­(Krämer­2003,­18).­The­calculated­use­of­textuality­as­a­resource­for­mathematics­engendered­a­technical­application­of­language­which­allows­doing­complicated­things­in­a­relatively­simple­way.­In­this­respect,­Krämer­calls­text­a­“symbolic­machine”­(19)­—­symbolic­because­it­creates­its­own­mathematical­signs­to­take­the­place­of­something­to­be­counted,­and­mechanic­because­it­rationalizes­the­process­of­counting.

At­the­point­of­writing,­the­two­main­sensory­aspects­behind­the­formal-ization­of­mathematics­into­text­only­need­to­be­made­explicit­because­they­were­implicit­already­within­its­description.­While­writing­is­conceived­of­as­a­cognitive­process,­and­text­as­an­abstraction­from­what­is­described,­they­take­place­on­a­two-dimensional­plane­—­mostly­a­sheet­of­paper­—­that­connects­with­a­body,­with­eyes,­and­the­hand­that­holds­the­pen.­The­goals­of­calculating­activity­behind­the­formalization­of­mathematical­language­can­only­be­achieved­because­such­manipulation­and­transformation­rules­have­layout­and­spatial­relationships­at­its­disposal.­The­integrity­of­purely­theoretical­objects­like­infinity­or­zero­depends­fundamentally­on­its­visual­persistence­across­situations.­Their­meaning­is­the­effect­of­the­operations­and­the­rules­of­these­operations­in­which­they­are­operationalized.­However,­these­rules,­as­mentioned­above,­are­also­spatial­relationships,­in­which­a­writing­hand­has­to­move­back­and­forth­in­a­rule-based­manner.­By­bringing­abstract­phenomena­to­the­eye,­and­operational­rules­to­the­hand,­the­cultural­practice­of­calculation­also­transforms­mathematics­into­a­new­type­of­essential­body­experience.

Tatsächlich­ist­die­Wissenschaftsentwicklung­nicht­umstandslos­dem­Schema­einer­Austreibung­der­Sinnlichkeit­ihrer­Gegenstände­sub-sumierbar.­Vielmehr­verdankt­sich­die­Dynamik­der­Wissenschaft­gerade­dem­Umstand,­das­kognitiv­Unsichtbare,­also­abstrakte­Gegenstände­und­theoretische­Entitäten,­dem­Register­der­Sicht-barkeit­zuzuführen,­sie­in­sinnlich­wahrnehmbaren­Zeichen­unserer­Anschauung­vorstellig­zu­machen.11­(Krämer­2003,­25–26)

and­doing­something­in­a­calculated­way­is­stronger­than­in­the­English­language.­Calculating­with­numbers­is­an­example­of­calculatory­practice.

10­ “rules­to­manipulate­signs­and­to­transform­models.”­(author’s­translation)11­ “In­fact,­it­is­not­possible­to­simply­subsume­the­development­of­science­under­the­

theme­of­an­expulsion­of­sensuality­from­its­objects­of­interest.­The­dynamics­of­innovation­in­science­more­likely­are­a­result­of­the­strategy­to­transfer­abstract­

Post-Digital … 227

Hence,­the­described­process­has­two­facets.­On­the­one­hand,­it­is­a­process­of­rationalization­and­abstraction,­in­which­certain­engagements­with­the­world­are­transferred­to­a­system­of­self-referential­rules­which­cut most of the experiential relationship of this engagement with the world.­On­the­other­hand,­this­process­requires­experienceable­resources­and­makes­use­of­them­in­a­new­way.­It­introduces­a­new­sensory­and­experiential­realm­that­takes­the­place­of­the­former.­Both­the­strategies­to­refer­to­the­world­as­well­as­the­way­it­refers­to­us­shift.

These­examinations­provide­enough­insights­to­develop­a­hypothesis­for­the­epistemological­impact­of­digital­technologies.­In­modern­mathematics­—­sign­systems­as­described­by­Krämer­—­an­epistemological­impact­occurs­on­two­levels.­The­most­obvious­impact­is­caused­by­its­ability­to­give­operational­reality­to­phenomena­like­infinity,­of­which­reality­is­neither­philosophically­nor­empirically­certain.­It­is­a­truth­effect­that­exist­only­due­to­the­way­modern­mathematical­sign­systems­work­technically.

The­second­epistemological­impact­underlies­the­first­one,­but­is­more­subtle.­Krämer’s­critique­of­perceiving­the­formalization­of­the­math-ematical­sign­system­only­as­a­process­of­rationalization­made­one­thing­clear:­different­strategies­of­representing­phenomena­in­the­world­(iconic­and­discursive­among­others)­are­not­becoming­more­or­less­important­in­technologically­mediated­developments.­Instead,­they­just­change­place­within­our­cultural­and­epistemological­environment.­Since­such­strategies­provide­the­means­of­how­to­refer­to­or­interact­with­the­world,­as­well­as­how­the­world­refers­back,­changes­within­this­epistemological­environ-ment­fundamentally­affect­people’s­perception­and­experience­of­it.­Con-sequently,­Krämer­asks:

Könnte­es­sein,­daß­nahezu­alle­epistemischen­Effekte,­die­mit­Medien-innovationen­verbunden­sind,­sich­bei­genauerem­Hinsehen­als­ein­Surplus­erweisen,­das­entsteht,­wenn­ein­Medium­einem­anderen­Medium­inkorporiert,­in­ein­anderes­Medium­übertragen­wird?­Und­könnte­es­des­weiteren­sein,­daß­Medien­immer­schon­genuin­hybride­Bildungen­sind,­so­daß­also­die­Idee­des­Einzelmediums­sich­“nur”­einem­Akt­der­theoretischen­Stilisierung­verdankt?­Eine­Stilisierung,­die­vielleicht­genau­in­dem­Augenblick­möglich­wird,­wo­ein­Medium­zum­

things­and­theoretical­entities­into­the­domain­of­the­visual,­i.e. into­signs­that­can­be­perceived­visually”­(author’s­translation).

228 Beyond the Flow

Inhalt­eines­anderen­Mediums­wird­und­dadurch­überhaupt­erst­als­eine­bestimmte­Form­zutage­tritt?12­(Krämer­2003,­26)

As­explained­by­Krämer­above,­innovation­in­writing­took­place­by­virtue­of­a­reconfiguration­of­the­visual­or­iconic­dimension­of­writing­for­the­sake­of­counting­and­calculation.­This­however­also­means­that­the­role­of­using­visual­capacities­in­the­context­of­mathematics­shifts.­Krämer­demonstrates­these­types­of­shifts­by­highlighting­how­the­Roman­abacus­compensated­the­impossibility­of­the­Roman­sign­system­to­serve­as­an­instrument­for­counting­(18).­Hence,­people­had­to­literally­look­somewhere­else­—­into­the­world­or­to­a­tool­—­and­visual­strategies­in­mathematics­functioned­differently.­The­same­shift­underlies­Krämer’s­observation­that­scientific­progress­substantially­relies­on­making­abstract­phenomena­visually­experienceable,­instead­of­just­abstracting­from­what­is­expe-rienced­visually.

The­important­insight­for­the­sake­of­the­current­inquiry­is­Krämer’s­observation­that­there­is­no­linear­history­of­progress­in­which­one­medium­supersedes­the­other.­Instead,­there­are­relocations­of­the­usages­and­positions­of­certain­modes­of­experiencing­the­world,­i.e. capacities­to­represent­the­world.­This­is­important­to­keep­in­mind­while­evaluating­phrases­such­as­“show,­don’t­tell”­and­critiques­of­the­textual­organization­of­truth,­common­in­the­field­of­digital­publications.­The­hypothesis­of­Krämer­may,­however,­explain­very­well­how­media­innovations­such­as­those­of­digital­technologies­disintegrate­a­certain­epistemic­environ-ment,­together­with­their­known­and­trusted­practices­of­creating­and­verifying­knowledge.­It­is­then­not­surprising­that,­as­shown­by­the­previous­chapters,­digital­publications­look­like­a­potpourri­of­experiments­for­the­sake­of­finding­convincing­modes­of­creating­and­verifying­knowledge­in­the­“digital­age.”

Krämer’s­final­quote­also­contains­a­hypothesis­that­can­explain­why,­in­the­field­of­digital­publications,­claims­about­different­media­tend­to­overstress­certain­changes­such­as­those­outlined­in­the­sections­on­post-digitality­and­mathematical­knowledge.­More­precisely,­it­is­possible­to­take­the­theme­of­“epistemological­effects”­and­put­it­into­the­context­

12­ “Could­it­be,­that­all­the­epistemological­effects­which­emerge­out­of­changes­in­media­are­in­fact­a­surplus­of­the­incorporation­of­one­medium­into­another?­Could­it­furthermore­be­the­case­that­media­are­always­already­hybrid­constructions,­such­that­the­idea­of­unique­media­is­just­the­consequence­of­theoretical­con-ventionalization,­a­conventionalization­that­seems­possible­at­the­very­moment­in­which­one­medium­becomes­the­topic­of­another­medium,­so­that­it­has­the­pos-sibility­to­appear­as­a­specific­form­of­media­in­the­first­place?”­(author’s­translation)

Post-Digital … 229

of­the­discourse­on­digital­publications­today.­Epistemological­effects­are­created­where­certain­capacities­of­representing­the­world­engage­with­each­other­in­new­ways,­due­to­innovation­in­media­and­media-technology.­In­the­author’s­illustration,­this­engagement­is­the­iconic­restructuring­of­a­medium­that­has­been­perceived­as­a­mostly­discursive­medium­before.­In­the­field­of­digital­publications,­the­same­processes­are­indicated­by­phrases­like­the­fourth­paradigm­or­the­end­of­theory.­Surplus­is­not­just­the­process­of­reorientation­within­a­new­epistemic­environment­(see­above­paragraph).­It­is­the­act­of­constructing­and­re-defining­two­media­—­the­old­and­the­new­—­in­order­to­gain­orientation­within­an­epis-temologically­fragile­situation.­It­is­an­idealization,­because­for­the­purpose­of­orientation­it­stresses­features­that­help­to­separate­media­and­medi-alities­within­this­situation.

In­Krämer’s­analysis,­this­idealization­takes­the­form­of­a­disregarding­attitude­towards­the­visual­in­former­evaluations­of­the­history­of­science.­Hence,­the­iconic­condition­within­this­history­remained­hidden­for­a­certain­period.­However,­there­are­also­examples­of­a­positive­idealization.­One­example­is­given­by­Bernard­Stiegler­in­his­revision­of­Platon’s­critique­of­written­text­compared­to­spoken­language­(Stiegler­2006).­According­to­Stiegler,­Plato­conceived­of­written­text­as­an­artificial­memory­which­builds­on­a­technical­relationship­with­language.­Spoken­language­for­Plato­is­in­contrast­not­based­on­a­technical­relationship­with­language,­which­privileges­it­for­the­task­of­philosophical­truth­seeking.

By­making­significant­use­of­the­work­of­Derrida­(1982)­on­the­relationship­between­spoken­language­and­written­text,­Stiegler­illustrates,­however,­that­Plato’s­description­of­language­fundamentally­presupposes­a­technical­use­of­vocality,­which­is­the­same­he­attributes­to­text.­Thus,­the­dis-tinction­between­written­text­and­spoken­language­appears­fuzzier­than­considered­by­Plato.­Using­the­words­of­Krämer,­the­emerging­text-based­culture­in­Athens­created­a­“surplus”­when­reflecting­on­spoken­and­written­language.

The­idea­of­surplus­makes­it­possible­to­qualify­some­of­the­claims­about­epistemological­changes­provoked­by­digital­technology,­like­those­about­the­end­of­theory­or­the­transgression­of­binaries­that­belong­to­the­“restrictive”­culture­of­textuality.­At­the­same­time,­it­gives­evidence­of­the­fact­that­changes­in­representational­strategies­take­place­in­times­of­media­innovation,­and­that­these­changes­require­re-orientation­and­intervention,­as­will­be­discussed­now.

230 Beyond the Flow

Representing in Times of Calculated CalculationThe Computer as a Calculatedly Calculating Machine

Krämer­(2003,­21)­describes­innovation­in­the­usage­of­textuality,­leading­to­what­she­calls,­“operational­script.”­It­remains­an­open­question­how­Krämer’s­line­of­argument­makes­it­possible­to­identify­something­specific­about­the­intermedial­situation­of­digital­technologies­today.­From­her­point­of­view,­the­usage­of­calculation­(see­above)­is­responsible­for­the­development­of­operational­script.­A­revision­of­this­use­of­calculation­thus­might­also­help­to­gain­insights­about­today’s­intermedial­situation.

As­has­been­described­above,­the­author­defines­calculation­as­a­goal-oriented,­functional,­and­efficient­process.­This­definition­is­substantiated­by­the­explanation­that­such­a­calculated­process­is­one­in­which­knowing how­and­knowing that­diverge:

Das­Wissen,­wie­wir­eine­Rechenoperation­durchzuführen­haben,­trennt­sich­vom­Wissen­womit­wir­dabei­eigentlich­umgehen­und­warum­diese­Operation­tatsächlich­aufgeht.13­(Krämer­2003,­21)

This­divergence­also­underlies­Krämer’s­comparison­between­the­Roman­and­the­modern­mathematical­sign­system.­While­the­former­focused­on­the­representation­of­mathematical­entities,­the­latter­focus­on­facilitating­counting.­The­first­depicts­entities,­the­second­depicts­its­relationship­to­other­mathematical­symbols.­For­Krämer,­such­divergence­is­crucial­for­any­kind­of­calculative­practice­requiring­a­technological­relationship­to­its­object­of­application.­This­again­clarifies­the­application­of­the­term­“machine”­in­her­definition­of­mathematical­text­as­a­symbolic­machine­(above;­Krämer­2003,­19).

The­term­“machine”­indicates­the­relationship­to­the­topic­of­computation,­since­modern­computation­is­fundamentally­a­result­of­calculatory­practice.­The­Turing­Machine,­the­theoretical­of­modern­computation,­was­a­response­to­the­so-called­Hilbert Program.­It­aimed­at­proving­or­rejecting­the­“Entscheidbarkeit”­(decidability)­of­a­calculus.­In­simple­terms,­this­means­that­it­tries­to­prove­that­any­mathematical­statement,­build­upon­logical­axioms,­will­conclude­in­a­finite­number­of­steps.­In­the­context­of­computers this means the question of whether a computer will halt so that

13­ “The­knowledge­about­the­procedure­and­steps­which­we­have­to­take­in­order­to­carry­out­a­mathematical­calculation­is­isolated­from­knowledge­about­the­issue­we­are­dealing­with,­as­well­as­why­this­procedure­actually­leads­to­a­correct­result.”­(author’s­translation)

Post-Digital … 231

in­computer­science­terminology­the­Turing­Machine­is­concerned­with­the­Halting Problem.

As­in­the­scenario­described­by­Krämer,­the­result­of­this­calculatory­practice­decouples­a­type­of­knowing-how­from­its­corresponding­knowing-that.­Knowing­how­to­manipulate­or­program­a­computer­and­wait­for­it­to­“halt”­does­not­require­knowledge­about­what­mathematical­decidability­means.­Furthermore,­it­is­possible­to­argue­that­using­the­terminology­of­Krämer,­rules­to­manipulate­signs­turn­into­rules­to­manipulate­a­machine.­In­the­early­years­of­computation­this­was­quite­a­mechanical­matter.

However,­there­is­a­significant­difference­between­the­outcome­of­calculatory­practice­in­the­creation­of­lists­for­problem­solving­(Lemke),­or­operational­writing­(Krämer),­and­the­Turing­Machine.­With­the­Turing­Machine,­for­the­first­time­calculatory­practice­is­fully­concerned­with­itself­and­thus­self-reflective.­Lists­facilitate­the­reproduction­of­steps­in­order­to­solve­problems.­Operational­writing­facilitates­counting­in­order­to­enable­its­colloquially­ubiquitous­application.­Only­in­the­Turing­Machine­does­calculatory­practice­evaluate­itself.­It­is­not­just­a­machine,­but­a­machine­in­symbolizing­machinery.­Likewise,­what­is­operationalized­with­the­Turing­Machine­is­operationality­itself.­Operationalized­operationality,­finally,­is­nothing­else­than­automation.

Once­again,­it­must­be­highlighted­that­what­is­worth­emphasizing­about­the­impact­of­computation­is­not­what­it­does­to­mathematics,­or­how­it­changes­our­relationship­to­mathematics,­as­it­is­argued­in­e-Science,­but­the­way­it­significantly­alters­the­state­and­role­of­calculatory­practice.­Stressing­the­issue­of­automation­as­a­universalization­of­calculatory­practice­makes­it­furthermore­difficult­to­maintain­the­claim­that­math-ematics,­or­a­familiar­though­not­identical­thing­like­programming,­is­at­the­very­heart­of­digital­publications.­Mathematics­is­not­the­goal­but­the­means­for­generalizing­this­practice.­Automation­means­benefiting­from­mathematics­without­the­need­to­do­math,­just­like­operational­script­means­benefiting­from­counting­without­deeper­knowledge­about­math-ematical­rules.­The­benefit­is­to­have­some­input­and­get­some­output,­precisely­without­having­to­understand­what­lies­in­between.­In­a­very­different­context,­this­observation­is­a­repetition­and­confirmation­of­Cramer’s­remark­that­if­anything,­digital­technologies­are­technologies­of­transformation.

232 Beyond the Flow

Universalizing Symbolization Conversions

It­is­now­possible­to­phrase­the­question­about­the­intermedial­situation­of­digital­technologies­in­a­more­precise­way:­the­question­is­how­automation­does­—­the­ability­of­a­machine­that­calculatedly­calculates­—­affect­people’s­relationship­with­the­world­in­terms­of­representing­and­knowing­it.­Making­use­of­the­insights­gained­by­the­inquiry­of­Krämer,­this­question­splits­into­two­parts:­first,­how­does­automation­reorganize­the­relationship­between­certain­representation­strategies,­and­second,­how­does­it­change­the­environment­in­which­these­strategies­are­applied.

In­fact,­possible­answers,­derived­from­observations­about­the­field­of­digital­publications,­offer­some­indications­already.­These­indications­can­very­well­be­related­to­some­of­the­conclusions­from­the­current­chapter.­Regarding­the­first­question,­examples­showed­that­the­usage­of­different­ways­to­communicate­something­meaningful­such­as­text,­images,­or­in­TPs­also­sound,­were­more­and­more­treated­as­equal.­Representation­strategies­were­used­for­a­variety­of­purposes­and­for­a­similar­purpose­different­representation­strategies­were­mobilized.

This­phenomenon­confirms­the­prospect­that­social­semiotics­laid­out­for­the­making­and­use­of­signs.­The­epitome­of­this­development­is­what­the­research­field­of­multimodal analysis calls a process of increasing grammatization­of­means­to­represent­other­than­by­language.­Multimodal­analysis­(hereafter­referred­to­as­MuA)­is­a­set­of­research­fields­that­emerged­out­of­the­program­of­social­semiotics­( Jewitt­2011;­O’Halloran­and­Smith­2011;­O’Halloran­2011;­Jewitt­2014).­While­social­semiotics­predominantly­carried­out­analysis­of­language,­MuA­uses­Halliday’s­con-ceptual­tools­to­analyze­the­use­and­status­of­different,­i.e. multimodal,­means­of­representing­in­a­very­systematic­way.­Concepts­such­as­semiotic­resource,­multimodality,­and­grammatization­are­part­of­the­outcome­of­this­attempt.

In­this­process,­the­term­grammatization­refers­to­two­things.­First,­it­addresses­the­process­itself,­in­which­more­and­more­resources­are­used­in­everyday­communication­in­order­to­produce­meaning­and­to­represent­something,­i.e. to­become­semiotic­resources.­Secondly,­it­refers­to­the­observation­that­the­type­of­use­of­these­semiotic­resources,­on­their­own­and­in­combination­with­each­other,­engenders­certain­rules­that­are­sim-ilar­to­grammatical­rules­in­language­(O’Halloran­2011,­126).­From­this­point­of­view,­things­like­images,­space,­sound,­color,­and­gesture­among­other­things become semiotic resources­within­a­multimodal­discursive­practice­(O’Halloran­2011,­120–21).­Building­upon­such­observation,­MuA­tries­to­

Post-Digital … 233

analyze­these­grammatical­structures,­their­development,­their­application­in­colloquial­communication,­and­translations­of­meaning­between­semiotic­resources.

One­does­not­need­to­agree­with­the­claim­that­each­semiotic­resource­can­develop­the­same­level­of­grammatization­or­is­equally­suitable­for­discourse.­It­is­furthermore­possible­to­challenge­the­idea­that­there­is­a­historical­drive­towards­ever­increasing­grammatization,­as­is­sometimes­suggested­(Stiegler­2010;­Tinnell­2015).­However,­such­criticisms­do­not­invalidate­the­observation­that­the­evaluation­of­the­capabilities­of­different­means­to­represent­something,­and­the­parallel­use­of­different­strategies,­have­significantly­increased­in­the­context­of­digital­publications­and­its­corresponding­discourse­on­digital­technologies.

Both­phenomena,­the­increased­use­of­resources­as­semiotic­resources,­as­well­as­a­process­of­grammatization­for­many­of­these­resources,­can­be­explicated­via­the­definition­of­digital­technologies­and­computation­in­this­chapter.­Cramer’s­observation­that­computers­mostly­convert­between­signals,­for­instance­analogue­signals­into­digital­signals,­is­just­another­description­of­the­same­phenomenon,­a­conversion­of­something­into­a­representation­of­the­same­thing.­The­same­applies­to­the­issue­of­grammatization.­The­cultural­practice­of­calculation­formalized,­not­to­say,­grammatized­the­iconography­of­mathematical­symbols­and­the­layout­of­the­paper­on­which­they­are­written­or­printed.­It­therefore­goes­without­saying­that­a­machine­which­mimics­the­idea­of­calculatory­practice­itself­has­a­lot­to­offer­for­converting­between­different­modalities­in­a­calculatory­way­or­using­such­modalities­purposefully.

It­does­not­surprise,­then,­that­in­MuA­the­phenomenon­of­multimodal­rep-resentation­and­communication­is­expected­to­grow­significantly­as­a­direct­consequence­of­digital­technologies.­For­O’Halloran­(2008),­the­unique­aspect­of­digital­technologies­is­the­fact­that­they­introduce­what­she­calls­a universal symbolism,­i.e. a­mechanism­for­omnipotent­representation.­Regardless­of­the­question­if­it­is­really­a­universal­symbolism­that­the­computer­introduces,­or­if­it­is­better­described­as­the­universalization­of­practices­of­representation­and­symbolic­conversions­as­in­this­study,­the­crucial point remains the same: the increasing capability of using many different­semiotic­resources­in­order­to­represent­and­to­communicate­is­so­fundamentally­entangled­with­digital­technologies­that,­in­the­eyes­of­MuA,­it­makes­sense­to­call­such­practices­a­“digital­literacy”­(Rowsell­2013).

As­has­been­indicated­already,­it­is­possible­to­observe­the­impact­of­this­universalization­of­symbolic­practice­in­many­digital­publications­described­

234 Beyond the Flow

in­the­preceding­chapters.­It­underlies­the­inclusion­of­different­types­of­media­with­equal­rights­proposed­by­publication­concepts­as­different­as­RIPs,­UBs,­or­TPs.­The­case­of­TPs­stands­out­most­in­this­respect­because­they­aim­at­the­same­universal­level­on­which­O’Halloran’s­character-ization­of­digital­technologies­is­located.­Indeed,­the­peculiarity­of­TPs­is­the­proposition­to­not­only­add­different­media­types­to­a­publication,­but­to­create­something­that­is­more­than­its­parts:­a­transmedial,­which­in­this­context­could­be­translated­to­universal,­mode­of­producing­meaning.

An­argument­against­this­characterization­is­the­alleged­primacy­of­data,­advocated­in­e-Science­approaches­to­digital­publications,­in­order­to­support­more­“data-like”­publications.­However,­this­argument­only­looks­like­a­counter-argument.­There­are­two­reasons­for­this­claim.­First,­where­such­approaches­advocate­the­publication­of­data,­this­data­is­normally­addressed­in­a­way­that­is­far­from­being­data­in­the­strictest­sense.­A­csv file­for­the­representation­of­tabular­data,­for­instance,­is­a­textual­rep-resentation­of­the­concept­of­sequenced­lists­of­information­in­the­first­place.­The­same­applies­to­SPs,­in­which­more­than­binary­data­is­produced­and­published­as­texts,­including­certain­grammatical­extensions­useful­for­the­computer.­They­are­not­published­as­binary­files­but­as­text­files,­and­for­good­reason,­because­as­binary­files­they­would­be­hard­to­use­in­their­respective­environments.

The­confusing­point­about­the­term­data­and­its­usage­is­the­fact­that­rather­than­referring­to­certain­properties­of­the­thing,­it­denotes­what­people­want­to­do­with­it.­What­the­ideal­of­data­really­advocates­is­not­the­primacy­of­a­certain­type­of­representation­above­all­others,­but­of­programing­as­the­ultimate­form­of­inquiry.­What­distinguishes­the­two­examples­is­a­certain­level­of­formal­structure,­but­this­does­not­oppose­it­completely­to­text,­which­itself­has­formal­structure­in­terms­of­grammar,­style­conventions­and­layout.

It­could­however­be­argued­that­it­has­a­specific­type­and­degree­of­formal­structure­that­makes­computation­more­efficient.­Accordingly,­something­becomes­data­when­it­is­highly­structured­and­organized.­In­recorded­data­such­as­the­music­files­in­the­Executable­Music­Documents­project­(De­Roure­2014a)­and­other­sensory­data,­it­becomes­clear­that­this­distinction­does­not­hold­either.­There­is­very­little­structure­in­such­data,­considering­the­way­structure­is­understood­above.­In­this­context,­people­might­speak­of­raw­data.­Nevertheless,­nothing­stops­those­same­music­files­from­being­heard­by­someone­through­the­means­of­an­audio­player­that­computes,­meaning­it­converts­the­file­into­sound­waves,­or­from­being­processed­by­

Post-Digital … 235

a­data­analyst­through­programming.­It­could­just­as­easily­be­defined­as­a­piece­of­music­as­raw­data.

The­issue­of­formality­and­structure,­again,­refers­more­to­the­computational­model­by­which­a­certain­resource­is­processed­and­to­specific­computational­capacities­at­a­certain­point­of­time,­than­to­properties­of­the­resource­itself.­The­need­for­structure­in­data­varies,­as­such­models­and­capacities­vary.

Having­said­all­this,­it­is­not­reasonable­to­aim­at­more­“data-like”­pub-lications,­since­it­is­wrong­to­interpret­the­corresponding­discourse­about­data­as­counterargument­against­the­claim­of­an­expansion­of­the­capabilities­of­symbolic­or­semiotic­practices.­Everything­without­any­exception­is­digital­data­if­turned­into­a­representation­that­consists­of­bits­in­a­computer.­However,­this­data­is­nothing­more­than­a­self-description­of­the­computer­as­a­machine.­No­one,­especially­not­in­the­context­of­science,­engages­directly­with­this­representation.­They­engage­with­it­as­a­binary­representation­of­a­representation­of­a­text-documents­—­for­instance­TEI-XML­—­or­as­a­binary­representation­of­a­representation­of­a­music­file­such as RIFF WAVE.­Consequently,­data­is­a­representation­which­evokes­representations.­This,­however,­is­exactly­what­was­argued­about­the­con-sequences­of­the­idea­of­a­calculatedly-calculating­machine­for­the­status­of­representation­above.­As­machines­of­conversions,­digital­technologies­universalize­the­practice­of­symbolization,­meaning­the­representational­use­of­different­resources­or­modalities­and­the­perception­of­what­rep-resentations­are.

The Difference between Representation and Intervention

The­implementation­of­a­universal­symbolic­system­and­the­simultaneous­use­of­different­modalities­for­different­semiotic­purposes­is­only­one­horizon­of­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine.­Another­one­can­be­derived­from­Krämer’s­observations­that­the­calculatory­practice­of­operational­script­turns­abstract­and­theoretical­entities­into­entities­that­can­be­sensed­and­experienced.­In­Krämer’s­example,­it­is­the­eye­that­sees­mathematical­symbols­on­a­paper­and­the­hand­that­touches­this­paper­while­writing­on­it.­Thus,­there­is­not­just­an­extension­of­symbolic­means,­but­also­a­reconfiguration­of­the­role­sensing.­Krämer­emphasized­this­aspect­because­it­is­often­forgotten,­so­that­now­the­question­to­be­answered­is:­what­is­being­overlooked­in­the­picture­above?

236 Beyond the Flow

Up­to­this­point,­it­is­not­clear­how­digital­technologies­reconfigure­the­realm­of­things­to­be­experienced.­They­appeared­as­technologies­creating­new­means­of­what­can­be­sensed­only,­just­like­the­transformation­of­topological­into­typological­knowledge,­or­the­conversion­of­analogue­phenomena­into­digital.­Nonetheless,­some­indications­in­the­work­of­Cramer­suggest­that­this­is­only­part­of­the­issue.­In­fact,­universalized­conversion­in­the­light­of­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine­does­not­just­mean analogue to digital or digital to analogue but … to analogue to digital to analogue to ….­It­addresses­the­ability­to­sequence­such­conversions­in­an­instant­without­leaving­the­machine­itself,­i.e. without­anyone’s­participation.

Looking­from­the­viewpoint­of­representing­something,­this­sequence­of­conversions­addresses­the­capability­of­digital­technologies­to­completely­detach­from­the­representational­context­and­the­motivation­that­started­the­sequence­in­the­first­place.­That­means­it­can­produce­discrete­objects­for­which,­theoretically,­it­is­no­longer­reproducible­what­they­represent­and­that­they­represent.­In­consequence,­such­objects­have­to­be­expe-rienced­and­sensed­not­as­a­means­to­interpret­or­decode­them,­but­to­open­up­any­possibility­for­decoding­and­interpretation­in­the­first­place.

In­principle,­a­simulation­is­a­first­step­in­this­direction­because­the­transformation­steps­between­the­description­of­a­phenomenon­and­the­simulation­are­complex­to­such­an­extent­that­a­simulation­is­sensed­more­than­it­is­read.­In­fact,­it­often­is­the­very­purpose­of­certain­types­of­simulations­to­provoke­sensing­and­affection­(Licastro­2017).­Nevertheless,­a­simulation­is­still­associated­with­the­domain­of­digital­technologies,­that­means­likely­to­be­understood­as­representation­of­something,­rather­than­being­something­of­its­own,­because­it­remains­the­screen­on­which­the­phenomenon­was­both­described­and­turned­into­a­simulation.­The­point­becomes­clearer­when­the­example­of­the­3D­printer­is­taken,­because­a­3D­printer­produces­objects­out­of­representations­that­are­not­only­meant­to­be­sensed,­but­which­are­also­completely­detached­from­the­technological­apparatus.­It­is­a­new­autonomous­“living”­object­which­is­able­to­relocate­in­time­and­space­and­thereby­begins­to­speak­for­itself.

Within­this­description,­representation­in­digital­technologies­would­be­better­understood­as­intervening.­The­transgression­of­this­frontier­is­articulated­very­clearly­where­it­is­applied­as­a­scientific­methodology.­Accordingly,­Sayers­et­al.­(2015,­4)­quote­Neil­Gershenfeld­in­“Between­Bits­and­Atoms,”­a­contribution­for­the­New Companion to Digital Humanities (Schreibman,­Siemens,­and­Unsworth­2016),­when­they­refer­to­this­frontier­

Post-Digital … 237

in­terms­of­“’the­programmability­of­the­digital­worlds­we’ve­invented’­applied­‘to­the­physical­world­we­inhabit’”.­This­methodology­consists­of­“creating­a­conversation­between­the­physical­world­and­the­virtual­world­of­the­computer”­which­is­“the­conversion­of­one­form­of­energy­into­another”­(7).

The­constructive­and­truth-creating­act­Krämer­describes­in­the­context­of­the­infinite­and­the­zero­in­mathematics­needs­therefore­to­be­understood­more­literally­for­the­case­of­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine.­What­is­constructed­are­objects­that­fully­become­part­of­what­is­called­the­real­world­and­hence­exist­literally.

A­set­of­extreme­examples­for­this­interventionist­dimension­is­given­by­bio-engineering,­nano-technology,­and­robotics,­among­other­disciplines­—­disciplines­which­quite­literally­“write”­reality.­Representation­does­thus­not­only­turn­more­easily­into­an­intervention­in­the­represented­context,­but­also­into­an­entire­transformation­of­this­context.­In­a­metaphoric­way,­people­like­Bernard­Stiegler­coined­the­term­“Science­Fiction”­in­comparison­to­“Science”­in­order­to­emphasize­the­qualitative­shift­that­digital­technologies­carry­out­on­the­practice­of­representing­(Stiegler­2011;­Abbinnett­2017,­56).­In­the­area­of­digital­publishing,­phrases­like­“Show­Don’t­Tell”­or­the­abundant­evaluations­of­the­status­of­text­in­digital­pub-lications gave testimony of this uncertainty about the status of the practice of­representation­as­such.­In­a­firm­plea­to­open­up­the­field­of­digital­scholarly­publications,­Stephen­Ramsay­and­Geoffrey­Rockwell­also­use­the­term­“thing­knowledge”­as­a­new­type­of­epistemology,­and­proclaim­that­“according­to­this­view,­we­should­be­open­to­communicating­scholarship­through­artifacts,­whether­digital­or­not”­(Ramsay­and­Rockwell­2012).

Again,­and­in­a­more­theoretical­context,­a­constellation­that­can­be­reproduced­by­a­technology­that­supposedly­delivers­perfect­conditions­for­representation,­is­opposed­by­a­use­of­this­technology­that­undermines­representation­as­such.­Only­this­time,­it­is­not­about­the­concept­of­aggregation­as­the­perfect­representation­of­publications,­and­the­artif-actual­is­not­represented­by­SCPs,­but­by­the­concept­of­reality­itself.­In­summary,­the­impact­of­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine­for­the­practice­of­representing­is­not­just­a­significant­extension­of­its­means,­but­also­a­closer­entanglement­with­other­practices­that­are­called­inter-ventional­or­transformative.

238 Beyond the Flow

The Three Epistemological Effects of Calculated Calculation

The Omnipotence and Crisis of Representation

After­analyzing­the­changes­that­digital­technologies­caused­for­the­practice­of­representation­in­the­light­of­Krämer’s­concepts,­it­is­now­pos-sible­to­have­a­closer­look­at­what­she­called­epistemological­effects­in­the­epistemic­environment­of­an­intermedial­situation.­As­has­been­indicated,­the­term­“epistemological­effect”­is­intended­to­denote­the­irritating­impact­that­changes­within­this­environment­have­on­people’s­strategies­when­conceiving­of,­representing,­and­understanding­the­world,­as­well­as­the­ways­in­which­this­world­unfolds­for­people.

Concerning­the­issue­of­universalized­representation,­two­effects­can­be­identified­regarding­the­idea­of­a­calculatedly-calculatory­machine.­One­of­these­effects­can­be­derived­from­an­analysis­of­the­logical­end­of­the­idea­of­multimodal­and­universal­representation,­the­other­focuses­on­the­consequences­of­multimodal­representation­practices­for­systems­of­representation.

The­allegedly­universal­ability­to­use­different­semiotic­resources­in­order­to­represent­certain­issues,­to­use­semiotic­researches­in­different­ways,­and­to­use­them­at­the­same­time­in­a­hybrid­and­complex­representation­suggests­the­idea­of­a­perfect­representation.­Where­such­an­idea­is­dis-qualified­due­to­philosophical­reasons,­it­still­introduces­criteria­of­rep-resentation­quality­in­terms­of­multimodal­density,­complexity,­or­plurality.­Publications­in­journals­such­as­Vectors,­Kairos,­or­other­TPs­are­very­often­built­around­such­a­notion.

The­second­effect­is­based­on­the­possibility­of­a­contrasting­perspective­of­the­aforementioned­ability.­The­advancement­of­these­abilities­can­similarly­be­evaluated­as­an­increase­of­heterogeneity,­contingency,­and­unsteadi-ness­in­the­domain­of­representation.­Representational­disorientation­is­a­possible­outcome­here.­Krämer’s­discussion­indicated­already­that­in­the­past,­specific­resources­tend­to­have­specific­functions­in­particular­con-texts.­Not­all­potentially­semiotic­resources­were­used­in­a­semiotic­way.­This­was­also­part­of­certain­technologically­mediated­limitations­in­the­use­of­resources­for­the­sake­of­representation.­In­this­sense,­she­highlighted­the­correspondence­between­iconographic­aspects­of­Roman­numbers­and­things­that­could­be­called­countable­by­the­eye.­She­also­showed­that­such­functions­may­change,­as­they­changed­in­the­shift­of­the­visual­focus­from­

Post-Digital … 239

things­that­are­counted­to­visual­aids­to­support­the­process­of­counting.­Epistemological­effects­were­also­defined­as­an­irritation­produced­by­this­shift,­meaning­the­defamiliarization­of­familiar­usages­of­a­certain­resource­in­a­specific­strategy­of­representing­the­world.

A­more­insightful­and­systematic­description­of­this­issue­in­the­context­of­digital­technologies­can­be­found­by­referring­to­the­concept­of­mode­and­its­development­in­MuA.­If­multimodality­is­the­general­possibility­of­using­different­resources­for­representation,­and­grammatization­indicates­the­development­of­rules­within­such­usages,­the­question­is­how­to­identify­rule-based­multimodal­representation.­Multimodal­analysis­discusses­this­issue­under­the­concept­of­mode.­Accordingly,­part­of­MuA­is­to­ask­the­question:­“What­is­Mode?”­(Kress­2013),­or­better,­when­is­multimodal­communication­creating­certain­modes­that­each­share­recognizable­application­patterns­across­situations?­Chapter­six­will­provide­an­in-depth­analysis­of­mode­that­goes­beyond­the­remarks­in­the­following­lines.

There­are­analytical­and­pragmatic­answers­to­this­question.­Gunther­Kress,­who­prefers­the­term­mode­to­the­term­resource,­defines­it­as­an­entanglement­between­media,­semiotic­logics,­and­social­actions­(Kress­2013,­61).­Media,­sometimes­called­technology­or­device,­means­physical­material­or­device­involved­in­meaning­production,­such­as­paper­or­computer­screens.­Semiotic­logics­are­concerned­with­syntactical­limitations­and­potentials­of­media.­Instruments­or­speakers,­for­instance,­cannot­make­use­of­elements­of­color,­but­of­time­and­pitch.­Additionally,­modes­are­socio-culturally­encoded.­A­medium­such­as­a­book­is­most­often­a­socio-cultural­artifact.­The­usage­patterns­of­semiotic­logics­and­the­situations­in­which­a­mode­is­used­are­more­or­less­socio-culturally­defined.

In­other­words,­specific­technologies­conflate­with­certain­modalities­and­corresponding­semiotic­logics.­These­are­organized­in­a­historical­process­by­virtue­of­cultural­norms­and­practices,­in­order­to­form­a­relatively­stable­entanglement.­The­relative­stability­and­thereby­transparency­of­this­entanglement­exists­for­members­of­a­socio-cultural­environment­over­a­certain­period­of­time.­With­some­fuzziness­left,­it­could­be­argued­that­Krämer­describes­a­process­in­which­a­specific­mode­of­representation­—­that­of­mathematical­writing­and­arithmetic­books­—­develops,­except­that­Krämer’s­perspective­focuses­on­a­specific­process­and­describes­this­process­from­within,­while­mode­is­a­top-down­conceptual­framework­that­seeks­to­be­applicable­across­specific­examples.

However,­it­has­just­been­argued­that­digital­technologies­can­take­the­form­of­many­devices­and­to­mediate­between­devices­in­different­ways.­

240 Beyond the Flow

The­aspect­of­automation,­furthermore,­puts­much­more­control­over­the­process­of­organizing­modalities­in­the­hands­of­domains­and­individuals.­In­the­light­of­the­aforementioned­heterogeneity­and­the­variety­of­the­abundance­of­digital­publication­formats,­it­could­therefore­be­argued­that­in­times­of­digital­technologies,­there­is­a­constant­tension­between­the­processes­towards­establishing­social­conventions­for­the­usage­of­modalities­and­their­arrangement­for­the­sake­of­specific­situations­or­contexts.

The­comparison­between­Krämer’s­analysis­and­the­concept­of­mode­allows­a­closer­look­at­how­discussions­of­the­status­of­mode­reveal­the­shape­of­epistemological­effects­caused­by­digital­technologies.­Within­MuA­itself,­the­whole­issue­is­analyzed­in­a­very­precise­way,­which­benefits­from­the­analytical­instruments­described­above.­Thus,­Boeriis­and­Johannessen­(2015)­argue­that­the­whole­concept­of­mode­becomes­problematic,­due­to­digital­technologies.­They­assert­that:

…­as­a­result­of­new­technologies,­logogenetic­action-perception­cycles­in­multimodal­articulation­happen­at­an­ever-increasing­rate,­which­causes­both­ontogenetic­growth­and­phylogenetic­conventionalization­dynamics­to­speed­up­as­well.­(Boeriis­and­Johannessen­2015,­13)

In­simpler­terms,­digital­technologies­undermine­the­conditions­that­are­necessary­for­modes­to­emerge.­Already­in­2005,­Lemke­observed­that­the­concept­of­multimodal­genre,­a­term­that­has­a­great­similarity­to­mode,­does­not­hold­any­longer­(Lemke­2005).­Lemke­states­that­due­to­the­proliferation­of­modal­and­semiotic­options,­and­the­dissociation­between­specific­devices­and­the­use­of­semiotic­resources,­the­idea­of­genre­is­substituted­by­so-called­“traversals.”­Within­traversals,­the­link­between­modalities­and­semiotic­aspects­of­such­modalities­does­not­exist­independently­from­a­specific­situation,­controlled­very­often­by­only­a­few­individuals.­Hence,­there­is­no­“grammatical”­relationship­beyond­the­“cohesive­chain”­of­elements.

It­has­been­said­that­epistemological­effects­in­an­intermedial­situation­con-sist­of­irritations­to­the­common­strategies­of­representing­and­referring­to­the­world.­Such­irritations­can­also­be­found­today.­A­good­example­for­illustrating­the­shifts­and­the­irritations­they­often­provoke­is­given­by­Mersch­(2004).­In­his­examination,­Mersch­tries­to­specify­the­uniqueness­of­iconographic­descriptions­of­the­world­compared­to­those­in­language.­At­the­same­time,­however,­he­regrets­that­this­uniqueness­is­slowly­dis-appearing­in­contemporary­usages­of­images,­which­themselves­start­to­work­like­language.­He­offers­the­example­of­images­in­science,­which,­

Post-Digital … 241

according­to­the­author,­are­used­as­arguments­in­something­he­denotes­as­an­iconographic­discourse.­Mersch­regrets­these­changes­because­he­inter-prets­it­as­a­loss­of­a­particular­mode­of­making­sense­of­the­world.­This­regret­can­be­considered­a­good­example­of­one­of­the­epistemic­effects­of­intermediality.­Additionally,­the­example­supports­the­claim­that­the­relationship­between­certain­modalities­and­what­they­mediate­depends­less­on­a­specific­logic­of­this­modality,­and­more­on­the­practices­in­which­they­are­embedded,­as­well­as­the­ways­people­conceive­of­them.

How­then­can­the­epistemic­effects­derived­from­the­universalization­of­symbolic­practices­be­summarized?­The­first­approach,­as­has­been­argued­at­the­beginning­of­this­section,­welcomes­the­freedom­and­flexibility­by­which­semiotic­resources­can­now­be­used­for­representation­purposes.­It­celebrates­multimodal­complexity­as­a­goal­in­itself.­The­second,­however,­indicates­that­this­flexibility­might­also­come­with­the­loss­of­certain­semi-otic­capabilities,­of­use­and­play­with­conventions­and­the­emergence­of­genre­norms.

To­push­this­point­further,­the­availability­of­the­aforementioned­univer-salization,­and­the­concurrency­of­multiple­representational­modes­as­well­as­multiple­usage­patterns­for­modalities,­may­likewise­be­conceived­of­as­a­crisis­of­the­strategic­practice­of­representing­as­such.­Examples­for­such­perception­today­are­given­above.­This­is­not­surprising,­since­from­an­ontological­point­of­view­a­perfect­representation­turns­into­the­thing­itself,­so­that­any­type­of­representational­relationship­disappears.

The­same­crisis­can­be­observed­from­the­opposite­side.­A­hypothetical­traversal,­in­which­the­use­of­semiotic­resources­is­governed­solely­by­the­situation­of­use,­could­not­be­considered­part­of­a­collective­rep-resentational­system­any­longer.­It­would­become­difficult­to­identify­the­semiotic­use­of­resources­as­such,­because,­as­social­semiotics­has­argued,­being­a­sign­is­already­a­social­convention.­For­this­reason,­a­subfield­of­MuA­emphasizes­that­one­should­not­distinguish­between­acts­of­rep-resentation­and­other­actions­any­longer.­In­this­research­field,­called­Multi-modal Interaction Analysis­(hereafter­referred­to­as­MIA),­everything­is­an­action­(Norris­2011),­and­representation­as­a­practice­by­itself­vanishes.

Omnipotence and Crisis Beyond Representation

The­concept­of­action­resembles­the­notion­of­intervention­used­before.­While­the­first­term­focuses­on­the­relationship­between­an­agent­and­an­action,­the­second­addresses­the­relationship­between­an­action­

242 Beyond the Flow

and­its­effect­on­its­environment.­In­the­light­of­this­second­relation-ship,­another­important­epistemological­effect­can­be­identified:­the­more­representation­and­intervention­conflate­with­each­other,­the­more­the­distinction­between­the­concepts­of­nature­and­culture­becomes­inappropriate.

In­a­certain­way,­Krämer’s­digression­on­the­constructivist­facet­of­operational­script­demonstrates­that­such­a­distinction­was­always­problematic.­Nonetheless,­the­extent­to­which­it­appears­problematic­in­the­context­of­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine­seems­to­pose­new­challenges.­Once­again,­it­helps­to­remember­that­this­machine­does­not­just­cause­a­new­set­of­entities­to­appear­as­operational­script­did­in­math-ematics.­Neither­did­it­just­cause­a­shift­in­the­relationship­between­nature­and­culture.­It­seeks­to­control­the­relationship­itself.

A­variety­of­theoretical­discussions­exist­which­give­evidence­of­the­impact­of­the­resulting­epistemological­effect.­These­discussions­are­attempts­to­arrange­a­new­epistemic­setup­under­the­aforementioned­conditions.­One­of­these­discussions­is­addressed­by­the­term­Anthropocene,­a­concept­that­raised­much­attention­across­various­scientific­domains­in­the­last­fifteen­years.­It­is­most­often­associated­with­geological­and­climate-related­phenomena.­All­of­these­phenomena,­like­for­instance­climate­change,­indicate­the­impact­of­people­on­processes­of­the­earth’s­environment­(Waters­et­al.­2016).­Hence,­it­addresses­a­setup­in­which­no­aspect­of­what­is­called­nature­can­be­considered­out­of­the­reach­of­people.­Likewise,­the­epochal­wording­of­this­setup­as­a­phase­in­the­history­of­the­earth­reflects­that­the­change­is­conceived­of­as­fundamental.­Accordingly,­Bethany­Nowviskie­states­in­“Digital­Humanities­and­the­Anthropocene”­that­“it­is­a­geological­age­of­our­own­making”­(Nowviskie­2015,­6),­using­a­quote­by­Andrew­Revkin.­Another­quote­that­is­often­re-used­in­this­debate­is­that­of­Vladimir­Vernadskij,­who­in­a­much­earlier­attempt­to­address­the­same­issue states:

We­study­the­influence­of­the­scientific­thought­as­a­geological­force,­and­in­this­case­often­the­thought­and­will­of­a­separate­person­may­suddenly­change­natural­processes­and­manifest­itself­through­this­change.­(Vernadskij­1997)

On­a­more­fine-grained­level,­the­distinction­between­culture­and­nature­equates­with­the­distinction­between­human­and­non-human.­Consequently,­contributions­exist­which­also­highlight­the­fragility­of­this­distinction­in­the­light­of­digital­technologies.­In­this­respect,­Bradley­(2011)­argues in Originary Technicity­that­today’s­technology,­more­than­anything­

Post-Digital … 243

else,­reveals­the­technicity­of­the­idea­of­the­human.­Promoting­the­concept­of­the­“post-human,”­he­offers­a­philosophical­generalization­of­ideas­that­have­been­introduced­already­by­Haraway­(1991)­in­her­work­on­Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.­In­the­opposite­direction,­David­Gunkel­calls­for­an­ethic­beyond­human­rights,­which­include­artificial­intelligence­and­robots­(Gunkel­2007;­Gunkel­2012).

The­point­here­is­not­to­evaluate­the­correctness­of­all­these­contributions.­The­point­is­that­the­epistemological­effects­of­digital­technologies­are­such­that­a­significant­number­of­researchers­from­all­scientific­domains­feel­obliged­to­question­the­distinction­between­culture­and­nature,­the­system­of­representation,­and­what­is­being­represented.

The­relevance­for­the­topic­of­digital­publications­is­demonstrated­by­the­fact­that­publication­formats,­which­tend­to­belong­to­the­field­of­e-Science,­are­defined­with­comparable­ideas­in­mind.­Accordingly,­an­epistemological­setup­in­which­correlation­supersedes­representation,­and­empirical­data­substitutes theoretical inquiry resembles a situation in which there is an identity­between­the­world­and­its­representation.

In­the­light­of­this­section,­however,­this­claim­must­be­put­into­context­correctly.­The­one­crucial­aspect­it­suppresses­is­the­fact­that­an­epis-temological­setup,­in­which­technology­“makes­obsolete­a­scientific­method”­(Anderson­2008)­to­theorize­people’s­relationship­with­the­world­is­also­a­world­in­which­the­celebrated­benefits­of­empirical­knowledge­disappear.­After­the­examples­given­before,­and­again­from­an­ontological­point­of­view,­such­empirical­knowledge­would­just­correlate­with­people’s­theorizations­about­possible­worlds.­In­the­final­analysis,­this­is­another­possible­interpretation­of­Stiegler’s­claim­that­science­has­become­science­fiction.

Crisis and Surplus

In­consideration­of­Krämer’s­remarks­on­intermediality,­a­third­epis-temological­effect­needs­to­be­discussed.­This­effect­builds­upon­the­phenomenon­translated­from­Krämer’s­work­with­the­term­“surplus.”­Surplus­denotes­the­insight­that­in­an­intermedial­situation,­properties­of­old­and­new­media­are­defined­in­a­simplifying­and­contrasting­manner,­to­achieve­a­better­grasp­on­the­changes­that­take­place­in­this­situation.­The­creation­of­surplus­gives­orientation­and­obscures­at­the­same­time.

With­the­inquiry­into­digital­technologies­in­mind,­the­area­of­sur-plus­is­indicated­by­the­characterization­of­such­technologies­as­

244 Beyond the Flow

calculatedly-calculating­technologies,­and­the­corresponding­notion­of­automation.­As­has­been­outlined­previously,­digital­technologies­only­represent­the­idea­of­generalizing­calculation­as­automation.­They­are­pretty­successful­representations­of­this­idea,­but­remain­representations­nonetheless.­This­fact­is­unambiguously­presented­by­the­halting­problem­that­has­been­discussed­previously.­The­status­of­the­halting­problem­produces­an­irritating­space.­It­is­the­problem­of­a­machine­that­represents­automation­so­well­in­everyday­life­that­automation­turns­into­a­general­principle,­but,­remaining­a­representation,­produces­its­own­quotidian­life­situations­in­which­people­cannot­be­sure­of­the­impact­of­this­problem.14

The­consequences­described­in­the­previous­two­sections­thus­only­describe­the­mindset­produced­by­the­conceptual­framework­of­digital­technologies,­as­those­technologies­that­trivialize­the­theoretical­revolve­around­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine.­They­are­the­result­of­over-stressing­and­ontologizing­certain­ideas­and­concepts­of­this­machine.­Such­an­ontological­point­of­view­was,­however,­necessary,­because­digital­pub-lication­concepts,­as­shown­throughout­the­current­study,­were­driven­by­the­same­tendencies.­It­had­to­be­shown­that­thinking­one’s­way­to­the­end­of­this­laid­out­path­leads­to­contradictions,­and­that­these­contradictions­are­a­crucial­component­of­the­field­of­digital­publications.

The real epistemological irritation now is a consequence of the uncertain status­of­surplus.­On­the­one­hand,­it­is­necessary­to­identify­the­properties­of­a­changing­epistemological­landscape­within­an­intermedial­situation,­because­this­landscape­is­changing.­On­the­other­hand,­it­is­only­possible­to­identify­directions­of­these­changes­by­creating­a­surplus.­The­extent­and­the­value­of­this­surplus­can,­however,­not­be­known,­because­the­reflections­on­it­are­in­motion,­as­is­the­process­of­the­transformation­instigated­by­digital­technologies.

To­put­it­differently,­the­issue­is­not­that­the­two­types­of­effects­described­above­are­completely­wrong.­It­is­more­the­uncertainty­that­exists­con-cerning­what­they­conceal,­and­in­which­situations­this­has­a­liberating­impact­and­where­it­poses­new­problems.­To­take­the­example­of­the­fourth­paradigm,­the­impact­of­digital­technologies­might­still­be­such­that­the­opposition­between­empiricism­and­hermeneutics­becomes­if­not­obsolete,­then­at­least­less­important­in­some­circumstances.­In­other­words,­it­might­be­more­useful­not­to­pay­attention­to­this­opposition­than­to­emphasize­

14­ For­examples­of­the­relevance­of­the­halting­problem­for­colloquial­issues­in­computer­science,­please­refer­to­the­wonderful­explanation­at­https://cs.stack-exchange.com/questions/32845/why-really-is-the-halting-problem-so-important.

Post-Digital … 245

it.­In­the­same­way,­the­conflation­of­culture­and­nature­suggested­by­the­discourse­on­the­Anthropocene­does­not­actually­make­a­philosophical­claim,­but­argues­that­in­the­perception­of­certain­problems,­it­would­help­to­leave­the­opposition­behind­in­order­to­deal­with­current­problems­of­the­environment.­In­short,­if­the­starting­point­is­the­perception­of­a­changing­epistemological­landscape,­as­addressed­by­many­discussions­around­pub-lication­concepts,­then­the­issue­of­surplus­clearly­expresses­that­it­is­not­possible­to­anticipate­where­the­epistemological­setup­might­stabilize.

Publications Beyond Cold Technology and Pure Theory

At­this­point,­the­purely­theoretical­discussion­of­aspects­of­digital­pub-lishing,­which­is­sorely­missing­in­literature­on­digital­publications­con-cepts­themselves,­demands­looking­out­for­a­new­starting­point­for­the­engagement­with­digital­publications.­The­theoretical­discussion­of­certain­leitmotifs­from­the­discourse­on­digital­publications­fulfilled­the­task­of­showing­that­a­focus­on­alleged­intrinsic­capabilities­of­digital­technologies­leads­to­an­uncertain­and­even­contradictory­position.­Due­to­the­results­of­the­theoretical­analysis­of­digital­technologies,­such­an­analysis,­however,­did­not­lay­the­groundwork­for­this­new­starting­point­either,­at­least­not­explicitly.­This­starting­point­needs­to­come­from­another­source.­In­fact,­the­last­phase­of­the­genealogy­of­digital­publications­already­pointed­into­a­certain­direction,­a­direction­that­highlighted­the­need­to­reconsider­digital­publications­as­social­objects.­The­final­part­of­this­chapter­will­dem-onstrate­how­this­need­can­be­derived­from­the­line­of­arguments­in­the­sections­above.

The­following­discussion­of­key­ideas­in­different­approaches­to­digital­publishing­showed­their­intrinsic­logical­aporia.­In­the­case­of­the­“end­of­theory,”­this­contradiction­consists­of­the­fact­that­a­world­that­has­no­need­for­theoretical­representation­is­likewise­unable­to­host­empirical­knowledge.­Since­it­is­hardly­possible­to­think­this­thought­outside­of­the­realm­of­logical­reasoning­and­the­issue­of­surplus,­the­social­realm­is­the­only­place­where­the­distinction­between­one­or­the­other­is­constantly­negotiated­and­continuously­modified.

The­same­discussion,­furthermore,­showed­that­a­world­in­which­every­resource­is­considered­a­resource­for­creating­and­communicating­meaning­in­a­multimodal­way,­the­concept­of­meaning­itself­is­at­risk­of­becoming­meaningless.

246 Beyond the Flow

In­a­hypothetical­scenario,­the­perfect­multimodal­representation­becomes­the­thing­itself.­The­relationships­between­such­objects,­which­are­both­representations­of­themselves­and­themselves,­do­not­have­any­typological­differences­anymore.­They­are­just­inter-operating,­as­it­is­sometimes­written in the context of Object-Oriented-Ontology­(Bogost­2012,­38),­within­a­one-dimensional­space.­This­space­of­objects­that­do­not­relate­to­each­other in other ways than by interaction is then another possible way to describe­the­perspective­of­the­social­world.

The­second­reason­behind­the­demand­to­adopt­a­more­socially­oriented­point­of­view­turns­the­perspective­of­the­first­one­upside­down.­Here,­the­question­is­not­what­happens­if­certain­claims­are­radically­thought­through.­The­issue­is­to­remember­the­fact­that­this­end­only­exists­in­theory.­As­it­has­become­clear­in­the­course­of­the­entire­chapter,­none­of­the­key­features­of­digital­technologies­are­exclusive­to­digital­technologies,­and­neither­have­they­only­become­crucial­by­the­advent­of­digital­technologies.­The­opposition­between­digital­and­analogue,­the­transfor-mation­of­practice­into­calculations,­and­the­expansion­of­symbolic­means­have­all­been­key­aspects­in­the­cultural­history­of­humankind­for­hundreds­of­years,­as­Cramer,­Lemke,­Krämer,­and­Halliday­have­argued.

Likewise,­it­needs­to­be­emphasized­that­although­the­idea­of­calculated­calculation­is­on­the­conceptual­level­qualitatively­different,­digital­technologies­will­never­embody­this­idea­completely.­The­reason­for­this­situation­was­discussed­as­the­halting­problem.­Curiously­enough,­in­math-ematics­the­halting­problem­has­been­converted­from­being­a­theoretical­problem­into­a­probabilistic­problem­by­Gregory­Chaitin­and­others­(Raatikainen­2001).­In­simple­words,­the­theoretical­issue­that­a­computer­may­not­halt­with­certain­computations­is­transformed­into­a­concrete­problem­in­which­the­probability­that­a­computer­may­not­halt­is­calculated­for­a­defined­computation.­It­makes­a­theoretical­concept­useful,­because­its­risks­and­potentials­can­be­evaluated­for­a­task­in­each­situation.­In­the­same­way,­it­could­be­argued­that­the­usefulness­of­ideas­of­digital­pub-lications­depends­on­the­level­on­which­it­is­possible­to­evaluate­them­in­light­of­concrete­social­situations­and­not­as­values­as­such.­The­challenge­that­arises­is­to­create­better­conditions­for­mediating,­and­synchronizing­between­processes­of­technological­innovation­and­social­organization,­as­both­have­equal­rights.

Finally,­an­evaluation­of­technology­itself­suggests­refraining­from­any­perspective­that­distinguishes­between­the­engagement­into­specific­technological­innovations­and­the­social­environment­in­which­this­

Post-Digital … 247

engagement­takes­place.­While­the­last­paragraphs­dealt­with­the­imaginary­part­of­the­idea­of­digital­technologies,­the­following­arguments­address­the­imaginary­aspects­of­technology­as­such.

Lemke­as­well­as­Krämer­described­the­development­of­technologies­as­efficient­problem-solving­strategies.­Both,­the­development­of­technologies­as­well­as­their­implementation­in­a­peculiar­situation,­are­motivated­by­solving­a­problem­efficiently.­The­efficiency­of­such­strategies­can­be­jeopardized­in­two­ways­if­the­element­of­time­is­considered,­in­which­both­the­development­of­technology­as­well­as­its­application­take­place.

On­the­side­of­development­and­implementation­of­technology,­this­means­that­a­situation­in­which­a­defined­technological­solution­appears­to­be­most appropriate is not the same anymore at the precise moment in which this­solution­is­implemented,­or­ready­at­hand.­The­conditions­might­have­changed,­or­new­technologies­might­have­been­made­available­which­relativize­the­efficiency­of­the­initial­approach.­Hence,­the­efficiency­of­technological­design­is­at­risk­if­non-technological­developments­are­not­included.

On­the­site­of­application,­the­situation­is­similar.­At­the­very­moment­a­technological­solution­is­available,­it­automatically­relates­to­much­more­than­to­the­original­problem.­This­means­that­it­may­be­used­in­unintended­ways,­but­also­that­it­causes­unforeseeable­changes­to­the­whole­environ-ment­in­which­the­original­problem­resides.­Both­angles­address­the­social­adoption­and­impact­of­technology,­and­are­comprehensively­analyzed­in­research­fields­like­Social Construction of Technology­(Bijker­2009,­also­referred­to­as­SCOT).­Thus,­the­powerful­decision­in­technology-making­to­isolate­a­problem-solution­relationship­becomes­its­most­vulnerable­aspect,­if­there­is­no­sensibility­for­the­fact­that­the­process­of­making­and­its­result­also­do­not­exist­in­isolation.

At­first­glance,­these­arguments­might­appear­trivial­and­familiar.­Nonetheless,­the­summary­of­their­relevance­for­digital­publications,­dis-cussed­in­the­next­section,­will­demonstrate­their­significance.­Additionally,­they­become­less­trivial­when­they­are­re-evaluated­in­the­context­of­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine,­i.e. a­machine­of­ubiquitous­and­automated­conversion.­Here,­such­conversion­capabilities­dramatically­increase­the­impact­of­the­aforementioned­phenomena,­both­in­the­environment­in­which­technological­development­takes­place,­as­well­as­for­the­effects­of­its­results.­This­means­that­the­social­environment­becomes­potentially­more­dynamic­and­volatile,­and­the­means­of­appropriation­by­persons­and­agents­increase.­Consequently,­it­seems­necessary­to­also­

248 Beyond the Flow

reconsider­the­way­in­which­social­aspects­are­addressed­for­the­design­of­digital­publications.

The­broader­inspection­of­theoretical­aspects­of­digital­technologies,­as­they­appear­in­digital­publishing,­have­revealed­the­extent­to­which­they­have­to­be­relativized­as­socially­embedded­technologies.­In­doing­so,­theory­mostly­led­to­the­same­conclusions­as­in­the­field­of­post-digitality,­by­densifying­observations­like­the­partial­failure­of­claims­about­digital­technology,­or­the­increasing­use­of­digital­and­non-digital­media­at­the­same­time.

One­of­the­benefits­of­this­inspection­is­the­fact­that­now,­the­imaginative­part­of­digital­technologies­can­be­deduced­and­not­only­asserted­on­the­grounds­of­the­aforementioned­observations.­Having­in­mind­the­epis-temological­effects­of­intermedial­situations,­a­certain­necessity­for­such­imagination­exists.­This­necessity­is­justified­by­the­tension­between­the­current­impact­technology­has­on­the­relationship­between­people­and­environment,­and­its­unnegotiated­scope­in­the­future.­Since­this­tension­needs­negotiation,­neither­the­attempt­to­stick­to­the­imaginative­part­of­digital­technologies­as­in­e-Science,­nor­the­support­of­hybrid­approaches­as­such,­as­in­post-digitality,­UBs,­TPs,­or­HPs­is­enough.

The­process­of­negotiating­the­aforementioned­tension­is­a­social­process,­and­cannot­be­shaped­without­intervention.­The­discussion­in­this­section­offered­some­clues­in­order­to­get­a­better­idea­of­how­such­interventions­should­look­and­how­technology­and­the­social­are­connected.­Such­clues­will­be­elaborated­further­in­the­remaining­part­of­the­present­study.

At­this­point­it­should­be­clear­that­the:

…­messy­state­of­media,­arts­and­design­after­their­digitization­(or­at­least­the­digitization­of­crucial­aspects­of­the­channels­through­which­they­are­communicated).­(Cramer­2014)

similarly­is­an­appropriate­description­for­the­situation­the­scientific­domain,­or­at­least­crucial­aspects­of­the­channels­through­which­it­com-municates­its­knowledge.­Therefore,­a­productive­approach­could­be­the­one­sketched­by­Berry:

We­might­no­longer­talk­about­digital­versus­analogue,­but­instead­modulations­of­the­digital­or­different­intensities­of­the­computational.­We­should­therefore­critically­analyze­the­way­in­which­cadences­of­the­computational­are­made­and­materialized.­(Berry­2013)

Post-Digital … 249

These­differences­happen­within­the­social­appropriation­and­application­of­technologies,­which­the­next­chapter­will­move­on­to.

[ 6 ]

… Publishing

Concepts of Social Aspects in Digital Publications and What They Miss

The­turn­to­post-digitality­and­the­theoretical­arguments­it­provoked­within­the­preceding­sections­followed­a­shift­in­digital­publication­projects­towards­new­ways­to­confront­the­social­dimension­of­publications.­Now­that­the­background,­the­function,­and,­even­more­important,­the­need­for­this­shift­has­become­clear­by­virtue­of­theoretical­discussion,­a­discus-sion­which­rarely­took­place­in­most­publishing­initiatives,­it­is­necessary­to evaluate the concept of social aspects within such initiatives more systematically.

Three­different­outcomes­of­this­evaluation­are­possible.­First,­the­issues­already­indicated­in­chapter­four­and­five­will­be­substantiated.­It­will­be­shown­that­publication­formats­which­react­differently­to­social­issues­of­publications­are­not­reflecting­on­such­issues­in­all­their­dimensions.­Second,­certain­patterns­of­ruling­out­social­aspects­of­publications­against­a­technological­background­will­arise.­Finally,­such­patterns­will­provide­a­first­step­towards­bringing­order­into­the­“messy­state­of­publications­after­digitization.”

From Technology as a Social Phenomenon to the Social as a Technological Feature

The­first­pattern­of­neglect­of­social­issues­of­publications­consists­of implicitly or explicitly creating a hierarchical relationship between technology­and­the­social­dimension­of­technology.­In­this­hierarchy,­social­

252 Beyond the Flow

tensions­of­digital­publications­are­projected­onto­a­technological­frame-work,­so­that­the­framework­itself­remains­untouched­by­such­tensions.

The­most­obvious­example­of­this­strategy­are­certain­approaches­of­NPs,­more­precisely­Kuhn’s­attempt­to­make­digital­publications­a­type­of­“pub-lishing­without­publishers”­(Kuhn­et­al.­2015).­It­has­been­described­in­the­chapter­before­that­this­attempt­tries­to­convert­stakeholders,­who­carry­out­necessary­social­functions­in­publishing,­such­as­quality­control,­into­functions­of­technological­infrastructure.

The­anti-socialization­process­has­two­dimensions.­The­approach­is­devel-oped­because­of­frustration­about­publishers’­rejection­of­new­forms­of­publishing.­The­aforementioned­conversion­implies­that­there­are­no­arguments­for­this­rejection,­apart­from­the­stakeholders’­will­to­secure­their­social­position.­Consequently,­the­attempt­refrains­from­solving­or­negotiating­a­social­conflict­in­order­to­create­a­solution­away­from­any­zone­of­ongoing­conflict.­Additionally,­the­approach­taken­by­NPs­implies­that­social­practices­associated­with­scholarly­publications­are­addressed­sufficiently­by­simply­modelling­their­workflow,­i.e. without­requiring­their­own­social­agents­in­form­of­institutions­or­curators.­In­other­words,­issues­such­as­quality­control­are­sufficiently­dealt­with­by­providing­rating­functionality.­Kuhn­and­others­apply­this­approach­not­just­to­the­example­of­quality­control,­but­develop­it­as­a­general­strategy.

The­established­hierarchy­is­such­that­the­existence­of­social­stakeholders,­who­deal­with­certain­practices­around­publishing,­is­treated­as­a­historical­contingency.­Accordingly,­there­are­no­serious­obstacles­to­replacing­such­stakeholders­by­technology.

Another­strategy­to­embed­social­issues­into­technology,­in­order­to­avoid­the­analysis­of­how­technology­is­embedded­in­the­social­realm,­is­the­creation­of­certain­linear­narratives­of­progress.­In­light­of­the­question­discussed­in­this­section,­such­narratives­provide­the­means­to­put­stake-holders­with­different­technological­setups­or­different­understandings­of­technology­on­different­steps­of­a­ladder­that­leads­to­an­overarching­known­technological­setup.

The­present­work­has­presented­several­narratives­which­were­used­this­way.­They­were­created­most­prominently­in­the­context­of­e-Science­and­open­science,­which­could­be­understood­as­meta-narratives.­Its­most­outstanding­example­is­probably­De­Roure’s­outlook­on­the­“future­of­scholarly­communications”­(De­Roure­2014b).­In­this­work,­the­devel-opment­of­the­whole­field­of­scholarly­publications­is­perceived­in­a­

… Publishing 253

two-dimensional­coordinate­system­defined­by­increasing­automation­and­increasing­collaboration.­The­degree­of­innovation­of­publication­formats­can­then­be­compared­by­calculating­their­distance­from­the­furthest­point­of­the­top­right­quadrant.­The­strategic­advantage­of­this­approach­is­also­well­expressed­in­rhetoric­decisions­made­by­De­Roure.­He­describes­the­current­situation­in­past­tense­and­adopts­the­role­of­a­historian­looking­back­to­the­present­from­the­future.

The­reformulation­of­conflicts­between­different­perceptions­of­digital­publications­into­issues­of­different­positions­of­stakeholders­on­a­ladder­to­progress­has­a­second­effect.­It­often­leads­to­an­extremely­simplified,­but­also­sometimes­lofty,­concept­of­the­social.­This­phenomenon­is­comparable­to­the­one­that­has­been­exemplified­by­NPs.­In­this­case,­however,­it­is­motivated­not­by­frustration­of­stakeholders’­behavior­but­by­fascination­with­technological­capacities.

In­fact,­De­Roure­and­other­authors­very­much­address­the­topic­of­social­aspects­in­digital­publications.­De­Roure­uses­terms­like­“social­machines”­(De­Roure­2014b,­237),­or­“scientific­social­objects”­(De­Roure,­Bechhofer,­and­Goble­2011).­The­question­is­thus­what­image­of­the­social­realm­is­projected­behind­the­use­of­the­term.­A­social­machine­is­defined­as­“processes­in­which­the­people­do­the­creative­work­and­the­machine­does­the­administration”­(237).­According­to­De­Roure,­machine-readable­pub-lications­are­necessary­in­order­to­allow­this­scenario­to­happen.­Machine-readable­publications­are­publications­which­follow­their­own­concept­of­scientific­social­objects.­The­whole­setup­of­publications­and­corresponding­infrastructure­results­in­an­interaction­between­humans­and­machines­that­turns­the­computer­into­a­social­agent.

There are several reasons for why such a use of the term social is problem-atic.­First,­the­definition­of­a­social­machine­adds­nothing­to­the­definition­of­computation­as­calculated­calculatory­practice.­Hence,­every­type­of­computation­is­social­in­the­sense­that­it­has­an­input­and­an­output­that­relates­to­humans.­Second,­it­should­be­recalled­once­again­that­the­argument­builds­upon­a­simplistic­definition­of­machine-readability,­which­tautologically­defines­computation­as­the­type­of­computation­addressed­by­scientific­social­objects.1­Accordingly,­computers­do­not­only­become­social­agents­by­following­De­Roure’s­approach­to­computation.­Instead,­

1­ Obviously,­text­mining­algorithms­do­not­read­a­plain­text­article­any­less­than­a­SPARQL­query­which­“reads”­the­formally­annotated­entities­exposed­as­RDF.­However,­it­does­so­differently­with­different­outcomes­and­purposes.

254 Beyond the Flow

they­are­always­social­agents,­but­agents­with­a­whole­gamut­of­relation-ships­to­humans­that­existed­and­will­continue­to­exist­side­by­side.

The­fact­that­social­activity­is­only­perceived­as­such­if­it­takes­place­within­a technological frame that itself is no longer a social issue results in a purely­quantitative­measure­of­what­is­social­activity.­More­precisely,­the­more interactivity is measurable among the highest possible number of agents,­the­more­social­activity­takes­place.­In­De­Roure’s­terms,­this­means­“how­big­is­computation,”­and­“how­dense­is­a­network.”­In­contrast,­the­absence­of­interaction­is­not­considered­a­social­relationship­itself.­It­is­just­perceived­as­less­social­activity.­In­other­words,­missing­measurable­inter-action­is­not­considered­an­action­itself,­and­what­is­measurable­is­defined­by­the­one­who­measures.­The­idea­that­such­absence­could­address­crucial­issues­of­the­social­dimension­of­digital­publications­therefore­becomes­impossible.­Consequently,­the­whole­problem­of­the­absence­of­researchers­and­stakeholders­from­digital­publication­concepts­is­turned­into­an­awareness­problem­when­Matthews­et­al.­(2013,­chap.­6)­writes­that:

…­many­researchers,­data­practitioners,­publishers­and­policy­makers­are­unaware­of­the­potential­of­Research­Objects­as­intellectual­entities.

It­has­been­said­that­e-Science­and­open­science­are­meta-narratives.­Accordingly,­the­anti-socialization­of­digital­publications­by­means­of­narratives­of­progress­are­not­just­strategical­means.­Indeed,­they­propagate a set of antisocial elements in the theoretical setup of open science­itself.­One­should­keep­in­mind­the­definition­of­openness,­as­given­by­the­Open­Knowledge­Foundation:­“Open­means­anyone­can­freely­access,­use,­modify,­and­share­for­any­purpose”­(Open­Knowledge­Foundation­2015).­This­definition­leads­to­an­ethical­claim,­made­by­most­advocates­of­openness­and­precisely­articulated­by­Brown:­“Open­science­is­the­philosophical­perspective­that­sharing­is­good­and­that­barriers­to­sharing­should­be­lowered­as­much­as­possible”­(2016).­Since­this­principle­is­rarely­toned­down­within­the­open­science­community,­and­is­presented­as­a­philosophical­and­not­an­empirical­argument,­some­of­its­antisocial­components­can­be­addressed­quickly:

– It­neglects­the­case­where­the­conditions­under­which­a­resource­is­opened­up­are­such­that­crucial­aspects­of­the­resource­cannot­be­opened­up­with­it.­This­might­relate­to­the­layers­of­presentation,­to­metadata,­but­also­to­qualitative­aspects­of­a­resource­that­need­more­context­than­a­given­environment­can­offer.­In­this­situation,­

… Publishing 255

opening up a resource with the explicit intent of letting it circulate across­contexts­in­fact­has­a­negative­social­impact.

– It neglects that a resource usually represents only part of a theme or­a­specific­viewpoint­of­the­theme,­and­that­this­type­of­open-ness­in­isolation­can­violate­the­ethical­goals­of­open­science­itself.­In­other­words,­openness­does­not­automatically­agglomerate­positive­impact­on­the­social­or­scientific­goods,­it­creates­time­dependent­impulses­for­a­specific­social­setup,­in­which­the­effects­of­this­impulse­are­potentially­unique.­Boyd­(2017)­gathers­a­bunch­of­examples­of­the­negative­impact­of­open­data­resources,­even­in­cases­where­the­bias­of­such­resources­is­minimal.

– It­neglects­the­factual­inequality­of­different­social­agents­who­create­resources­that­can­be­made­open­under­a­normative­def-inition­of­openness.­This­inequality­does­not­mean­technological­capacity­only,­it­relates­as­well­to­the­social­position­and­context­of­agents­that­might­give­them­time,­resources,­public­attention,­professional­liberty,­or­even­the­option­to­work­digitally­in­order­to­create­open­resources.

– Similarly,­different­social­agents­possess­different­capacities­of­actually­making­use­of­open­resources­for­the­very­same­reasons.­The­question­of­how­fast­and­how­efficient­different­people­and­stakeholders­are­able­to­extract­value­from­open­resources­must­be­answered­differently­for­different­stakeholders.­This­difference,­however,­has­a­huge­impact­on­the­status­of­the­openness­of­the­outcome,­as­well­as­for­the­structure­of­the­field­of­science­as­such­and­beyond.

– Finally,­the­open­circulation­of­resources­across­contexts,­as­envisioned­by­open­science,­ignores­any­perspective­of­how­the­whole­social­field­of­production­and­exchange­of­scholarly­resources­changes­when­a­resource­circulates­from­context­a­to­context­b.­In­conjunction­with­the­last­point,­this­could­actually­mean­the­overall­conditions­of­openness­decrease­because­of­openness.­More­precisely,­high-potential­agents­may­benefit­from­the­availability­of­open­resources,­while­not­publishing­derivates­under­open­or­socially­beneficial­principles.­Some­examples­for­these­issues­were­gathered­by­Jeffrey­Beall­(Beall­2013;­Beall­2017).

Beyond­the­examples,­these­arguments­are­theoretical­possibilities.­However,­since­the­original­claim­by­Titus­Brown­and­other­authors­in­the­field­of­digital­publishing­is­most­often­only­theoretical,­nothing­more­is­required­at­this­point.­The­lines­of­arguments­reveal­a­simplified­concept­of­

256 Beyond the Flow

the­social­within­open­science­that,­as­has­been­stated­before,­treats­social­aspects­only­in­terms­of­the­level­of­connectivity,­without­consistently­reflecting­either­on­the­specific­position­of­these­agents­in­the­network,­nor­on­how­the­realization­and­use­of­specific­connections­change­the­balance­of­a­network.­In­short,­this­means­that­the­more­connectivity,­the­better,­and­the­more­an­agent­supports­connectivity,­the­more­she­is­positively­seen­to­serve­the­greater­good.­Little­research­has­actually­been­carried­out­to­confirm­or­qualify­these­judgements,­especially­not­in­the­field­of­digital­publications­with­connections­to­the­open­science­domain.­While­this­observation­supports­the­present­critique,­the­first­studies­from­peripheral­open­science­topics­such­open­access­monograph­publishing­(Milloy­and­Collins­2016;­Ferwerda,­Pinter,­and­Stern­2017)­have­recently­indicated­that­things­are­often­more­complicated.­Levin­and­Leonelli­(2017,­286),­accordingly,­conclude­in­a­sociological­field­study­on­the­implementation­of­open science principles that:

…­whether­openness­leads­to­increased­transparency­and­account-ability­depends­on­how,­by­whom,­and­for­which­purposes­openness­is­enacted.­…­specific­instantiations­of­openness­can­foster­attitudes­that­many­would­regard­as­alien­to­open­science­mandates­…­.­Thus,­we­argue­that­current­scientific­and­political­discussions­should­focus­on­what­parts­of­research­should­be­open,­how,­when,­and­for­which­purposes.­The­variability­of­situations­in­which­openness­is­enacted,­and­the­related­need­to­evaluate­its­implementation­on­a­case-by-case­basis,­needs­to­be­taken­into­account­by­open­science­policies.

As­much­as­the­emergence­of­more­subtle­perspectives­in­the­periphery­of­open­science­and­open­access­—­such­as­the­one­above­—­must­be­welcomed,­its­strong­absence­from­digital­publication­concepts­from­the­open­science­domain­needs­to­be­stressed.­An­even­more­problematic­aspect­of­the­asocial­attitudes­in­open­science­is­the­ethos­that­as­long­as­there­are­no­immediate­reasons­against­the­open­publication­of­resource,­the­most­open­option­should­be­chosen.­In­this­context,­empirical­proof­for­potential­risks­are­demanded,­while­their­own­line­of­argument­often­refrains­from­including­comprehensive­empirical­data­on­the­afore-mentioned­issues.

The­anti-socialization­of­the­topic­of­digital­publications­by­means­of­narratives­of­progress,­and­its­corresponding­limited­concepts­of­the­social­field,­literally­turn­into­asocial­behavior­where­the­tensions­that­such­narratives­create­is­explicitly­addressed.­In­this­respect,­the­phrases­by­Cameron­Neylon­that­have­already­been­quoted­need­to­be­re-interpreted.

… Publishing 257

The transformation of social conflict into heterogeneity

After­several­examples,­where­aspects­of­the­social­dimension­of­technology­were­converted­to­social­facets­within­peculiar­technologies,­another­transformation­of­social­issues­requires­attention.­This­is­the­transformation­of­social­conflicts­into­issues­of­heterogeneity.­What­is­meant­by­this­terminological­substitution­is­the­implicit­or­explicit­idea­that­differences­never­exclude­each­other,­but­can­always­be­harmonized­or­may­exist­side­by­side.­Additionally,­it­means­the­idea­that­a­harmonized­set-up­is­always­the­preferable­option.

One­example­for­such­a­transformation­is­the­idea­of­Scholarly­Com-munication­Infrastructures­and­the­OpenAIRE­approach.­Different­from­former­approaches,­OpenAIRE­accepts­the­state­of­heterogeneity­in­the­field­of­digital­publications.­However,­the­scaled­approach­of­OpenAIRE­showed­that­this­acceptance­is­only­preliminary.­The­goal­of­this­infra-structure­is­to­gradually­implement­policy­seeking­in­order­to­unify­scholarly­publishing,­and­at­the­same­time­maintain­the­idea­that­the­harmonization­of­domain­specific­publication­environment­is­a­desirable­and­achievable­goal.

Furthermore,­domain­repositories­as­science­2.0­repositories­build­on­the­idea­of­heterogeneity­as­a­gradual­deviation­from­the­norm,­perceived­of­as­generic,­a­deviation­that­as­such­can­then­be­included­and­exist­side­by­side­with­others.­Consequently,­the­OpenAIRE­project­defines­Enhanced Publication Meta-Models­from­which­so-called­“domain-specific”­Enhanced Publications Data Models­can­be­derived,­using­the­Enhanced Publications Data Model Definition Language­(Bardi­and­Manghi­2015a).­In­a­next­step,­an Enhanced Publication Domain Specific Manipulation Language assures the mapping­between­concrete­EPs­in­a­domain­and­its­domain-specific­data­model.

What­is­most­notable­when­regarding­this­chain­of­steps­is­the­conviction­of­a­seamless­integration­of­differences.­The­possibility­that­the­meta-model­might­not­suffice,­or­is­just­not­meaningful­enough­to­describe­specific­publication­types,­does­not­occur.­The­relationships­between­different­publication formats are therefore a hierarchy of subclass­and­sameAs relations.

The­OpenAIRE­project­was­already­a­reaction­to­the­experience­that­harmonization­of­crucial­areas­around­digital­publications­had­not­occurred­automatically,­or­as­a­result­of­a­bottom­up­approach­pursued­for­SPs,­and­in­the­field­of­the­semantic­web­in­general.­As­in­the­OpenAIRE­context,­SPs­

258 Beyond the Flow

advocate­the­idea­that­the­use­of­shared­semantics­in­order­to­structure­a­publication­is­desirable­and­useful­for­any­type­of­publication.­Likewise,­it­is­built­on­the­idea­that­the­provision­of­sufficient­means­(technological­or­organizational)­will­assure­that­such­semantics­will­appear.­There­fur-thermore­is­a­similarity­between­the­hierarchical­ordering­of­the­landscape­of­publications­and­the­taxonomic­logics­in­the­core­model,­as­well­as­spirit­of­the­semantic­web.2­Therefore,­it­can­be­understood­as­an­earlier­version­of­an­understanding­of­social­differences­in­terms­of­heterogeneity,­instead­of­tension­or­conflict.

A­significant­property­and­necessary­consequence­of­this­line­of­thought­is­the­way­in­which­existing­differences­are­analyzed.­Bourne,­Buckingham­Shum,­et­al.­(2012)­summarize:

The­software­developers­who­build­the­current­research­informatics­infrastructure­are­also­very­aware­of­the­shortfalls­and­hindrances­generated­by­today’s­fragmented­development­efforts.­The­problems­here­can­be­attributed­to­a­number­of­elements.­First,­heterogeneous­technologies­and­designs,­and­the­lack­(or­sometimes­the­super-fluity!)­of­standards,­cause­unnecessary­technical­difficulties­and­directly­affect­integration­costs.­…­Third,­research­software­devel-opers­typically­work­in­a­competitive­environment,­either­academic­or­commercial,­where­innovation­is­rewarded­much­more­highly­than­evolutionary­and­collaborative­software­reuse.­This­is­especially­true­in­a­funding­environment­driven­by­the­need­for­intensive­innovation,­where­reusing­other­peoples”­code­is­a­likely­source­of­criticism.­…­The­impact­of­these­tools­is,­far­too­often,­solely­based­on­how­immediately­useful­they­will­be­to­researchers­themselves,­with­no­thought­for­the­wider­community.

Thus,­the­heterogeneity­is­described­as­unnecessary­in­the­first­place.­Although­social­reasons­are­given­initially,­the­following­lines­turn­this­

2­ It­is­true­that­in­the­semantic­web,­many­non-taxonomic­models­exist­to­formally­describe­semantic­relationships,­like­for­instance­rule-based­or­thesaurus-like­models.­Nevertheless,­the­core­model­RDFS­is­taxonomic.­More­importantly,­the­modelling­culture­around­specific­domain­semantics­often­inherits­a­taxonomic­way­of­thinking.­A­paradigmatic­example­for­this­situation­can­be­found­in­the­way­the­W3C­Web­Annotation­Data­Model­treats­its­property­motivation.­The­terms­which­can­be­used­for­this­property­are­modelled­by­using­relationships­of­a­thesaurus.­Web­Annotation­allows­adding­and­relating­domain­specific­motivations­terms­to­these­terms.­In­contrast­to­the­complex­relationships­that­are­possible­by­using­relationships­of­a­thesaurus,­Web­Annotation­demands­treating­the­given­terms­as­generic­terms­allowing­only­specification.­That­means­the­formal­potential­to­relate­to­a­model­in­complex­ways­is­turned­into­taxonomic­practice.

… Publishing 259

explanation­into­a­personal­issue­of­fear­of­critique­and­asocial­behavior.­By­including­not­only­developers­but­stakeholders­of­digital­publications­in­general,­Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­(2012,­14)­bring­it­more­to­the­point­when­they­use­the­title­“Open­Knowledge­Flow:­The­Common­Good­vs. Self-Interest.”

The­main­point­behind­the­critique­of­transformation­of­differences­into­deviation­is­not­to­say­that­any­kind­of­difference­is­necessary­and­needs­to­be­respected.­The­point­is­that­this­transformation­results­in­the­very­opposite.­It­treats­any­kind­of­difference­as­potentially­unnecessary­in­the­first­place.­This­fact­is­also­represented­by­the­use­of­the­term­generic­to­describe­the­goals­of­modelling,­used­by­many­authors.­For­instance,­Shotton­et­al.­(2015,­7)­call­the­Documents­Components­Model­(DoCO)­“a­generic­model­harmonizing­all­these­aspects.”­In­contrast,­the­goal­of­mod-elling­could­also­be­described­as­finding­a­stable­model,­or­a­model­that­represents­a­functional­“contact­zone”­(Dallas­2016)­between­stakeholders.­The­difference­is­that­such­orientations­create­a­higher­sensitivity­to­ques-tions­such­as:­what­is­the­right­layer­of­abstraction­a­model­addresses?­what­is­an­efficient­scope­for­the­model?­and­finally,­what­is­the­role­of­modelling­in­a­specific­publication­context?­These­questions­are­addressed­by­taking­into­account­the­social­environment­in­which­modelling­practices­take­place­and­responding­to­them­differently­in­each­situation.

In­contrast,­genericity­and­harmonization­have­privileged­an­attitude­in­which­individuals­are­made­responsible­for­the­burden­of­tremendously­ambitious­modelling­goals.­Hence,­the­lack­of­respect­for­social­structure­and­state­of­a­domain­turns­into­the­image­of­asocial­agents­driven­by­self-interest.­In­this­respect,­the­irony­is­significant­that­the­section­on­SPs­showed­that­the­attempt­to­harmonize­semantics­created­new­heterogeneity.­In­contrast,­Assante­et­al.­(2016,­7)­remark,­still­within­the­logical­structure­of­OpenAIRE,­that­generic­solutions­are­often­also­not­very­useful­solutions.­Unfortunately,­the­authors­do­not­think­their­way­to­the­end­of­the­entire­set­of­consequences­of­this­observation.

A Theatrical Concept of Social Aspects

As­has­just­been­noted,­generic­solutions­may­of­course­exist­in­one­or­the­other­situation.­They­may­also­be­desirable­and­supportive­in­others.­With­that,­another­pattern­of­anti-socialization­arises,­stemming­from­a­point­of­view­opposing­the­one­in­the­last­section.­While­in­the­last­section­authors­underestimated­the­qualitative­dimension­of­differences,­it­is­as­possible­to­overemphasize­this­dimension.­The­result­could­be­called­a­theatrical­

260 Beyond the Flow

concept­of­the­social­dimension­of­publications.­In­this­concept,­theatrical­means­that­each­difference­is­equally­important,­and­that­each­element­that­appears­in­consequence­of­observable­differences­has­the­same­value­for­scholarly­publications.­In­consequence,­there­is­a­lack­of­design­of­pub-lishing­concepts,­a­fact­that­creates­its­own­set­problems.

The areas in which this pattern is observable concern the forms of representation­in­publications,­different­strategies­of­publishing­pub-lications,­the­social­impact­of­publications,­and­finally­the­components­of­publications.

The­approach­of­TPs­is­the­one­approach­in­digital­publishing­that­is­most­notably­built­on­the­extension­of­symbolic­practices­provoked­by­digital­technologies.­Single-Resource­Publications­are­somewhat­a­part­of­the­same­development,­because­they­are­supposed­to­represent­research­in­its­own­right.­The­first­achieves­multimodal­publications­as­a­combination­of­different­semiotic­resources­within­one­publication,­the­second­does­the­same by treating each semiotic resource as an equally useful publication environment.

Although­these­examples­are­the­most­significant­ones,­it­became­clear­in­the­history­of­digital­publications­that­semiotic­resources­other­than­text­also­got­significant­attention­in­concepts­like­SPs­or­EPs.­While­this­short­compilation­emphasizes­a­shared­principle,­a­significant­difference­still­exists.­It­is­important­to­distinguish­between­attempting­to­support­the­growing­influence­of­a­variety­of­semiotic­resources­and­aiming­at­the­highest­level­of­multimodality­in­publications­themselves.

The­section­on­TPs­and­similar­lines­of­arguments­showed­that­multimodal­complexity­becomes­a­value­in­itself.­Nevertheless,­there­is­an­important­gap between the theoretical insight that “there is no such thing as a perfect­interface­that­shows­everything”­(Adema­2014),­and­to­intentionally­push­towards­multimodality.­This­push­is­a­reaction­to­the­preceding­observation,­which­does­not­follow­automatically,­but­requires­another­step­of­interpretation­and­decision­making.­The­fact­that­a­combination­of­semiotic­resources­—­within­or­across­publications­—­might­“show”­more­does­not­mean­that­any­semiotic­resource­or­a­great­level­of­multimodal­complexity­is­automatically­useful.

In multiple places in this inquiry it became clear that the value of pub-lications­much­depends­on­issues­such­as­the­archivability­of­pub-lication­formats,­and­the­implementability­as­well­as­maintainability­of­technological­and­organizational­infrastructure­necessary­to­realize­it.­

… Publishing 261

Following­the­goal­to­“show”­much,­it­also­depends­on­the­capability­of­consumers­to­process­and­understand­that­much.­In­other­terms,­rep-resentations­need­to­be­read,­not­just­viewed.­A­dense­multimodal­description­says­nothing­about­its­readability­and­efficiency.

All­of­the­aforementioned­issues­address­certain­capabilities­of­digital­publications­and­their­stakeholders.­They­hence­describe­the­social­con-stitution­of­this­field,­which­has,­as­was­highlighted­by­many­authors,­limited­resources­of­the­material­and­abstract­kind.­In­contrast,­the­main­argument­on­which­the­goal­of­maximal­multimodal­complexity­is­based­is­purely­theoretical.­Chapter­three­presented­a­set­of­problems­which­do­indeed­reflect­this­tension­discussed­among­authors­such­as­Diender­(2010),­or­Ball­and­Eyman­(2015).­Accordingly,­not­everything­that­enters­the­social­sphere­of­publishing­is­socially­sustainable.­Even­if­it­will­eventually,­becoming­such­furthermore­requires­qualifying­the­idea­in­correspondence­with­the­social­constraints­of­a­given­situation.­Significantly,­McPherson­(2010),­as­an­exception­to­this­line­of­research,­voted­in­favor­of­multimodal­templates,­after­having­worked­with­TPs.

The­idea­of­templates­leads­to­another­problematic­notion­of­social­aspects­in­digital­publishing.­In­principle,­this­model­is­just­a­repetition­of­the­issue­discussed­in­the­last­paragraphs,­but­on­the­level­of­publication­formats.­While­transmediality­showed­a­tendency­to­not­differentiate­the­value­of­different­modes­of­representation,­this­notion­often­denies­a­distinction­between­being­publicly­available­and­being­a­publication.­This­distinction­has­indeed­become­problematic,­as­the­abundance­of­digital­publication­formats­examined­here­has­demonstrated.­Once­again,­there­is­a­difference,­however,­between­observing­and­respecting­this­process,­and­ignoring­this­difference­entirely.­Similarly,­acknowledging­that­there­is­no­“one-size-fits-all”­approach­does­not­directly­lead­to­the­idea­that­what­makes­a­publication­can­only­be­defined­“on­a­project-to-project­basis,”­as­Hall,­Kuc,­and­Zylinska­(2015)­suggest.

The­approach­that­everything­that­is­publicly­available­should­be­consid-ered­a­publication­appeared­in­most­publication­formats­in­different­slants.­One­of­those,­which­is­of­particular­importance­in­this­section,­is­to­refrain­from­distinguishing­between­scholarly­publications­based­on­the­social­environment­in­which­a­resource­is­available.­OLBs­and­HPs,­for­instance,­promoted­the­use­of­Google­spreadsheets,­images­from­Flickr,­or­infra-structure­such­as­GoDaddy­or­1&1.­Some­UBs­have­been­published­using­commercial­services­such­as­PBworks.­The­question­of­how­far­commercial­

262 Beyond the Flow

services­or­proprietary­formats­comply­with­the­requirements­of­academic­publishing­did­not­affect­their­inclusion­into­approaches­to­publishing.

While­in­the­case­of­OLBs­this­decision­was­pragmatic,­it­appears­strategic­in­HPs.­The­makers­of­HPs­want­to­transfer­the­right­of­deciding­what­a­publication­is­to­the­research­project­and­to­researchers.­Correspondingly,­what­a­publication­actually­is­would­no­longer­be­the­result­of­a­consensus­between­agents­in­the­social­sphere­of­publishing.­Each­agent­gets­the­right­to­define­something­as­a­publication,­and­thus­everything­that­is­publicly­available­can­be­potentially­considered­a­publication.­As­before,­the­social­aspect­is­no­longer­the­sphere­in­which­the­status­and­context­of­pub-lications­is­negotiated.

This­line­of­thought­is­also­well­reflected­in­the­so-called­publication­taxonomy­mentioned­earlier.­Apart­from­the­fact­that­it­contains­“pub-lications”­ranging­from­e-mail­to­rapid SMS,­it­does­not­have­a­taxonomic­structure.­A­taxonomy­organizes­terms­in­a­hierarchical­structure,­i.e. it­prioritizes­on­the­grounds­of­organizing­principles.­The­publication­taxonomy­just­contains­two­lists.­It­refrains­from­organizing­in­order­to­index.

Hybrid­Publications­build­on­the­idea­of­the­post-digital.­The­aforemen-tioned­list­appears­to­analyze­publishing­in­the­light­of­the­“post-digital­condition.”­As­has­been­outlined,­a­key­aspect­of­the­post-digital­condition­is­the­importance­of­context­in­order­to­decide­what­is­most­suitable­out­of­a­set­of­options­in­a­hybrid­environment.­Notably,­publishing­itself­is­not­explicitly­addressed­in­these­examples­as­a­social­context,­a­frame­that­creates­its­own­set­of­criteria­in­order­to­distinguish­between­suitable­and­unsuitable­formats.

Cramer­concludes­that­“the­term­‘post-digital’”­in­its­simplest­sense­describes­the­messy­state­of­media,­arts,­and­design­after­their­digitization”­(Cramer­2014).­He­thereby­confirms­the­results­of­chapter­five,­namely­that­the­creation­of­messiness­is­an­effect,­although­not­a­necessary­one,­of­the­introduction­of­what­is­called­digital­technologies.­Similarly,­Adema­(2015,­6)­refers­to­the­issue­of­messiness­but­in­a­different­way­when­she­writes­about her attempt of:

…­reimagining­a­different,­more­ethical­humanities,­albeit­a­humanities­that­is­messy­and­processual,­contingent,­unbound­and­unfinished.­(Adema­2015,­6)

What­some­authors,­thus,­try­to­do­is­to­multiply­the­effects­of­digital­technologies­instead­of­building­a­social­environment­around­such­effects.­

… Publishing 263

Without­seeing­it­that­way,­these­authors­probably­act­much­more­in­line­with­the­logics­of­digital­technologies­than­with­a­process­that­socializes­these­technologies.

As­is­clear­from­the­last­quote,­some­of­the­authors­behind­this­type­of­anti-socialization­follow­a­certain­type­of­ethic.­Quoting­Alan­O’Shea,­Adema­argues­that­publishing­is­a­practice­that­“constitute[s]­us­as­particular­kinds­of­subjects­and­exclude[s]­other­kinds.­The­more­routinised­our­practices,­the­more­powerfully­this­closure­works”­(Adema­2015,­26).­A­publication,­and­the­historical­monograph­in­particular,­then,­is­the­nexus­that­orches-trates­and­stabilizes­such­practices.

A­complete­discussion­of­such­ethics­is­outside­of­the­scope­of­the­present­study.­Nevertheless,­it­is­necessary­to­quickly­highlight­in­which­way­such­ethics­might­contain­a­simplistic­notion­of­the­social­domain.­This­neces-sity­derives­not­only­from­its­impact­on­the­design­of­many­publications,­but also from the fact that it will reveal familiarity with some issues of openness.

The­first­of­Adema’s­two­quotes­showed­that­here,­her­main­critique­is­directed­against­any­kind­of­fixation.­The­second­quote­shows­that­pub-lications­—­historically­the­monographs­—­appear­to­be­the­key­fixations­of­academia.­The­unethical­dimension­of­fixations­is­the­fact­that­they­introduce­bipolar­distinctions.­A­scholarly­publication­defines­what­is­con-sidered­science­and­what­is­not.­Related­practices­and­the­environment­in­which­they­take­place­divide­stakeholders­into­those­who­are­able­to­par-ticipate­in­science,­and­those­who­are­not.­The­critical­concern­with­bipolar­distinctions­has­been­similarly­highlighted­in­Tara­McPherson’s­comments­on­the­mediation­between­binaries.

Accordingly,­approaches­following­this­line­of­argument­to­publications­pretend­to­design­publication­formats­that­avoid­fixations.­Most­notably,­this­idea­is­manifests­in­great­parts­of­UBs.­Its­intended­incompleteness­has­been­coined­as­a­measure­against­dogmatization.­Similarly,­its­crowd-sourced­and­author-less­production­form­is­understood­as­social­inclusive-ness.­In­Posthumanities: The Dark Side of “The Dark Side of the Digital” Adema­and­Hall­(2016­sec. Disruptive­Humanities)­UBs­are­presented­as­the­means­for:

…­affirmatively­disrupting­the­humanities­by­seeing­the­threat­to­humanism­and­the­human­associated­with­the­emergence­of­these­new­“posthuman”­technologies­as­offering­us­a­chance­…­.

264 Beyond the Flow

What­remains­unreflected­in­such­designs,­however,­is­the­extend­up­to­which­they­create­their­own­fixations,­especially­that­of­unboundness.­To­put­it­differently,­such­designs­do­not­only­represent­the­volatile­and­contingent­facet­of­people’s­worlds­that­the­format­tries­to­respect,­they­also­have­a­multiplying­effect­on­it.­Whether­this­effect­is­necessarily­good,­understood­ethically,­is­not­discussed­anywhere.­Apart­from­any­response­to­this­question,­this­format,­following­its­own­line­of­argument,­becomes­a­force­that­produces­what­it­represents,­and­in­this­respect­does­not­dis-tinguish­from­what­it­criticizes.

In­correspondence­with­the­main­theme­of­this­section,­this­ambivalence­is­based­on­a­selective­awareness­of­the­social­dimension­of­publications.­They­are­selective­insofar­as­they­do­not­include­agent’s­capacity­to­play­with­bipolar­distinctions­themselves,­and­to­subvert­them­by­using­them.­It­furthermore­ignores­aspects­of­empowerment­that­are­mediated­by­fixations­and­distinctions,­aspects­that­were­visible­throughout­the­whole­discussion­on­calculatory­practice.3­To­put­it­differently,­fixations­are­not­just­mechanisms­of­exclusion.­They­also­offer­a­more­trans-subjective­point­of­orientation­for­the­excluded,­to­at­least­becoming­aware­about­what­needs­to­be­included,­a­source­that­at­its­best­can­also­denote­a­resource­that­can­be­used­in­order­to­legally­demand­inclusion.­In­short,­this­type­of­critique­of­bipolar­distinctions­introduces­a­new­bipolar­distinction­in­the­social­domain,­that­between­inclusiveness­and­exclusiveness.4

Adema­herself­remarks­that­O’Shea­warns­against­attributing­too­much­power­to­the­aforementioned­practices­and­the­fixations­on­which­they­rely.­She­also­conducts­a­complex­discussion­on­what­is­critique­in­this­respect.­However,­as­follows­from­the­last­paragraphs,­such­relativizations­remain­without­consequences­for­corresponding­formats­of­publications­and­statements­like­the­ones­above.­These­formats,­thus,­are­those­which­intend­to­disturb­the­allegedly­intrinsic­logic­of­the­social­space­of­pub-lishing­towards­victimization­and­dogmatization,­and­which­celebrate­the­“messiness”­to­which­these­formats­seem­willing­to­contribute.­Although­framed­in­an­intellectually­more­sophisticated­theory,­these­formats­produce­a­deterministic­model­of­victims­and­dogmas,­instead­of­social­agents­and­pragmas­in­the­field­of­publishing.

3­ The­issue­is­not­that­the­relationship­between­power­and­empowerment­is­not­addressed­within­the­theoretical­background­of­these­publications,­but­that­when­it­comes­to­the­design­of­publication­formats,­the­ambivalence­is­neglected.

4­ The­problematic­dimension­of­this­issue­is­very­often­discussed­in­the­context­of­debates­on­the­theoretical­school­of­constructivism­(see­Collin­2008).

… Publishing 265

Likewise,­few­examples­exist­in­which­the­social­impact­—­repressive­as­well­as­progressive­—­of­concrete­distinctions­made­in­historical­and­new­publication­formats­are­evaluated­in­the­context­of­such­approaches.­There­are­only­few­attempts­of­real­design­of­new­publications­that­organize­the­field­of­post-digital­publishing­—­besides­the­ambiguous­single-source­approach­—­using­new,­old,­and­modified­fixations.­The­publication­is­con-ceived­of­as­a­channel­instead­of­as­an­object,­regardless­of­the­fact­that­a­channel­is­also­provided­by­an­object,­i.e. the­application.­It­is­a­matter­of­perspective:­the­perspective­presented­in­this­section­attempts­to­bring­the­interactions­of­a­social­field­(science),­organized­around­and­through­pub-lications,­into­the­publications­in­order­to­“hypercyberdemocrize”­(Adema­2015,­164)­this­field.­This­relationship­shows­that­these­formats,­despite­their­critique­of­the­regulatory­effect­of­publications,­have­a­strong­intent­to­regulate­and­control.­It­could­furthermore­be­argued­that­by­trying­to­relocate­social­interactions­around­publications­into­publications,­this­aspect­is­strengthened.­Again,­it­is­argued­that­this­attempt­“is­not­one­that­should­be­conceptualized­as­a­project­or­a­model”­(ibid.).­A­model­never-theless­it­is,­insofar­as­it­makes­a­point­and­creates­projects­like­Liquid-,­Living-,­and­other­types­of­Books­that­are­a­product­of­its­argument.­As­much­as­corresponding­authors­deny­this­tension,­they­discursively­refer­to­a­structure­in­the­social­space­of­publishing­that­ceases­to­exist.­This­structure­increasingly­turns­into­an­avatar,­a­situation­in­which­it­becomes­more­and­more­difficult­to­react­to­new­social­patterns­in­the­field.

This­problem­is­notably­reflected­by­the­fact­that­many­Living­Books­are­not­living­at­all.­The­role­of­the­author­is­reproduced­by­the­fact­that­few­actors­contribute­to­them,­so­that­the­initiator­of­the­project­becomes­a­traditional­author­without­intent.­Similarly,­the­formally­unbounded­book­becomes­effectively­bound­by­the­scarcity­of­updates­after­being­put­online.­An­exception­worth­mentioning­was­the­AiME­project.­It­has­been­highlighted,­however,­that­the­main­difference­between­this­project­and­other­UBs­is­the­enormous­effort­it­puts­into­the­design,­organization,­and­sustainability­of­the­social­space­around­the­AiME­Unbound­Book.­The­aforementioned­ethics­discourage­such­a­degree­of­intended­organization­and­control­used­in­a­tactical­manner.­Once­again,­the­irony­lies­in­the­fact­that­the­AiME­Unbound­Book­became­effectively­inclusive,­instead­of­just­enabling­inclusiveness.

It has been written that some overlap exists between the ethics of this section­and­the­topic­of­openness.­Obviously,­open­science­is­an­ethic.­More­important­is­the­fact­that­both­ethics­are­ethics­maintaining­the­same­idea­of­inclusion.­In­the­same­way,­as­one­seeks­to­address­an­abstract­

266 Beyond the Flow

anyone­(agents),­the­other­aims­at­including­an­abstract­everything­(resources).­It­is­important­to­emphasize­this­similarity,­because­it­shows­that­otherwise­completely­disconnected­publication­formats­are­part­of­a­comparable­ethical­development,­a­development­that­appears­closely­related­to­the­effects­of­digital­technologies­themselves.­It­shows­that­in­a­certain­perspective­there­is­indeed­a­common­ground­behind­publication­formats­like­UBs­on­the­one­hand­and­SCPs­on­the­other.

Self-Contained­Publications­carry­the­same­ethics­towards­the­research­process­as­UBs­apply­to­social­agents.­They­seek­to­prevent­any­exclusion­of­digital­elements­in­the­design­of­their­format,­in­order­support­a­likewise­abstract­idea­of­reproducibility.­Curiously,­similar­experiences­are­made­in­this­area­of­research­as­were­addressed­by­the­AiME­project.­Tremendous­effort­is­necessary­to­turn­such­formats­into­real,­i.e. socially­effective,­pub-lications.­Such­efforts­question­the­original­idea.­The­reason­is­not­only­the­dimension­of­the­costs.­The­costs­for­realizing­SCPs­have­been­discussed­in­depth.­The­reason­is­rather­that­these­efforts­contradict­the­original­idea.­In­the­case­of­AiME,­this­is­the­case­because­the­intensive­design­of­workflows,­the­definition­of­roles­such­as­for­moderators­able­to­approve­and­reject­content­is­exactly­what­Adema­problematizes­in­the­context­of­the­book.­In­the­case­of­SCPs,­the­discussion­showed­that­the­more­radically­reproduci-bility­is­pursued,­the­more­it­requires­making­decisions­that­could­have­been­made­otherwise­while­producing­a­reproducible­publication.

Three­different­types­of­de-socialization­of­the­field­of­digital­publications­have­been­discussed.­The­first­showed­how­social­issues­are­translated­into­issues­framed­by­peculiar­technologies,­and­how­this­translation­obscures­the­reflection­on­the­social­status­of­such­technologies­themselves.­The­second­described­approaches­which­perceive­social­process­as­processes­of­standardization­and­harmonization­only.­The­last­type­addressed­an­all-inclusive­idea­of­social­aspects­and­the­contradictions­they­run­into.

The­evaluation­of­such­types­of­anti-socialization­permits­arguing­that­different­approaches­are­linked­in­different­ways­to­these­three­types.­On­a­more­general­level,­it­is­even­possible­to­claim­that­approaches­driven­by­disciplines­from­the­arts­and­humanities­relate­to­them­differently­than­approaches­driven­by­the­sciences.­For­obvious­reasons,­examples­for­type­one­and­two­are­often­publication­formats­from­the­sciences,­while­type­three,­with­some­exceptions,­is­showcased­by­formats­from­the­humanities.

As­in­the­case­of­epistemological­claims,­the­attitude­towards­social­aspects­in­publication­formats­can­be­interpreted­in­the­context­of­the­epistemological­effects­of­digital­technologies­and­their­surplus.­Thus,­it­is­

… Publishing 267

not­difficult­to­relate­the­second­type­to­the­supposed­conflation­between­representation­and­intervention.­Claims­concerning­the­end­of­theory,­and­data­as­the­only­and­ubiquitous­mode­of­representation­that­is­no­longer­representation,­permit­the­belief­that­there­are­few­sources­of­epis-temological­conflict­left.­Data­is­conceived­of­as­precise,­and­its­form­of­production­is­necessary.­In­consequence,­differences­have­to­be­differences­of­misunderstanding,­a­judgment­quoted­several­times­in­part­one.­This­means­that­it­is­an­issue­that­can­be­solved­incrementally.­In­the­same­way­elements­of­the­third­type­of­de-socialization­can,­and­have­been,­related­to­the­idea­of­a­universal­symbolism.

However,­it­is­the­notion­of­a­surplus­of­digital­technologies­which­explains­why­a­general­negation­of­certain­aspects­of­the­social­life­around­pub-lications­undermines­the­social­integrity­of­such­publications,­as­indicated­by­some­of­the­examples­in­this­chapter.­In­accordance­with­the­concept­of­epistemological­effects­and­post-digitality,­it­would­also­be­wrong­to­argue­that­these­three­negations­come­without­reason.­Instead,­the­interesting­relationship­between­type­one­and­two­on­the­one­side,­and­type­three­on­the­other,­reveals­the­real­problem.­While­the­first­two­try­to­control­and­engineer­the­social­space­too­much,­the­last­tries­to­be­as­little­of­an­influence­as­possible.­The­question­of­digital­publications­therefore­is­also­the­question­of­the­type­of­social­relationships­that­need­to­be­designed­to­let­digital­publications­be­sustained­and­become­valuable.

The Ambiguous Issue of HeterogeneityThe­present­inquiry­into­digital­publications­was­driven­by­the­motivation­to­explain­the­conjunction­between­efforts­in­creating­digital­publications­and­complaints­about­their­impact.­It­was­claimed­that­such­an­explanation­is­necessary­because­this­conjunction­appears­to­be­more­stable­and­profound­than­expected­in­the­dynamics­of­innovation.­Far­from­being­abandoned,­as­Denning­and­Rous­(1995,­72)­have­predicted­for­the­case­of­failing­adaptation,­scientific­publishing­carried­its­alleged­breakdown­until­today­and­extended­it­into­something­that­has­simply­been­called­its­messy­state­after­digitization.

Such­messiness,­moreover,­might­appear­to­be­a­product­of­the­very­same­process­that­in­most­cases­is­meant­to­solve­it.­There­are­at­least­two­indicators­that­justify­continuing­an­analysis­in­this­direction.­The­first­indicator­is­a­quantitative­measure,­the­second­one­is­qualitative,­to­be­discussed­further­below.­The­degree­of­activity­around­the­creation­of­new­publication­formats­and­its­increase­over­time­offer­no­reason­to­believe­

268 Beyond the Flow

that­it­has­contributed­to­the­stabilization­of­the­publishing­landscape.­This­first­measure­alone­depends­on­interpretation;­one­possibility­was­offered­within­the­outline­of­part­one,­structuring­these­activities­in­its­own­narrative,­supporting­the­aforementioned­hypothesis.­It­will­furthermore­become­transparent­throughout­the­rest­of­the­study­how­the­results­of­these­measures­reflect­the­problematic­relationship­between­digital­pub-lications­and­their­social­environment.

Quantitative Indicators for the Lack of Sustainability of Digital Publications

A­quantitative­measure­of­research­activity­on­digital­publications­is­rep-resented­in­figure­6.1.­It­shows­the­amount­of­research­publications­con-cerned­with­digital­publication­formats­(y-axis)­and­thereby­its­distribution­within­the­timespan­of­analysis­(x-axis).­The­selection­of­research­pub-lications­mostly­matches­the­approach­to­the­topic­of­digital­publications­in­this­inquiry­(see­Introduction).

Accordingly,­two­types­of­publications­were­considered.­The­first­type­describes­the­design­or­implementation­of­peculiar­formats­envisioned­or­implemented­by­the­authors­themselves.­The­second­type­consists­of­publications­in­which­authors­describe­formats­described­by­others.­These­publications­promote­a­particular­publication­format­in­a­certain­field,­or­argue­in­favor­of­doing­so.­In­other­words,­they­attempt­to­position­a­format­in­a­field­or­research­domain.­Another­necessary­criterion­for­the­inclusion­into­the­measured­corpus,­also­highlighted­already,­is­the­condition­that­the­publication­explicitly­needs­to­reference­the­overarching­theme­of­digital­publications.

The­resulting­dataset­contains­413­research­publications­on­digital­pub-lication­formats.­The­research­publications­were­all­published­between­1995­and­2017­and­can­be­seen­as­a­comprehensive­selection­for­this­period.­As­has­been­discussed­in­the­introduction,­there­are­quite­a­few­reasons­to­define­1995­as­a­starting­point­for­the­topic­of­digital­publications.­Most­of­these­publications,­although­not­all­of­them,­are­mentioned­and­discussed­throughout­this­investigation.

The­diagram­shows­an­increase­in­the­overall­number­of­publications­until­1998,­followed­by­a­period­of­stagnation­that­rapidly­ends­around­2008.­The­most­active­year­in­terms­of­publications­about­digital­publication­formats­so­far­was­2014.­The­curve­corresponds­in­great­detail­with­the­sequencing­of­corresponding­research­into­the­phases­in­part­one.­According­to­this,­

…­Publishing 269

the­topic­was­generally­introduced­until­the­millennium,­followed­by­a­period­of­investment­into­social­and­technological­infrastructure.­This­infra-structure­gave­rise­to­an­immense­dynamic­of­activities­that­yet­again­slow­down­over­the­last­three­years.­Figure­6.2­makes­this­pattern­clearer­by­applying a kernel density estimation­(also­referred­to­as­KDE)­with­gaussian­kernel­to­the­same­data­as­was­used­for­the­fi­gure­above.

[Figure­6.1]­Research­literature­about­digital­publication­formats­between­1995­and­2017

[Figure­6.2]­KDE­applied­to­the­data­used­in­fi­gure­6.1

270 Beyond the Flow

Two­interpretations­of­the­diagrams­are­generally­possible.­The­first­one­would­be­to­read­the­increase­of­publications­as­a­sign­of­their­success.­Accordingly,­the­diagrams­would­give­testimony­of­the­fact­that­more­is­invested­into­the­development­of­digital­publication­formats­until­2014­because­they­are­becoming­a­part­of­scholarly­publishing.

However,­such­interpretation­would­interpret­in­a­biased­way­what­the­publications­in­the­collection­represent.­As­was­just­mentioned,­pub-lications­were­chosen­that­represent­activities­of­design,­implementation,­and­promotion­of­digital­publication­formats.­Hence­the­increase­of­activity­does­not­automatically­represent­the­stabilization­and­settling­of­digital­publications,­but­only­the­increase­of­efforts.5­It­shows­that­more­and­more­is­invested­with­the­aim­of­arriving­at­a­stable­digital­publishing­field.­Additionally,­it­is­problematic­to­interpret­the­small­decrease­after­2014­in­favor­of­such­stabilization.­The­introduction­and­chapter­four­suggested­that­it­more­likely­reflects­the­disillusion­of­digital­publication­advocates­and,­accordingly,­the­slowdown­of­new­engagements.­In­any­case­it­is­important­to­remember­of­what­such­activities­exactly­stand­for­in­each­of­the­four­phases.

Qualitative Indicators for the Lack of Sustainability of Digital Publications

Overwhelming­evidence­for­the­claim­that­the­increase­of­effort­does­not­correspond­with­a­stabilization­of­the­field­emerges­when­attempting­to­group­activities­around­comparable­approaches.­Different­approaches­to­digital­publications­have­been­the­key­aspect­of­part­one.­The­violin­plot­in­figure­6.3­gathers­all­the­approaches­that­have­been­discussed­(y-axis)­and­aligns­them­on­a­time­axis­(x-axis).­This­alignment­is­again­made­by­referring­to­the­publication­dates­of­publications­that­cite­a­certain­approach­within­the­above­collection.­The­width­of­each­violin­represents­the­number­of­publications­of­a­corresponding­publication­format­at­a­specific­point­in­time.­This­being­said,­disappearance­does­not­necessarily­mean­that­the­approaches­are­abandoned.­However,­in­most­cases,­such­as­MAs,­it­may­be­interpreted­this­way.

5­ In­order­to­validate­the­former,­it­would­be­necessary­to­evaluate­the­usage­of­formats­itself.­In­order­to­obtain­comprehensive­results,­such­analysis­would­of­course require not only counting the number of publications for each format but also­finding­qualitative­criteria­for­each­implementation.­Such­an­effort­is­outside­the­scope­of­the­present­inquiry.­However,­it­is­also­not­necessary,­due­to­the­complaints­about­the­lack­of­adoption­related­stakeholders­themselves­express.­Additionally,­the­lack­of­adoption­was­illustrated­more­closely­across­the­entire­text­wherever­possible.

…­Publishing 271

What­is­shown­in­the­diagram­is­doubtlessly­a­good­measure­for­the­prolif-eration­in­the­fi­eld­of­digital­publications,­which­appeared­all­over­and­up­to­the­recent­past,­as­described­in­the­present­inquiry.­In­fact,­its­increase­seems­to­correlate­with­the­increase­of­eff­orts­carried­out­in­order­to­decrease­it.­This­refl­ection­on­the­heterogeneity­of­digital­publications­is­

[Figure­6.3]­Research­literature­on­digital­publication­formats­ordered­by­format­and­time

272 Beyond the Flow

not­something­merely­mentioned­or­conceived­of­by­the­corresponding­research­field.­By­doing­so,­it­offers­empirical­evidence­for­what­is­to­be­expected­from­the­theoretical­discussion­of­digital­technologies.­It­confirms­that­digital­technologies­do­not­force­a­certain­path­for­the­digital­pub-lication­to­come.­Instead,­as­technologies­of­conversion,­they­multiply­the­set­of­possible­paths­towards­digital­publications.

Heterogeneity as a Consequence of Contradictory Patterns around Digital Publications

The­description­of­publication­formats­in­part­one,­as­well­as­the­sections­on­the­concept­of­social­aspects­within­these­formats,­were­full­of­exam-ples­for­the­paradoxical­pattern­rendered­in­an­empirical­manner­above.­The­creation­of­better­conditions­for­formal­semantics,­combined­with­higher­efforts­for­standardization,­led­to­formal­semantic­heterogeneity­in­many­areas.­The­call­for­deconstructing­publications­into­“atomic”­infor-mation­units,­combined­with­better­technological­conditions­for­such­deconstructions,­sparked­a­variety­of­such­approaches.­Each­approach,­additionally,­created­its­own­type­of­“atomic”­information­unit.

Nonetheless,­there­are­two­scenarios­that­illustrate­this­paradox­in­a­paradigmatic­way.­The­first­scenario­has­only­appeared­incidentally­as­one­motivation­behind­many­formats:­the­data­deluge.­The­other­scenario­was­introduced­as­a­significant­paradox,­but­has­not­been­systematized­further­until­now.­This­scenario­is­provided­by­the­observation­that­recent­approaches­such­as­emulation­and­self-containedness­oppose­the­early­theme­of­decomposability­and­modularity.

In­2001,­Keller­presented­the­results­of­a­survey­of­the­impact­of­digital­pub-lications­on­the­field­of­scholarly­publishing.­The­study­itself­was­conducted­in­1999.­One­of­the­key­results­was­the­claim­that­digital­publications­have­the­potential,­if­not­to­solve,­then­at­least­to­alleviate­the­serial­crisis.­Sim-ilar­claims­had­been­made­in­the­ACM­Electronic­Publishing­Plan.­As­Adema­(2015,­135)­points­out,­the­serial­crisis­is­a­monograph­crisis­as­well.

As­it­turns­out­in­the­genealogy­of­digital­publications,­this­crisis­is­far­from­over.­Authors­reference­it­even­today.­Furthermore,­the­problem­permutates­and­transforms­into­new­versions,­versions­which­correspond­with­concepts­of­the­environments­of­new­publication­formats.­Accordingly,­the­serial­crisis­spreads­into­an­“age­of­information­overload”­(Shotton­et­al.­2009,­13),­where­information­is­the­unit­of­choice.­It­became­the­“data­deluge”­that­predicated­the­e-Science­program­(De­Roure­2011,­10).

… Publishing 273

Hence,­it­could­be­argued­that­instead­of­making­step-by-step­progress­in­the­process­of­solving­this­issue,­the­issue­re-appears­in­a­way­that­fits­the­steps’­most­important­characteristics.­As­before,­it­is­possible­to­observe­a­dynamic­in­which­the­attempts­to­solve­certain­problems­of­digital­pub-lications­go­hand­in­hand­with­their­production.

The­issue­of­SCPs­offers­an­even­more­illustrative­example­for­the­paradoxical­situation­of­heterogeneity­in­the­development­of­digital­publication­formats.­Chapter­four­concluded­by­drawing­attention­to­the­paradoxical­fact­that­a­development­that­started­with­the­idea­of­modularity­engenders­the­theme­of­self-containedness­at­its­preliminary­end.­It­was­indicated­that­a­faction­within­this­field­of­research­has­recently­started­to­work­on­the­formal­description­of­the­structure­of­SCPs.­Up­to­this­point,­no­further­attention­was­paid­to­this­new­twist.

A­closer­look­reveals­the­dynamics­of­digital­technologies­around­the­topic­of­heterogeneity­—­if­no­social­viewpoint­is­added­that­qualifies­and­inter-rupts­this­logic.­The­point­is­that­both­approaches,­the­infrastructural­and­the­semantic­approach­to­harmonization­and­standardization,­are­not­merely­coexisting.­At­least­for­the­case­of­digital­publications,­they­react­to­each­other.­Modularization­—­in­this­context­the­use­of­formal­vocabulary­in­order­to­isolate­components­or­connect­resources­of­an­object­of­inter-est­—­appeared­as­a­reaction­to­earlier,­so-called­electronic­publications.­These­existed­in­form­of­digitized­images­of­publications­or,­at­their­best,­as­plain­text.­In­the­eyes­of­modularization,­these­“monolithic”­articles­were­a­major­source­of­heterogeneity­in­publishing,­a­heterogeneity­of­objects­and­language­with­allegedly­redundant­information­(see­sections­on­NPs).­Technological­innovation­permitted­the­semantic­markup­of­elements,­or­their­relationships­in­publications,­in­cases­where­they­had­already­been­published­independently.­The­harmonizing­of­heterogeneity­was­supposed­to­be­achieved­by­aligning­or­re-using­elements­in­a­connected­publication­space.

Self-Contained­Publications,­again,­were­among­other­things­a­reaction­to­the­heterogeneity­produced­by­the­aforementioned­process.­SCPs­respond­to­a­new­type­of­heterogeneity­of­modules­and­semantics,­by­offering­a­technical­platform,­the­container,­that­allows­to­abstract­from­the­issue­of­modules­and­semantics­and­provides­a­unifying­layer­around­any­type­of­heterogeneity.­Especially­the­approach­of­emulation­makes­it­possible­to ignore the question of what the elements of a publication are that are formally­described,­and­what­means­are­used­in­order­to­describe­them.­After­this­succession­of­shifts,­it­is­not­surprising­that­this­approach,­once­

274 Beyond the Flow

more,­creates­its­own­type­of­heterogeneity,­that­of­emulation­techniques,­which­is­promised­to­be­solved­by­developing­technological­means­to­“semantically”­abstract­from­such­heterogeneity­of­techniques­(Santana-Perez­et­al.­2017).­This,­however,­is­a­shift­back­to­the­formal-descriptive­approach­that­was­already­offered­by­modularity.

Each­turn­tries­to­apply­a­technical­solution­to­a­technical­problem,­instead­of­addressing­its­social­status.­It­neglects­the­fact­that­digital­technologies­can­be­the­means­of­a­solution,­but­never­the­solution­themselves.­In­con-sequence,­the­problem­of­heterogeneity­cascades­upstream.

Publication Formats as Domain Driven Discourse Objects

Confronted­with­the­dynamics­of­heterogeneity­around­digital­publications,­the question arises whether such heterogeneity has a certain structure that­goes­beyond­the­pattern­found­in­the­last­section.­In­other­words,­is­this­structure­in­fact­contingent,­or­does­a­pattern­exist­that­would­allow­to­see­in­it­not­heterogeneity,­but­more­of­a­configuration?

Since­approaches­to­digital­publications­maintain­a­simple­view­of­heterogeneity,­this­task­has­not­really­been­carried­out­yet.­As­has­been­argued­on­several­occasions,­attempts­to­analyze­the­heterogeneity­of­digital­publications­look­for­a­generic­core­within­this­heterogeneity­(EPs,­LPs,­ROs­and­others),­or­they­take­a­nearly­all-inclusive­direction­(TPs,­HPs,­DPs­and­others).

Since­the­limited­evaluation­of­heterogeneity­is­based­on­a­narrow­concept­of­social­aspects,­it­appears­consistent­to­start­the­process­of­structuring­by­analyzing­the­dependency­between­social­domains­and­the­creation­of­digital­publications­that­begins­in­figure­6.4.

Contributions of Research Domains to Digital Publication Concepts

In­the­case­of­science,­using­research­domains­as­a­key­unit­to­analyze­science’s­social­structure­is­a­likely­idea.­On­various­occasions­throughout­the­study­at­hand,­particular­research­domains,­furthermore,­seem­to­have­played­a­crucial­role­in­the­development­of­publication­formats.­In­order­to­create­an­overview­of­the­impact­of­specific­research­domains,­self-descriptions­by­authors­in­the­collection­used­above­were­extracted­from­the­papers.­These­self-descriptions­mostly­consist­in­their­institutional­affiliations­as­mentioned­in­the­front­or­back­of­a­paper.­If­the­publications­

…­Publishing 275

use­a­specifi­c­showcase­or­target­group,­the­domain­names­of­such­showcases­and­groups­were­also­taken­into­account.

Domain­information­often­addresses­diff­erent­levels­of­granularity­and­contains­subject­related­overlaps,­for­instance­for­the­case­between­terms­such­as­atmospheric­research­and­climate­science.­Some­authors­refer­to­their­research­domain­as­biology,­others­prefer­a­more­precise­description­of­their­fi­eld,­such­as­biodiversity.­As­this­happens­in­many­fi­elds,­the­overall­result­is­a­participation­of­fi­fty-six­domains,­sub-domains­and­research­areas­contributing­to­research­literature­on­digital­publication­formats.­Figure­6.4­shows­the­fi­fteen­most­mentioned­disciplines­ordered­by­the­number­of­their­appearances­in­research­publications­about­digital­publication­formats.

[Figure­6.4]­The­top­fi­fteen­disciplines­involved­in­research­literature­about­digital­

publication formats

In­order­to­increase­compatibility­and­consistency,­these­terms­were­then­aligned­in­a­two-dimensional­taxonomy.­This­taxonomy­is­based­on­the­Dewey Decimal Classifi cation scheme6­(also­referred­to­as­DDC).­However,­some­modifi­cations­to­the­DDC­approach­were­also­made,­so­that­the­data­is­more­suitable­to­the­subject­of­the­current­inquiry.­The­most­outstanding­change­consist­in­the­introduction­of­the­class­e-Research­at­the­fi­rst­level­of­the­hierarchy.­E-Research­has­the­two­subclasses­e-Science­and­digital­humanities.­In­contrast,­terms­such­as­bioinformatics­were­merged­with­their­area­of­application­(biology).

6­ https://www.oclc.org/dewey.en.html

276 Beyond­the­Flow

Another­signifi­cant­diff­erence­to­DDC­is­the­way­the­dataset­handles­the­fi­eld­of­information­science.­Information­science,­as­well­as­computer­science,­are­subclassed­under­a­newly­introduced­domain­group­called­information-and-technology.­This­seems­reasonable,­since­only­a­fraction­of­information­science­is­involved­in­the­design­of­digital­publication­formats,­and­this­fraction­is­heavily­leaning­towards­designing­technological­infra-structure.­Examples­include­the­work­of­Herbert­Van­de­Sompel­(2010),­or­the­DRIVER­project­(Sierman,­Schmidt,­and­Ludwig­2009).

Finally,­the­domain­group­business­was­introduced,­to­represent­the­involvement­of­commercial­publishers­like­Elsevier­or­Springer,­as­well­as­commercial­providers­of­publishing­services.­This­domain­is­not­a­research­domain,­but­obviously­comprises­an­important­group­of­social­actors­for­the­current­topic.­Figure­6.5­lists­the­resulting­ten­domain­groups­and­visualizes­their­relative­shares­regarding­research­literature­on­digital­pub-lication­formats.

Finally,­the­domain­group­business­was­introduced,­to­represent­the­involvement­of­commercial­publishers­like­Elsevier­or­Springer,­as­well­as­commercial­providers­of­publishing­services.­This­domain­is­not­a­research­domain,­but­obviously­comprises­an­important­group­of­social­actors­for­the­current­topic.­Figure­6.5­lists­the­resulting­ten­domain­groups­and­visualizes­their­relative­shares­regarding­research­literature­on­digital­pub-lication­formats.

[Figure­6.5]­Domain­groups­in­the­dataset­on­digital­publication­formats

The­domain­group­which­by­far­dominates­research­literature­on­new­publication­formats,­even­with­the­aforementioned­modifi­cations­made­to­the­DDC­scheme,­is­the­domain­group­information-and-technology­(see­fi­gure­6.5).­This­dominance­increases­further­if­the­domain­of­e-Research­is­added.­This­means­that­the­research­fi­eld­of­digital­publications­is­most­notably­shaped­by­disciplines­which­do­not­just­apply­technology­to scholarly publications but of which its primary research interest is technology.

At­a­fi­rst­glance­the­humanities­seem­to­be­equally­represented­as­science.­However,­there­is­a­signifi­cant­predominance­of­mostly­empirical­domains.­Similarly,­social­sciences­are­less­represented.

One­way­to­interpret­this­result­is­to­follow­the­model­of­a­linear­history­of­the­digitization­of­research,­as­outlined­at­the­beginning­of­this­chapter.­In­this­case,­it­would­just­refl­ect­the­delay­by­which­some­domains­integrate­digital­technologies.­In­this­view,­computer­science­represents­the­path­of­progress­itself,­while­certain­disciplines­can­adopt­the­principles­of­

… Publishing 277

this­progress­more­easily­than­others.­The­“end­of­theory”­debate­would­provide­the­explanatory­background­for­such­an­argument.­Accordingly,­theory-based­disciplines­need­more­time­to­adapt­to­a­world­without­theory­than­empirical­disciplines.

As­has­been­discussed­in­the­last­chapter,­this­assumption­would,­however,­misinterpret­the­concept­of­digital­technologies­by­equating­such­technologies­with­a­specific­practice­and­a­specific­application­model­of­such­technologies.­Similarly,­the­results­from­the­data­do­not­relate­to­the fact that there always must be computer scientists to implement a publication­format.­In­most­of­the­literature­on­the­conceptualization­of­digital­publications,­as­in­the­case­of­HPs­or­TPs,­computer­scientists­do­not­appear­as­authors­at­all.­Additionally,­computer­scientists­often­appear­together­with­authors­from­non-computer-science­domains.­Disciplines­that­only­appear­as­showcases­without­being­represented­as­authors­have­furthermore­been­included­as­has­been­mentioned.­The­dominance­of­information-and-technology­domains­can­thus­not­be­deduced­from­the­way­the­present­study­defines­digital­publications.­What­this­situation­means­exactly­will­become­clearer­when­domains­are­related­to­publication­formats­below.

Another­observation­can­be­made­that­likewise­discourages­the­afore-mentioned­explanation.­The­by­far­most­outstanding­discipline­from­the­science­domain­is­biology.­If­one­were­to­add­the­intersection­between­biology­and­life­sciences­or­biology­and­chemistry,­the­share­would­become­even­more­dominant.­Such­a­high­number­shows­that­in­the­sciences­as­well­there­are­areas­which­engage­significantly­differently­with­the­topic­of­digital­publications­than­others­do.­This­observation­precludes­just­explaining­the­results­within­the­simplifying­framework­of­empirical­sciences,­theoretical­sciences­and­technology.

The Relationship Between Scientific Domains and Digital Publication Concepts

The­whole­picture­becomes­clearer­when­different­concepts­of­digital­publications­are­taken­into­account.­Figure­6.6­shows­the­participation­of­research­domains­in­ten­publication­formats.­These­formats­are:

– Hybrid­Publications­(hp) – Electronic­Notebooks­(en) – Unbound­Books­(ub) – Open­Laboratory­Books­(olb) – Data­Papers­(dp) – Transmedia­Publications­(tp)

278 Beyond the Flow

– Enhanced­Publications­(ep) – Research­Objects­(ro) – Nano­Publications­(np) – Semantic­Publications­(sp)

One­diagram­corresponds­with­one­domain­group.­The­y-axis­on­each­diagram­shows­the­number­of­contributions­for­each­format.

One­aspect­which­shows­up­immediately­is­the­dominance­of­humanities­disciplines­in­HPs,­TPs­and­UBs­while­their­influence­is­low­or­completely­absent­in­other­formats.­The­arts­—­not­generally­well­represented­—­con-tribute­most­to­TPs.­While­not­dominating­SPs,­business­is­most­present­in­SPs.­Science­disciplines­dominate­OLBs­while­e-Research­is­the­most­prominent­domain­in­ROs.­Information-and-technology­finally­shapes­the­approach­of­EPs.­If­one­looks­deeper­into­the­disciplines­behind­the­domain­contributions­it­will­show­that­science­in­NPs­is­almost­exclusively­represented­by­the­discipline­of­biology.­In­the­case­of­OLBs­it­is­chem-istry.­Similarly,­around­eighty-five­percent­of­information-and-technology­disciplines­behind­EPs­refers­to­information­science.­In­the­case­of­ROs­it­is­the­other­way­around.­In­this­approach­seventy-nine­percent­of­this­domain­comes­from­the­field­of­computer­science.

It­is­therefore­possible­to­summarize­that­in­most­cases­identifiable­domain­clusters­exist­which­tend­to­contribute­to­one­format­over­another.­A­first­attempt­to­explain­this­situation­can­be­made­by­reviewing­what­each­format­stands­for.

The­biggest­share­of­library­and­information­science­exists­in­EPs­and­SPs.­Both­formats­are­organized­around­the­concept­of­information­resources­and­information.­Accordingly,­they­are­shaped­by­an­abstract­entity­con-stitutive­to­this­specific­domain.­Enhanced­Publications­with­its­underlying­concept­of­aggregations­inherit­the­idea­of­collections­as­constitutive­elements­in­research­from­this­domain.­The­preference­for­the­intensive­use­of­highly­formalized­semantics­resembles­the­practice­of­cataloguing­and­the­creation­of­tools­such­as­authority­files.

Computer­science,­in­contrast,­dominates­the­RO­concept.­Research­Objects­are­self-described­as­formal­descriptions­of­computational­workflows,­using­digital­resources­in­a­way­that­is­“native”­to­the­web­architecture.­Such­a­description­defines­which­resources,­such­as­data­or­software,­are­used,­by­identifying­them­with­URIs.­Afterwards,­it­defines­how­they­are­linked­together­by­representing­how­and­when­they­were­processed­to­generate­a­research­result.­The­goal­of­Research­Objects­is­

…­Publishing 279

[Figure­6.6]­The­infl­uence­of­diff­erent­domains­in­specifi­c­publication­formats

280 Beyond the Flow

to­enable­automated­reproducible­experimentation­and­automation­of­science.­The­theme­of­automation­and­the­networked­nature­of­Research­Objects­as­living­in­the­web­directly­reproduces­key­topics­in­computer­science.­The­ideological­framework­of­e-Science­translates­such­principles­into­aspects­of­science.­For­instance,­it­equates­reproducibility­with­the­input-output­model­of­computation.

Nano­Publications­are­largely­designed­and­influenced­by­biology­and­the­life­sciences,­in­particular­pharmacology,­medicine,­and­research­on­proteins.­The­two­key­features­of­NPs­are­the­central­theme­of­assertions,­and­the­way­they­organize­evidence.­They­build­upon­a­specific­conflation­of­three­aspects,­which­adequately­describes­the­situation­of­the­afore-mentioned­research­cluster.­The­first­two­aspects­address­the­centrality­of­factual­knowledge,­both­for­representing­research­results­and­organizing­the­research­domain.­The­example­of­ROs­demonstrates­that­this­is­not­necessarily true for all environments with a strong empirical research context.­The­third­aspect­reflects­the­actual­availability­of­many­databases­which­contain­factual­data­about­many­similar­things,­i.e. proteins.

Indeed,­examples­given­for­NPs­from­such­fields­center­around­pieces­of­knowledge­such­as­that­protein­X­has­property­Y­(Chichester­et­al.­2014),­or­substance­X­interacts­with­substance­Y­(Schneider,­Ciccarese,­et­al.­2014).­The­point­is­not­to­say­that­other­disciplines­do­not­work­with­factual­knowledge.­The­point­is­that­the­share­of­factual­knowledge,­as­well­as­the­usefulness­of­its­representation­as­assertions,­is­specific­to­a­field­which­collects­information­about­thousands­of­protein­chains­and­other­sub-stances.­The­corresponding­research­literature­also­gives­evidence­of­the­situation­of­how­the­availability­of­a­few­clearly­definable­research­objects­(proteins,­pharmaceutical­substances,­etc.)­facilitates­the­availability­of­many­databases­containing­such­data.­Finally,­the­descriptions­of­medical­use­cases­of­NPs­accentuate­the­specialized­demands­of­some­disciplines­promoting­NPs.­Accordingly,­Rodriguez-Gonzalez­et­al.­(2014)­outline­the­usage­of­NPs­in­decision­making­processes­in­medicine.­In­those­processes,­the­reuse­of­parts­of­experiments­that­led­to­factual­knowledge­as­targeted­by­ROs­is­not­meaningful.­Instead,­there­is­a­demand­to­quickly­have­an­overview­of­how­much­research­favors­one­or­the­other­assertion,­so­that­a­quick­decision­can­be­made.­Consequently,­NPs­focus­not­on­facts­and­assertions,­but­on­a­specific­practice­of­using­facts­and­assertions­that­seems­to­be­inherent­in­the­research­domains­supporting­NPs.

Transmedia­Publications­are­an­outstanding­example­of­strong­interest­in­the­issues­of­representation­and­mediation­of­the­entanglement­between­

… Publishing 281

representation­and­socio-cultural­processes.­Since­such­questions­are­key­questions­of­the­humanities,­it­does­not­surprise­that­humanities­dis-ciplines­largely­sustain­this­publication­concept.­Moreover,­it­is­the­one­approach­where­disciplines­from­the­arts­contribute­most.­These­dis-ciplines­are­based­around­different­notions­of­design.­Thus,­it­does­not­surprise that they relate to the one format by which they “might formally be brought­into­academic­knowledge­systems­in­the­actual­modalities­of­their­practice”­(Ball­2016,­53).

Business­is­not­dominating­in­SPs,­yet­there­are­convincing­arguments­why­it­engages­most­into­this­format.­SPs­do­not­aim­at­altering­the­existing­format­of­articles­substantially.­They­extend­it­by­adding­annotations­to­the­file­of­the­article,­by­means­of­formal­semantics­in­the­markup,­or­microdata­format.­These­annotations­make­articles­easily­machine-readable.­They­thereby­facilitate­the­implementation­of­additional­services,­which­need­to­process­the­article­as­data.­For­business­stakeholders,­these­qualities­entail­that­they­are­able­to­maintain­their­product­form­while­being­supported­in­the­creation­of­new­products­(see­chap.­3).­Although­there­is­no­research­object­or­scientific­methodology­guiding­these­stake-holders,­their­goals,­key­interests­instead,­carry­a­certain­logic­comparable­to­those­disciplinary­logics­discussed­above.­The­question­of­how­to­maximize­profit­is­no­different­from­the­question­of­how­to­best­support­discovery­in­this­respect.

A­closer­look­at­the­heterogeneity­of­publication­formats­revealed­that­it­is­not­just­defined­by­contingency.­On­the­contrary,­the­patterns­and­their­explanations­suggest­that­the­field­of­digital­publishing,­instead­of­fos-tering­a­new­ecology­of­digital­publications,­is­a­stage­for­ongoing­debate­about­the­nature­of­scientific­truth­and­the­presupposed­essence­of­digital­technologies.­It­is­a­stage­on­which­“epistemic­cultures”­(Knorr-Cetina­1999)­and­cultures­of­technologies­meet­and­continue­to­advocate­their­con-victions,­not­only­by­argument,­but­more­importantly­by­design.­The­pub-lication­design­becomes­the­argument.

The­possibility­of­doing­so­is­one­of­the­most­fundamental­consequences­of­digital­technology­for­the­field­of­scholarly­publishing.­It­is­a­consequence­of­the­fact­that­digital­technologies­are­technologies­of­conversion,­and­not­technologies­in­favor­of­particular­ideas.­In­this­context,­conversion­means­that­digital­technologies­do­not­privilege­a­specific­format.­Instead,­they­facilitate­the­design­of­formatting­options­as­semiotic­resources­for­creation­of­meaning­in­concrete­publications.­On­several­occasions,­authors­have­argued­that­digital­technologies­reconfigure­the­relationship­between­

282 Beyond the Flow

form­and­content.­At­this­point,­it­seems­appropriate­to­argue­that­such­reconfiguration­is­not­so­much­a­clearer­separation­between­form­and­con-tent­as­it­is­a­discontinuation­of­the­distinction­itself.

Accepting and Challenging Heterogeneity

In­the­light­of­this­conflation,­the­heterogeneity­in­digital­publishing­appears­to­be­consistent­and­unrevertable.­Nevertheless,­there­are­two­factors­which­multiply­its­dimensions.­As­has­been­argued,­the­epistemic­effects­of­digital­technologies­require­a­reconfiguration­of­the­epistemic­setup.­Publications­belong­to­this­setup­and­are­means­of­reconfiguring­it.­Since­such­reconfiguration­is­not­predefined,­broad­experimentation­is­not­just­obvious,­but­also­necessary­in­order­to­gain­insights­into­the­new­situation.­Likewise,­it­will­be­necessary­to­step­back­from­experimentation­to­let­reconfiguration­take­place.­Thus,­the­first­factors­are­the­transitional­phase­of­epistemic­irritation­and­the­attempts­to­find­appropriate­means­for­reconfiguration.

The­second­factor­is­the­lack­of­awareness­of­social­dimensions­of­scholarly­publications,­discussed­in­several­places.­In­the­context­of­the­current­section,­this­problem­shows­up­as­a­mismatch­between­the­awareness­of­the­design­context­of­a­peculiar­publication­format­and­its­intended­target­groups.­This­was­the­result­of­the­empirical­analysis­above:­that­formats­are­strongly­linked­to­research­domains,­and­researchers­as­designers­of­publication­concepts­propagate­the­universality­of­their­formats.­Bechhofer­et­al.­(2012,­2)­accordingly­argue­that­ROs­are­suited­for­“scientists­from­virtually­any­discipline.”­Sometimes,­domain­specific­demands­are­explicitly­mentioned.­De­Roure­(2014b,­235)­defines­the­ability­of­publications­to­function­across­disciplines­as­a­key­factor­of­publications.­However,­such­demands­never­invalidate­the­format­itself.­Instead,­they­are­considered­modifiers­of­minor­aspects­within­the­format,­such­as­the­terms­that­are­used­to­markup­content­in­MAs­and­SPs.

Such­attitudes­multiply­heterogeneity,­because­they­hinder­the­negotiation­and­situation­of­formats.­They­lead­to­demonstrations­of­how­a­specific­format­is­generally­capable­of­representing­research­from­uninvolved­dis-ciplines,­instead­of­comparing­different­practices­of­representing­research­and­using­research­results.­The­consequence­is­a­situation­with­many­“generic”­formats,­instead­of­fewer,­but­sustainable­and­maintainable,­formats.

… Publishing 283

Arguing Science Through Designing Publications

It­was­said­in­the­last­section­that­the­field­of­digital­publishing­is­an­ongoing­argument­about­technology­and­the­production­of­scientific­truth,­carried­out­by­means­of­design.­If­this­is­the­case,­then­the­question­arises­what­the­elements­of­this­argument­are­by­which­these­conflicting­opinions­are­represented.­In­other­words,­what­are­the­bases­on­which­different­hypothesizes­are­built?­As­far­as­publication­formats­represent­an­entire­line­of­argument,­they­are­not­suitable­for­this­kind­of­analysis.­As­a­trigger­for­variation,­these­aspects­need­to­be­aspects­appearing­in­any­format,­but­handled­differently­across­formats.­The­description­of­pub-lication­formats­within­chapter­one­already­gave­a­first­impression­of­these­aspects,­but­comparisons­were­made­from­a­genealogical­angle­and­not­in­a­systematic­way.­Accordingly,­the­aspects­which­are­of­interest­at­this­point­are­a­more­systematic­extraction­of­comparable­features.­The­following­list­contains­a­selection­of­those­aspects.­It­outlines­the­most­fundamental­areas­of­debate,­as­well­as­the­whole­scope­of­the­ongoing­argument­as­such.­It­comprises­the­publications:

– scale – architectural integrity – logical cohesion – secularization – attitude­towards­research – intended­residence­time – synchronization­with­research – structural rigor – modal­complexity – intermodal­relationship­types

The­aspects­in­this­list­are­not­completely­isolated­from­each­other­in­the­sense­that­any­kind­of­combination­is­possible.­Sometimes,­a­choice­for­one­aspect­restricts­possible­choices­for­another­aspect.­Additionally,­choices­for­two­aspects­may­link­to­the­same­feature­in­a­publication­format,­because­this­feature­represents­several­ways­to­look­at­publications.­The­exact meaning of this will become more obvious after these aspects have been­described­in­greater­detail­over­the­next­paragraphs.

The aspect of scale­addresses­the­portion­of­the­research­process­isolated­from­this­process­in­order­to­form­a­publication­in­a­specific­format.­In­single-resource­publishing,­the­scale­can­be­extremely­coarse-grained­and­often­contains­only­the­output­of­a­particular­action,­such­as­a­diagram.­In­OLBs,­the­publication­mostly­represents­a­logical­step­within­the­research­

284 Beyond the Flow

process.­Research­Objects,­SPPs,­or­EPs­bundle­entire­research­processes,­while­LPs­consist­of­repositories­that­grow­and­change­with­a­researcher­or­research­group,­beyond­research­projects.­The­question­at­stake­is:­what­is­a­meaningful­independent­unit­of­research?

The term architectural integrity­comprises­concepts­which­describe­how­producers­and­consumers­are­linked­by­the­publication.­Most­formats­belong to one of platform,­channel,­or­object.­When­a­publication­is­a­plat-form,­as­in­the­case­of­UBs,­it­does­not­distinguish­between­producers­and­consumers­outside­of­the­publication­itself.­Instead,­agents­connect­to­the­publication­to­become­producers­and­consumers.­Channel-publications­such­as­OLBs­design­a­fixed­producer-consumer­relationship­in­which­the­publication­establishes­a­potentially­ongoing­connection­between­both.­Object-publications­are­publications­in­a­historical­sense.­They­do­not­bind­producers­to­consumers,­but­float­independently­between­them.­Architec-tural­integrity­models­the­distance­between­producer­and­consumer­roles.­It­makes­a­statement­about­which­model­best­represents­the­idea­of­knowledge­creation­as­a­result­of­the­circulation­of­existing­knowledge.

Logic cohesion­addresses­the­key­idea­that­links­the­elements­in­a­pub-lication­format.­In­ROs,­the­cohesion­is­given­by­the­workflow­idea.­Hybrid­Publications­create­cohesion­by­the­concept­of­translation.­To­put­it­differently,­a­HP­is­an­abstract,­ideational­publication­that­references­different­expressions,­or­rather­materializations.­These­materializations­are­indeed­materializations,­because­their­creation­is­perceived­as­a­trans-lation­of­the­abstract­publication.­Nano­Publications­create­cohesion­on­the­grounds­of­the­concept­of­evidence.­Elements­in­NPs­are­grouped­by­the­property­of­containing­proof­for­one­and­the­same­claim.­In­TPs,­it­is­the­idea­of­modal­quality­of­elements­that­joins­and­organizes­them­into­pub-lications.­Thus,­in­TPs,­cohesion­is­created­by­meaning­potentials.­In­Self-Contained­Publications,­the­goal­to­maintain­the­integrity­of­publications­is­the­uttermost­aspect­of­cohesion.­In­a­certain­way,­SCPs­represent­the­theme­of­cohesion­itself.

The aspect of secularization­is­a­consequence­of­the­form-content­debate.­In­relation­to­what­has­been­argued­throughout­the­entire­second­chapter,­this­aspect­obviously­does­not­describe­how­much­content­and­form­are­separated­from­each­other.­Instead,­it­represents­how­meaningful­and­crucial­the­distinction­is­for­the­design­of­the­format.­While­in­TPs,­and­with­some­restrictions­also­in­SCPs,­this­difference­is­not­made­at­all,­in­single-source­publishing­it­takes­its­most­radical­form.­Likewise,­it­is­a­key­element­of­SPs.

… Publishing 285

The aspect attitude towards research­defines­the­functional­relationship­between­research­as­a­process­of­knowledge­production­and­a­publication.­For­instance,­the­primary­attitude­of­Living­Books­is­qualification­in­the­name­of­democratization.­The­format­ensures­that­whatever­is­published­out­of­a­peculiar­research­process­can­only­be­published­in­a­way­in­which­the structure of the format automatically presents this process as one besides­others.­It­undermines­finality­and­dogmatization­of­research­processes.­This­holds­true­even­if­other­research­processes­do­not­con-tribute,­because­it­is­the­format­that­frames­research­in­this­respect.­Research­Objects’­primary­functional­relationship­is­that­of­recording­the­research­process.­The­main­functional­relationship­of­historical­articles­may­in­contrast­be­described­as­systematization,­at­least­some­authors­in­digital­publishing­understand­it­this­way­(Bradley­et­al.­2010).­Those­publications­summarize,­contextualize,­and­generalize­the­research­process.­They­dis-tinguish­between­significant­and­insignificant­parts­of­it.­Open­Laboratory­Books­take­a­documentary­attitude,­while­SPs’­attitude­and­the­scaled­approach­of­OpenAIRE­is­that­of­harmonization.­In­two­different­ways,­the­last two formats relate to the research process in a way that favors those properties­of­research­that­are­shared­with­others.­Obviously,­publication­formats­have­more­than­one­functional­relationship.­Nonetheless,­it­is­possible­in­most­cases­to­identify,­by­the­format­itself,­or­by­the­way­the­authors­present­it,­one­relationship­that­is­more­important­than­others.

Digital­publications­started­to­conceive­of­the­residence time of a pub-lication,­meaning­the­time­span­a­publication­should­be­available,­as­one­of­its­designable­elements.­Accordingly,­SPPs­and­LPs­discussed­the­possibility­of­a­“decay”­factor.­HPs­take­up­a­more­pragmatical­but­nevertheless­highly­decisive­approach.­Since­in­times­of­digital­technologies,­“remixing”­and­transforming­publications­between­formats­is­a­frequent­phenomenon,­taking­care­of­long-term­availability­of­publications­becomes­less­important­than­before.­“All­publishing­becomes­vanity­publishing”­(Hall­2013,­497;­see­also­McPherson­2010,­4).

Similarly­linked­to­the­issues­of­time­are­different­approaches­to­the­syn-chronization­between­research­process­and­publication.­The­corresponding­question­is­the­question­about­the­right­moment­to­externalize­research­into­publications.­Open­Laboratory­Books­carry­out­an­approach­that­can­be­called­parallel-successive.­The­publication­process­advances­in­parallel­to­the­research­process­by­publishing­parts,­which­combined­in­turn­form­the­entire­publication.­Living­and­Unbound­Books­synchronize­with­research­in a parallel- or trans-incremental­way.­This­means­publishing­is­a­process­which­adds,­deletes,­or­modifies­the­content­of­a­publication.­This­process­

286 Beyond the Flow

is­arranged­parallel­to­research­processes­or­across­research­processes,­but­belongs­to­a­shared­research­endeavor.­Finally,­the­publication­of­ROs,­SPPs,­or­SCPs­tends­to­mark­the­end­of­a­research­process.

Structural rigor­is­another­aspect­by­which­publication­formats­can­be­dis-tinguished.­In­fact,­MAs­introduced­a­new­level­of­formal­and­structural­rigor­to­publications,­by­defining­exactly­which­components­of­publications­should­be­clearly­separable­from­each­other­and­how­they­relate­to­each­other.­Structural­rigor­does­not­include­the­level of formality­and­formal complexity­of­the­underlying­technological­model.­It­only­addresses­the­question­of­how­detailed,­precise,­and­complex­a­publication­concept­pre-scribes­components­of­publications­and­their­interplay,­regardless­of­their­technological­implementation.­NPs­and­MPs,­for­instance,­have­a­higher­level­of­rigor­than­EPs.­They­are­significantly­more­restrictive­and­precise­in­terms­of­the­question­of­what­a­publication­is­allowed­to­contain­and­what­it­is­not.­The­case­of­SCPs­is­interesting­insofar,­as,­similar­to­TPs­and­HPs,­they­try­to­minimize­structural­rigor.­They­turn­the­discussion­of­structural­rigor­upside­down.

Modal complexity­and­types of intermodal relationships­address­the­question­of­how­many­different­resources­for­representation­like­text,­diagrams,­photos,­and­video-audio­are­combined­by­a­format,­and­how­their­modal­qualities­are­addressed.­An­image­can­explain­a­textual­narrative,­as­is­often­the­case­in­DPs.­It­can­also­be­intended­to­create­meaning,­together­with­text­that­cannot­be­reduced­to­one­or­the­other.­This­is­the­case­for­TPs.­Finally,­an­image­can­be­stored­for­computational­analysis­without­ever­looking­at­it.­It­might­also­be­packaged­with­other­resources­in­order­to­offer­optional­supplemental­material,­as­it­is­called­in­ROs.7

As­has­been­mentioned­above,­this­list­of­aspects­or­ideas­is­just­a­selection.­It­contains­aspects­which­intend­to­clarify­the­extend­up­to­which­the­design­of­publication­formats­is­part­of­a­scientific­discourse­about­science­and­technology.­Similar­patterns­could­also­be­described­for­aspects­that­are­much­simpler,­for­instance­the­role­and­use­of­layout.­Such­analysis­is­carried­out­on­broad­terms­in­multimodal­analysis,­for­instance­by­Guo­(2006).­While­specific­technological­means­of­publication­concepts­cannot­be­related­to­particular­opinions­on­the­aforementioned­aspects­as­such,­they­nonetheless­tend­to­support­specific­opinions­better­than­others.­More­important­is­the­fact,­however,­that­part­one­showed­that­the­development­of­these­means­is­in­any­case­closely­linked­to­certain­

7­ Rowsell­(2013)­offers­a­comprehensive­overview­of­relationships­of­meaning­between­different­types­of­resources­for­meaning­production.

… Publishing 287

opinions.­Both­sides­have­influenced­each­other­while­not­determining­each­other,­and­this­entanglement­is­exactly­what­is­intended­to­be­dem-onstrated­throughout­this­inquiry.

Many­attitudes­towards­the­majority­of­aspects­of­digital­publications­listed­above­can­be­distributed­on­an­axis­between­two­extremes.­In­other­words,­possible­choices­relating­to­one­aspect­are­most­often­organized­around­a­bipolar­structure.­The­two­examples­in­table­6.1­and­table­6.2­illustrate­this­dimension.

action step project cluster

SRPs OLBs,­UBs SPs ROs,­SPPs,­EPs LPs,­LBs

[Table­6.1]­Axis­for­the­scale­aspect­of­digital­publications

Different­attitudes­towards­scale­are­ordered­along­an­axis­between­one­action­in­a­research­process­and­a­cluster­of­research­processes.­This­polarity­allocates­other­attitudes­in­the­order:­step­and­process.

determined contingent

NPs,­ROs EPs OLBs,­DPs HPs,­TPs

[Table­6.2]­Progression­of­the­aspect­of­structural­rigor­in­digital­publications

The­polarity­that­forms­the­shape­of­attitudes­towards­structural­rigor­can­be­described­as­a­polarity­between­full­determination­and­structural­con-tingency.­Although­distinctions­on­such­axes­resemble­distinctions­between­information,­information­units,­and­complex­information­units­in­MAs,­an­important­difference­exists.­They­are­not­meant­to­play­a­normative­role,­but­to­offer­orientation­between­different­formats.­Their­main­function­is­to­give­evidence­of­the­fact­that­they­exist­as­influential­axes­in­digital­publication­concepts.­They­are­not­intended­to­precisely­define­what­each­segment­looks­like,­as­MAs­try­to­do­with­neurological­arguments.­The­distinctions­are­of­a­relational­nature­and­if­necessary,­could­be­defined­by­comparison,­as­has­been­done­for­the­arrangements­in­the­tables.

Furthermore,­the­allocation­of­approaches­on­such­axes­are­approx-imations.­Part­one­has­shown­that­there­is­always­variation­around­specific­approaches.­For­instance,­DPs­exist­which­are­completely­determined.­Nevertheless,­it­has­also­been­argued­that­this­variation­does­not­make­it­impossible­to­speak­of­unique­approaches.­All­in­all,­Data­Papers­show­very­different­approaches­to­the­issue­of­structural­rigor.­It­is­the­consistency­of­these­differences­that­make­it­blind­to­the­issue­of­structural­rigor­and­not­

288 Beyond the Flow

question­how­many­DPs­exist­that­are­determined­in­comparison­to­those­that­are­not.

Some­aspects­cannot­be­rendered­on­axes­like­those­above­because­they­are­more­categorial­in­nature.­Of­the­aspects­discussed,­these­are­logic­cohesion­and­attitude­towards­research.­The­few­examples­given­for­such­aspects show that they reference a complex space of possibilities that is potentially­open.

Since­digital­technologies­are­technologies­of­conversion,­they­do­not­enforce­any­peculiar­decision­on­certain­options­for­aspects.­In­fact,­the­individuality­of­paths­taken­by­different­formats­is­another­indication­of­the­level­of­impact­of­this­claim.­This,­and­the­plurality­of­publication­formats­that­have­been­created­on­top­of­it,­started­a­process­in­which­any­such­aspects­are­already­automatically­interpreted­as­a­statement­about­technology­or­about­science.­There­are­no­better­examples­for­this­fact­than­the­different­notions­towards­narrativity­that­have­been­outlined­in­part­one.­As­much­as­narrativity­becomes­less­necessary­by­means­of­technology,­publication­concepts­reconsider­its­overall­necessity.­As­far­as­this­reconsideration­leads­to­a­continuation­of­the­extensive­use­of­narrativity,­it­is­automatically­perceived­of­as­a­statement.­This­holds­true­regardless­of­the­fact­of­whether­this­statement­is­really­made­or­not,­because­it­is­the­environment­that­has­changed­in­such­a­way­that­it­con-stitutes­a­statement.­The­critique­by­Candela­et­al.­(2015)­that­DPs­are­not­sufficiently­data-like­is­a­good­example­for­this­fact.

Contradictory Patterns in the Development of Digital Publications

As­mentioned­previously,­the­extremes­and­ranges­of­aspect­do­not­exist­as­such­and­thus­are­not­static.­This­remark­was­made­not­only­to­prevent­new­simplifications­comparable­to­those­that­were­made­in­MAs.8 The fact that­the­extent­of­such­ranges,­and­the­exact­choices­they­offer,­is­the­out-come­of­a­historical­process,­draws­the­attention­to­particular­facets­of­that­history.­As­in­the­example­of­the­relationship­between­infrastructural­and­descriptive­approaches­to­deal­with­heterogeneity,­developments­around­digital­publication­aspects­go­into­different­directions­at­the­same­time.­These­developments­create­the­space­of­possible­choices­within­bipolar­

8­ Modular­Articles­randomly­referenced­physics­and­neuroscience­in­order­to­empirically­define­differences­between­information,­information­units,­and­composed­information­units­on­a­non-theoretical­information­complexity­vector­that­cannot­take­into­account­the­context-dependency­of­what­forms­a­composition­and­what­forms­a­whole.

… Publishing 289

ranges­of­aspects­of­publications­in­the­first­place.­Activities­that­take­part­in­the­field­of­digital­publishing­often­share­common­goals,­but­the­strategies­chosen­to­get­there­frequently­oppose­each­other.­It­shows­that­the­geneaology­of­digital­publications­reveals­an­aporetic­core­structure.­This­structure­is­best­demonstrated­by­the­general­observation­that­all­projects­try­to­define­the­future­publication,­but­each­contribution­adds­new­features­that­in­parts­contrast­those­of­other­activities.

Part­one­contains­many­such­contradictions,­and­the­ranges­above­can­all­be­read­as­opposites.­Contradictions­appear­all­over­digital­publications:­some­abstract­as­much­as­possible­from­modes­of­representation,­and­some­are­combinations­of­all­kinds­of­representation­strategies;­they­are­atomic­information­units,­but­also­containers­that­contain­any­resource­used­in­research;­they­are­meant­to­be­aggregations­and­images­for­emulation­as­well;­they­should­contain­an­internal­formal­structure­(microdata),­but­also­be­built­out­of­an­external­formal­structure­(OAI-ORE);­they­change­with­the­flow­of­time,­but­are­recorded­or­designed­versions­of­timeflows­at­the­same­time;­they­are­conceived­of­as­a­derivation­of­a­publication­meta-model,­but­emphasize­a­historical­state­of­publishing,­in­which­it­is­allegedly­no­longer­reasonable­to­think­about­publishing­as­a­model-based­approach­at­all­(see­next­section).

The­notion­of­contradictions­radicalizes­the­discussion­of­heterogeneity­around­digital­publications.­It­shows­that­digital­publications­have­not­just­produced­a­lot­of­heterogeneity­instead­of­harmonizing­it,­but­that­this­production­is­systematic.­Digital­publications­systematically­produce­representations­for­any­option­that­can­be­perceived­of­as­a­feature­of­publications­today.­From­the­angle­of­the­two­debates­on­truth-making­and­technology,­this­means­two­things.­First,­within­the­development­of­digital­publications,­any­scientific­knowledge­culture­tries­to­be­represented­in­the­form­of­publication­formats.­Second,­this­development­is­one­in­which­convertibility­as­the­dominant­feature­of­digital­technologies­is­realized­by­comprehensively­testing­conversions­between­scientific­actions­and­multimodal­representations­and­vice­versa.­Using­the­terminology­of­MAs,­these­two­angles­can­be­combined­by­saying­that­both­are­con-tributions­to­a­process­in­which­more­and­more­resources­are­turned­into­semiotic­material,­i.e. material­that­becomes­suitable­for­the­creation­of­meaning­and­the­representation­of­knowledge­for­digital­publications.­This­description,­however,­also­means­that­more­than­designing­new­scholarly­publications,­former­developments­have­only­prepared­the­ground­for­such­publications.

290 Beyond the Flow

The­notion­of­contradictions­came­to­light­when­the­different­devel-opments­behind­digital­publications­were­subsumed­under­the­common­goal­of­creating­the­future­scholarly­publication.­This­viewpoint­eliminates­the­temporal­dynamic­of­the­phenomenon,­in­order­to­highlight­its­fictional­vanishing­point.­When­the­development­itself­is­perceived­of­as­such,­the­contradiction­turns­into­a­dialectic­process.­More­precisely,­when­the­development­of­digital­publications­is­observed­while­keeping­in­mind­the­general­phenomenon­of­contradiction,­this­development­reveals­dialectical­patterns­such­as­the­relationship­between­modeling­and­engineering­in­digital­publishing,­highlighted­in­the­section­heterogeneity.­It­is­the­pattern­of­semantic­solutions­to­infrastructural­issues­which­engender­problems­that­in­turn­require­infrastructural­solutions­and­so­forth.­Likewise,­the­con-tainerization­and­emulation­approach­to­publications­did­not­just­develop­in­parallel­to­others.­It­got­attention­in­reaction­to­modularization­and­atomization­approaches.­Such­approaches­first­received­the­technological­infrastructure­necessary­for­its­realization9,­but­by­doing­so­created­a­new set of problems10.­In­the­same­fashion,­explorations­into­multimodal­strategies­of­representation­and­the­volatile­nature­of­the­format­aspect­of­publications­temporally­appear­as­a­response­to­the­advancements­of­approaches­that­focus­on­technology­and­information.­This­response­is­even­spoken­of­explicitly­by­Adema­(2015,­sec.­1.1.2),­when­she­outlines­the­necessity­to­highlight­“genealogical­modes”­of­digital­publications­against­the­success­of­“teleological­schemes.”

Fundamental Tensions between Publication and Communication

If­digital­publications­until­today­mainly­semiotize­the­environment­of­pub-lications,­i.e. comprehensively­prepare­the­space­of­options,­for­new­types­of­scholarly­publications,­the­question­is­how­this­situation­affects­the­notion­of­publications­as­such.­In­order­to­evaluate­this­question,­it­seems­promising­to­have­a­closer­look­at­the­overarching­leitmotif­in­the­research­on­digital­publications:­communication.

9­ RDFa­and­OAI-ORE­among­others.10­ The­effort­to­represent­a­publication­in­a­modular­way­as­a­set­of­atomic­parts,­

maintaining­the­integrity­of­a­publications­the­parts­of­which­exist­in­a­distributed­environment.

… Publishing 291

Communication, the Leitmotif of Digital Publications

The­by­far­dominant­frame­in­which­digital­publications­are­discussed­across­contexts,­time,­and­concepts­concerns­its­function­in­scholarly­com-munication.­The­vast­majority­of­authors­regard­the­issue­of­publications­as­that­of­research­communication.­When­the­question­is­raised­how­to­make­use­of­digital­technology­in­the­context­of­publications,­it­is­generally­inter-preted­to­be­asking­how­to­improve­scholarly­communication.

Obviously,­publications­have­more­functions­than­the­enabling­of­com-munication­in­academia.­The­few­exceptions­to­this­norm,­as­well­as­issues­discussed­in­passing,­bear­witness­to­this­argument.­Adema­(2015)­dis-cusses­publications­as­an­organizational­means­for­structuring­the­social­field­of­academia.­The­publishing­toolkit­by­Pensoft,­which­used­DPs­in­a­way­that­enabled­distribution­of­the­efforts­necessary­for­their­creation­among­different­stakeholders,­was­also­introduced.­Self-Contained­Pub-lications­showed­that­the­question­of­publications­is­not­just­one­of­“more­effective­scholarly­communication”­(Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­2012,­46),­but­also­one­of­effective­resource­management.­Transmedia­Publications­raised­the­issue­of­appropriate­representations.­McPherson­(2010,­10–11)­offers­the­most comprehensive overview of functions publications must carry out in order­work­properly.

These­facets­and­their­discussion,­nevertheless,­do­by­no­means­match­the­attention­the­general­theme­of­research­communication­receives,­especially­where­the­discussion­reflects­digital­publications­on­a­broader­and­sometimes­theoretical­scale.­Accordingly,­Candela­et­al.­(2015,­1748)­call­publications­“custodians,­yet­they­need­to­reconsider­their­mission­in­modern­scientific­communication.”­Even­McPherson­subsumes­her­overview­under­the­basic­theme­of­“Thoughts­on­the­Future­of­Scholarly­Communication.”­For­Hall­(2013),­writing­an­article­is­the­act­of­“performing­scholarly­communication.”­He­also­emphasizes­that­the­historical­article­did­in­fact­not­really­accomplish­communication,­and­that­this­failure­is­a­consequence­of­the­print­environment.­The­key­point­behind­this­and­related­descriptions­is­always­the­same:­digital­technologies­have­initiated­a­progression­towards­scholarly­publications­that­are­more­communication-like­than­before.­As­such,­they­promise­to­fulfill­a­goal­of­publications­that­had­always­been­their­primary­aim,­but­one­that­could­not­be­supported­properly­due­to­technological­restrictions,­which­are­now­outdated.

Still,­the­development­from­publications­to­digital­publications­is­a­devel-opment­“from­scholarly­publication­to­scholarly­communication”­(Hogenaar­2009),­a­transformation­in­which­publications­are­“about­to­be­replaced­by­

292 Beyond the Flow

what­has­been­coined­research­communications”­(Nentwich­2003,­304),­to­form­“the­future­of­scholarly­communications”­(De­Roure­2014b).­Evidently,­the term communications replaces the term publication on many occasions (Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­2012;­Clark,­Ciccarese,­and­Goble­2014)­in­order­to­comply­with­the­“revolutionized­scholarly­communication­paradigm”­(Van­de­Sompel­and­Lagoze­2007,­1).

The­publication-format­point­of­view­indicates­that­the­paradigm­of­communication­is­less­defined­by­concrete­specification,­but­more,­indirectly,­by­removing­as­much­as­possible­of­whatever­is­conceived­of­as­technologically­conditioned­constraints­of­historical­forms­of­publishing.­To­push­things­further,­focusing­on­the­theme­of­communication­leads­to­the­phenomenon­of­historical­constraints­being­nearly­always­only­dis-cussed­as­technologically­motivated­constraints.­Other­possible­sources­for­constraining­publications­rarely­appear­as­explanations.­Aiming­for­digital­publications that are worthy of scholarly communication means removing constraints­from­publications.

The­overarching­theme­of­communication­in­the­research­field­of­digital­publications­does­not­add­much­to­a­general­definition­of­scholarly­pub-lications­after­the­introduction­of­digital­technologies.­From­this­per-spective,­publications­are­just­“units­of­communication”­(Van­de­Sompel­and­Lagoze­2007,­1).­More­than­being­something,­they­are­what­remains­after­a­purely­formal­distinction­has­been­made­—­which­is­necessary­in­order­to­be­able­to­talk­about­communication:­obviously­no­communication­can­take­place­when­there­is­nothing­to­communicate.­What­the­phrase­allows,­however,­is­to­talk­about­communication­without­the­need­to­specify­further­what­this­something­is,­or­at­least­how­much­specification11 it­requires.

The­impression­that­the­use­of­the­term­communication­in­the­majority­of­cases­simply­signals­the­urge­to­develop­an­all-inclusive­and­less-restrictive­notion­of­publication­is­made­explicit­when­Hogenaar­(2009,­para.­5)­remarks­that­“science­is­flourishing­thanks­to­communication,­a­much­broader­concept­than­publishing,”­and­Candela­et­al.­(2015,­1761)­claim­that­“it­is­a­responsibility­of­scientists­to­assist­the­rest­of­the­scientific­com-munication­realm­to­remove­the­barriers­affecting­it.”

11­ It­is­true­that­the­contribution­quoted­here­introduces­the­OAI-ORE­model.­However,­this­model­is­only­a­technical­one.­Its­content­by­definition­states­that­it­is­nothing­more­than­“aggregates­of­multiple­distinct­components”­(Van­de­Sompel­and­Lagoze­2007,­2).

… Publishing 293

And­once­again,­there­is­a­paradoxical­situation­in­the­research­into­digital­publications.­This­time,­it­consists­of­the­observation­that­its­main­entity­—­the­publication­—­is­only­addressed­implicitly­and­in­a­negative­way.­Digital­publications­appear­as­those­publications­that­need­to­be­defined­less­as­publications­compared­to­communication.­This­is­the­setup,­at­least­since­Kircz­put­the­issue­of­digital­publications­under­Garvey’s­claim­that­com-munication­is­the­essence­of­science.

Authenticity and Presence: How Digital Publications Conceive of Communication

Another­interesting­question­is­whether­such­barriers­have­something­more­in­common­than­being­barriers­and,­correspondingly,­if­this­urge,­emphasized­so­much­in­the­discussion­of­the­communication­theme,­aims­at­something­that­could­be­made­more­specific.­Hence,­what­are­such­barriers­in­the­first­place?­Candela­et­al.­(2015,­1761)­are­rel-atively­clear­in­their­answer­on­this­question.­From­their­point­of­view,­common­publications­are­“no,­slow,­incomplete,­inaccurate,­or­unmod-ifiable­communication.”­Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­(2012)­add­to­these­four­properties­the­property­of­“outdated­communication”­(47),­and­“expensive­communication”­(54),­which­addresses­similar­issues­as­efficient­communication.

No,­incomplete,­and­inaccurate­communication­describes­different­scenarios­in­which­information­considered­to­be­relevant­is­missing.­Slow­communication­addresses­the­time­lapse­between­the­creation­of­the­content­of­a­publication­by­a­researcher­and­its­consumption­by­another­researcher.­Expensive­communication­does­indeed­mean­both­financial­costs­of­publications­and­the­efforts­necessary­to­create­them.­Con-sequently,­these­costs­can­block­or­again­delay­communication.

From­this­perspective,­the­theme­of­communication­is­indeed­the­key­driver­for­the­vast­majority­of­publication­formats.­This­is­so­because­most­issues­that­creators­of­digital­publications­highlight­and­seek­to­solve­with­new­formats­were­and­can­be­expressed­as­a­form­of­restricted­communication.­The­whole­aspect­of­information­redundancy­and­efficiency­is­part­of­the­narrative­of­incomplete,­inaccurate,­or­ineffective­communication.

As­discussed­in­the­abovementioned­section­and­elsewhere,­com-munication­is­conceived­of­as­restricted­by­redundancy­on­the­grounds­of­the­claim­that­it­is­evident­what­the­information­is,­that­it­is­the­same­information­as­in­other­publications.­It­is­conceived­of­thus,­because­it­is­

294 Beyond the Flow

considered­possible­and­desirable­to­give­formal­representations­of­that­information­for­any­kind­of­knowledge.­With­those­claims,­certain­aspects­of­historical­publications,­such­as­their­narrative­structure,­become­an­obstacle.­Several­arguments,­among­them­the­end­of­theory­debate­or­the­references­to­Gärdenfors,­have­shown­that­the­formalization­of­structure­and­information­in­approaches­like­MAs,­SPs,­MPs,­NPs,­and­so­forth­is­not­meant­to­be­a­concretization­or­a­negotiation­about­the­content­of­publications.­Instead,­it­is­conceived­of­as­coming­to­the­real­thing.­Con-sequently,­the­step­from­publications­to­communication­is­the­step­of­leaving­behind­anything­allegedly­contingent.­Seeking­communication­within­this­narrative­thus­does­not­roll­out­a­different­strategy­for­scholarly­communication,­but­pretends­to­eliminate­the­distinction­between­infor-mation­and­representation.­It­targets­the­direct­and­unfiltered­availability­of­meaning.

Immediate­availability­of­meaning­is­one­side­of­the­end-of-theory­argument.­As­mentioned­previously,­the­other­one­is­immediate­access­to­truth.­As­much­as­truth­is­conceived­of­as­something­to­which­direct­access­exists,­the­burden­of­publishing­and­acquiring­research­results­counts­more­than­the­effort­of­doing­research.­At­least­this­is­what­the­accelerationist­motif­behind­many­digital­publications­suggests.­For­Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­(2012),­“accelerating­scientists'­knowledge­turns”­is­the­primary­goal­of­the­ROs­format.­Similarly,­De­Roure­et­al.­(2009,­2336)­seek­to­“accel-erate­the­time­to­discovery­of­new­research­results”­by­introducing­digital­publications.­In­2005,­Marcondes­(2005,­119)­already­wanted­to­bring­“infor-mation­technology­in[to]­the­scientific­communication­process­in­order­to­accelerate­the­embodying­of­new­research­results.”­This­conflation­between­publishing­of­research­results­and­doing­research­as­scholarly­com-munication­stands­out­most­in­Kuhn­(2015)­and­Sofronijević­(2012).­In­such­approaches,­“real-time­publications”­(Kuhn­2015,­1)­prepare­the­ground­for­communication­of­autonomous­algorithms,­which­then­immediately­carry­out­further­research.­In­summary,­communication­means­accelerating­the­production­of­publications­up­to­the­point­of­real-time,­in­which­the­notion­of­research­results­vanishes,­because­the­distinction­between­discovery­and­publication,­marked­by­the­concept­of­research­results,­conflates­into­undisturbed,­ongoing­communication.

Communication­in­the­form­of­real-time­publications­indicates­that­acceleration­of­research­obviously­similarly­builds­on­the­acceleration­of­publishing,­up­to­the­point­of­no-time-at-all:­“communication­becomes­instantaneous”­(Bourne,­Shotton,­et­al.­2012,­44).­Several­barriers­exist­for­instantaneous­communication,­and­the­aspect­of­time­is­only­an­aspect­in­

… Publishing 295

which­such­barriers­become­visible.­Bourne­et­al.­also­highlight­that­they­become­instantaneous­“across­geographic­boundaries.”­Consequently,­the­use­of­the­term­communication­for­digital­publications­seeks­to­invalidate­the­category­place­for­the­design­of­publication­formats.­This­is­more­than­saying­that­publications­bridge­geographical­boundaries.­In­the­light­of­communication,­such­boundaries­cease­to­exist.

A­radicalization­of­this­aspect­is­the­intent­of­ROs,­OLBs,­and,­with­some­exceptions,­SCPs­to­entirely­reproduce­the­original­research­process.­They­try­to­break­down­the­barrier­of­different­ranges­of­experience­between­the­creation­of­publications­and­their­consumption.­In­this­context,­the­turn­from publications in science to scholarly communication means putting the consumer­in­the­same­position­as­if­she­had­gone­to­the­lab­(OLBs),­or­as­if­she­had­experienced­the­experiment­in­person­(ROs).­Direct­availability­of­shared­spaces­of­experience­is­likewise­pursued­by­approaches­which­apply­the­term­communication­to­collaboration­practices­(see­see­beginning­of­this­section).­Accordingly,­“the­future­of­scholarly­communications”­is­a­future­of­“hybrid­physical-digital­sociotechnical­systems”­(De­Roure­2014b,­1).­The­idea­of­such­systems,­therefore,­is­the­idea­of­experiences­that­are­shared,­as­well­as­shared­experiences.

An­entirely­quantitative­and­less­radical­variation­of­the­idea­that­com-munication­means­the­delivery­of­the­full­research­experience­is­the­demand­that­anything­produced­during­research­should­be­considered­worthy­of­publishing.­Bourne­(2010,­2)­supports­this­claim­by­arguing:

Some­would­say­that­much­of­what­is­published­today­should­not­be,­so­why­add­more­superfluous­information­to­the­record­of­science?­The­response­is­that­one­person’s­trash­is­another­person’s­treasure.

Likewise,­Castelli,­Manghi,­and­Thanos­(2013)­argue­that­current­com-munication infrastructure is infrastructure where all results from the research­process­form­publications­interlinked­in­many­different­ways.­Dis-regarding­such­standards­would­lead­to­“knowledge­burying”­(De­Roure­et­al.­2009,­10)­in­a­“digital­dark­age”­(Choudhury­et­al.­2008,­21).­In­this­context,­the­term­communication­marks­the­shift­from­a­time­where­publications­were­curated­to­a­vision­of­absolute­transparency­beyond­any­curational­filter­or­intervention.

A­much­more­abstract­and­therefore­more­profound­barrier­for­com-munication­was­introduced­by­Hall’s­critique­on­the­form­aspect­of­the­book.­For­Hall,­form­is­the­materialization­of­any­type­of­reification,­may­it­be­triggered­by­semantic,­political,­economic,­or­social­processes.­

296 Beyond the Flow

Communication,­in­contrast­to­the­book,­refers­to­the­attempt­to­allow­any­play­with­meaning­and­content­in­a­multiplicity­of­“channels”­without­dis-turbances.­If­the­high­number­of­references­to­Derrida­made­in­research­literature­on­Liquid­Books,­UBs,­and­others­are­serious,­those­approaches­have­to­be­aware­that­content­only­comes­by­form.­Some­remarks­in­the­work­of­Hall­and­Adema­give­evidence­of­this­assumption.­However,­for­these­authors,­form­has­and­should­have­situational­meaning­only.­The­application­of­theme­of­communication,­accordingly,­aims­at­decon-structing­form­by­pushing­the­utmost­plurality­of­forms.­It­is­thus­not­wrong­to­argue­that­despite­the­acknowledgment­of­the­form,­dependency­of­meaning,­and­communication,­theme­of­communication­is­used­to­establish­the­ideal­of­formless­publishing.

It­was­furthermore­described­that­the­background­of­this­ideal­is­political­in­the­first­place.­Formless­publishing,­similarly,­addresses­the­elimination­of­uneven­narratives,­disparate­social­positions­of­participants­in­research,­and­asynchronous­information­flows.­The­theme­of­communication­therefore­also­represents­the­ethics­of­direct­contact­between­people,­unfiltered­by­social­institutions­or­relations­such­as­hierarchies­conceived­of­as­damaging­to­society­and­research­alike.­It­is­the­model­of­colleagues­with­equal­rights,­doing­research­together,­instead­of­an­institutionalized­organizational­body­of­stakeholders­with­specific­roles­and­a­particular­relationship­in­the­system­of­science,­that­those­approaches­try­to­advocate.

A­final,­and­indeed,­extremely­simple­variation­of­the­notion­of­presence­is­the­already­discussed­phenomenon­that­putting­something­online­is­often­conceived­of­as­making­a­publication­out­of­it.­Worthington­and­Furter­(2014),­accordingly,­argue­that­putting­an­item­online­is­enough­to­con-sider­it­a­publication.­The­taxonomy­includes­“conventional”­and­“uncon-ventional”­publications.­In­fact,­for­most­unconventional­publications­this­just­means­that­they­are­somewhere­available­online.­The­environment,­and­the­context­of­such­an­online­presence,­is­of­no­further­importance.­Similarly,­a­certain­number­of­RIPs­and­Webtexts­are­just­HTML­websites,­uploaded­on­some­server­in­the­web.­Often,­the­web­itself­is­considered­a­publication­environment,­so­that­anything­on­it­automatically­becomes­a­publication.

This­viewpoint­corresponds­with­familiar­and­more­general­thoughts­on­the­status­of­the­web.­Authors­like­Stiegler­(2012),­for­instance,­define­the­whole­“digital­technical­system”­as­a­“global­and­contributory­publication­and­editorialization­system”­(4).­Similarly,­resources­that­are­put­on­a­

… Publishing 297

website­without­any­additional­restriction­are­considered­publications­in­OLBs.­Meeks­(2012)­carries­out­a­broader­analysis­of­this­equation­between­putting­something­online­and­considering­it­a­publication.

The­description­of­goals­behind­the­theme­of­communication,­as­given­in­the­last­section,­is­therefore­incomplete,­as­it­focuses­only­on­the­removal­of­barriers.­The­emphasis­which­is­put­on­terminology­and­discourse,­next­to­certain­arguments,­reveals­a­much­stronger­aim.­In­a­plethora­of­cases,­this­aim­corresponds­with­the­notion­to­not­only­remove­concrete­barriers,­but­to­invalidate­entire­distinctions­that­make­room­for­possible­barriers.­In­conclusion,­it­seems­more­meaningful­to­argue­that­digital­publications are not so much about publications than about the transfer of alleged­properties­of­communication­—­presence,­purity,­immediacy,­and­authenticity­—­into­digital­environments­of­academia.­They­are­about­com-municating­digitally.

What Lies Beyond: Exclusion and Persistence

If­most­of­the­attention­is­given­to­the­aforementioned­aspects,­it­is­urged­in­this­chapter­to­look­for­elements­and­topics­that­are­quite­difficult­to­include­here.­What­are­these­elements,­how­are­they­discussed,­and­in­which­state­are­they?­In­the­context­of­digital­publication­formats,­these­questions­address­two­things.­The­notion­of­authenticity­and­presence­in­digital­publications­derives­from­the­fact­that­such­publication­formats,­each­with­its­own­strategy,­seek­to­extract­and­host­parts­of­the­research­process,­instead­of­only­representing­it.­If­the­term­presence­is­defined­as the presence of authentic research — as thought of by the particular logic­of­the­format­—­then­exclusion­refers­to­those­parts­of­research­and­the­research­process­that­do­not­appear­in­such­a­logic.­The­second­angle­addresses­the­gap­between­a­publication­as­an­object­and­all­potential­situ-ations­in­which­such­an­object­should­count,­without­having­happened­yet.­De­Roure­(2014b,­235)­and­others­remark­that­the­key­criterion­of­success­of­the­article­format­was­its­capacity­“to­cross­boundaries­of­time,­place,­and­discipline.”­In­this­respect,­the­second­angle­focus­on­the­way­by­which­publication­formats­address,­anticipate,­and­treat­the­issue­of­their­own­persistence­within­these­dimensions.

A­comparison­between­different­publication­formats­and­their­respective­strategies­to­keep­the­research­process­present­in­publications­shows­that­it­is­not­enough­to­just­identify­differences­between­them.­Such­differences­have­a­more­complex­relationship­with­each­other.­For­OLBs,­for­instance,­the­presence­of­the­research­process­means­temporal­

298 Beyond the Flow

synchronicity­between­the­moment­in­which­certain­results­are­made­and­the­moment­they­are­published.­The­format­stresses­that­the­authenticity­of­the­research­process­is­replicated­in­the­publication­by­suppressing­any­possibility­for­finality­on­the­level­of­the­format.­In­contrast,­ROs,­in­terms­of­replayability­and­repeatability,­aim­at­this­authenticity­by­retrieving­the­whole­research­setup­that­led­to­results.­In­order­to­achieve­this,­ROs­require­a­start-­and­an­endpoint.­It­is­not­possible­to­replay­a­workflow­that­has­no­beginning­and­will­never­have­an­end.­Hence,­one­concept­of­presence­renders­the­other­one­impossible.

The­relationship­between­OLBs­on­the­one­hand­and­UBs­and­LPs­on­the­other­is­a­similar­one.­Unbound­Books­and­LPs­allow­continuous­mod-ifications­towards­a­presupposed­whole­of­a­publication,­while­OLBs­pre-scribe­continuous­additions.­Such­additions­are­steps­which­lay­out­a­path,­instead­of­working­on­an­object.­Both­approaches­problematize­the­state-fulness­of­publications­as­well­as­of­research,­and­attempt­to­constantly­be­up­to­date.­While­UBs­and­LPs­try­to­resemble­something­that­could­be­—­and­in­some­cases­indeed­was­—­called­the­state­of­the­art,­OLBs­try­to­resemble­movement­of­scientific­progress.­Modifications­make­the­mod-ified­element­disappear,­while­additions­pile­up.

In­the­same­way,­SPs’­attempt­to­perpetuate­the­factual­content­of­research­processes,­apart­from­their­distorting­representation­in­textual­publications,­is­incompatible­with­the­extension­of­modal­means­in­TPs.­Both­approaches­seek­to­preserve­“the­real­thing.”­Whereas­SPs­do­so­by­reducing­representational­means­to­formal­structures,­TPs­multiply­these­means­in­order­to­prevent­the­represented­thing­from­reification.­Both­strategies­have­opposing­notions­of­presence­and­authenticity­towards­the­research­object­and,­consequently,­choose­different­options­from­the­set­available,­in­order­to­design­digital­publications.­The­decision­in­favor­of­one­strategy­automatically­challenges­the­other,­and­vice­versa.

There­are­many­other­examples­following­the­same­pattern­as­those­above.­In­order­to­keep­certain­aspects­of­the­research­process­alive,­others­need­to­be­cut­out­of­the­publication­format.­Authenticity­and­exclusion­in­pub-lication­formats­depend­on­each­other.­While­digital­technologies­improve­mediation­of­the­presence­of­certain­aspects­of­the­research­process,­they­are­everything­but­technologies­of­presence­and­authenticity.­To­research,­publications­remain­just­interfaces.­The­design­decisions­that­need­to­be­made­in­order­to­create­these­interfaces­are­far­more­numerous­than­they­were­before,­and­it­is­the­necessity­of­these­decisions­that­make­a­pub-lication­concept­an­interface­besides­others.

… Publishing 299

In­the­light­of­communication­as­pure­presence­this­logic­is­rarely­reflected­openly­in­the­discourse­on­digital­publications,­as­summarized­in­this­inquiry.­In­consequence,­the­leitmotif­of­scholarly­communication­makes­the­impression­that­the­adventure­of­digital­publications­is­about­more­authenticity­and­less­exclusion­while­it­could­be­argued­that­it­is­about­more­(granular)­decisions­of­inclusion­and­exclusion.

The­second­angle­was­called­persistence.­It­addresses­the­form­in­which­digital­publication­formats­confront­the­issue­of­time,­place,­and­discipline.­There­are­two­dimensions­of­this­aspect.­The­first­dimension­is­the­form­in­which­designers­of­digital­publication­concepts­perceive­and­describe­issues­of­time,­place,­and­discipline­for­publications.­The­second­dimension­is­the­relationship­between­this­perception­and­the­status­of­these­issues­for­implementation­and­existing­digital­publications.­As­shown,­designers­of­digital­publication­formats­have­a­great­amount­of­freedom­to­make­decisions­about­these­issues.­It­is­possible­to­decide,­for­instance,­how­long­the­lifecycle­of­publications­is­expected­to­last,­or­in­which­contexts­it­is­supposed­to­appear.­The­type­of­implementation,­and­the­technology­used,­significantly­influenced­when­publications­of­its­kind­are­present­and­where­they­are­absent.­The­level­of­persistence­relates­choices­that­can­be­made­by­concept­designers.­Jane­Hunter’s­proposition,­to­think­about­a­decay­factor­for­SPPs,­is­an­example­of­choice­regarding­the­time­dimension.

Despite­the­tremendous­growth­of­means­for­the­purpose­of­defining­and­modelling­the­behavior­of­publications­across­the­aforementioned­boundaries,­each­concrete­publication­still­remains­an­autonomous­instantiation­of­models.­Hence,­while­digital­technologies­allow­more­fine-grained­decisions­about­how­a­specific­publication­of­its­kind­should­deal­with­such­boundaries,­it­is­still­possible­—­and­in­the­context­of­the­current­analysis­absolutely­necessary­—­to­analyze­to­what­extent­principles­of­publication­concepts­and­the­situation­of­concrete­publications­match.

Having­said­that­on­the­level­of­the­format,­publication­formats­are­able­to­choose­their­level­of­relative­stability,­it­is­highly­significant­that­few­reflected­choices­such­as­the­one­by­Hunter­et­al.­have­been­made­in­this­respect.­From­Kircz­in­the­early­years­up­to­De­Roure­in­recent­years,­the­notion­of­absolute­stability­is­the­dominant­goal­of­digital­publications.­Accordingly,­De­Roure­(2014b,­235)­argues­that­the­capability­of­historical­publications­to­cross­time,­place,­and­disciplines­is­the­one­feature­that­should­be­transferred­to­digital­publications­without­any­modification.­In­fact,­he­conceives­of­this­feature­as­a­kind­of­transcendental­core­of­publications.­It­was­written­that­on­the­level­of­discipline,­which­can­be­

300 Beyond the Flow

interpreted­as­a­more­socially­grounded­way­to­refer­to­place­and­time,­the­same­absoluteness­of­such­goals­prevailed.­It­was­outlined­how­terms­such­as­“knowledge­burying”­or­“digital­dark­age”­furthermore­call­for­a­state­of­emergency­to­archive­everything.­Considerations­like­the­decay­factor,­for­instance,­were­left­as­ideas.­This­issue­was­thoroughly­reflected­and­discussed­for­HPs,­but­not­made­part­of­a­decision-making­process­on­the­level­of­the­format.

In­line­with­De­Roure,­Kircz­(2001a,­271)­remarks:

The­conclusion­of­the­above­discussion­is­that­the­scientific­article­will­change­its­form­considerably­but­that,­in­its­new­more­composite­form­as­an­ensemble­of­various­textual­and­non-textual­components,­it­will­retain­the­cultural­and­scientific­demands­with­regard­to­editorial,­quality­and­integrity.

All­three­properties­are­properties­of­reliability­and­thus­stability.­While­the­first­concerns­the­social­perception­and­status­of­the­publication,­the­last­one­more­clearly­represents­the­consistency­of­the­publication­as­an­object­across­different­types­of­boundaries.­The­list­of­ten­demands­that­Kircz­provides­confirms­this­equation.­It­contains­demands­such­as­long-term-preservation,­persistence,­authenticity,­public­availability,­permanence,­and­similar.­Consequently,­what­Kircz­argued­for­in­the­early­years­of­digital­publications,­and­De­Roure­et­al.­re-confirm­in­recent­times,­is­that­for­aspects­of­stability,­nothing­should­change,­while­everything­else­should.

The­paradoxical­situation­of­digital­publications,­more­drastically,­is­the­fact­that­discourse­demands­adaptation­of­nearly­all­properties­of­publications­to­the­situational­and­eventful­facets­of­research,­with­the­one­exception­being­the­status­of­concrete­publications­in­space­and­time.­While­every­aspect­of­publications­is­considered­a­question­of­design,­this­one­is­not.­If­publications­should­be­designed­around­the­notion­that­scientists’­knowledge­turns­accelerate­(Goble,­De­Roure,­and­Bechhofer­2012),­as­ROs­demand,­why­then­is­a­less­stable­publication­not­likewise­acceptable?­It­could­be­argued­that­if­digital­publications­are­approached­as­units­in­scholarly­communication,­the­notion­of­communication­has­not­been­devel-oped­radically­enough.­Thus,­a­unit­in­communication­may­not­only­look­very­different,­it­may­also­behave­very­differently.­It­goes­without­saying­that­the­goal­of­this­and­other,­previously­mentioned­arguments­is­not­to­give­up­on­stability­and­persistence.­Instead,­the­whole­process­makes­it­plausible­to­reflect­on­different­types­of­stability­that­correspond­with­the­way­communication­is­rendered­in­specific­formats.­Since­the­field­of­digital­publications­has­not­provided­a­coherent­definition­of­publications­in­the­

… Publishing 301

aforementioned­logic­of­communication,­and­publications­as­mere­“units”­of­communication­do­not­go­beyond­a­pure­formalism,­the­way­this­fields­deals­with­the­issue­of­stability­is­likewise­in­more­of­an­abstract­or­ide-alistic­way.

Stability and Sustainability as Infrastructure

This­has­consequences­for­the­actual­stability­of­concrete­digital­pub-lications­and­their­infrastructure.­The­highly­problematic­state­of­the­integrity­of­digital­publications­is­an­issue­which­has­accompanied­the­field­up­to­now.­As­shown­in­the­respective­sections,­it­is­mentioned­in­the­context­of­EPs,­RO,­SCPs,­TPs­(Webtexts),­and­others.­Similar­observations­prove­to­be­right,­even­where­they­are­not­discussed­openly.­Accordingly,­the­integrity­of­Scalar­TPs­depends­heavily­on­the­Scalar­web­platform,­because­not­all­the­information­that­constitutes­a­Scalar­publication­as­a­transmedia­object­is­exportable­into­the­RDF­based­representation.­Sufficient­integrity­of­publications­in­new­publication­formats­therefore­remains­a­fundamental­issue,­even­in­relative­terms.

There­are­other­issues­which­follow­the­same­pattern.­Credit­and­reward­are­two­of­those.­They­regard­necessary­conditions­for­the­social­stability­of­digital­publication­formats,­i.e. the­degree­to­which­such­formats­are­accepted­and­respected­within­the­research­community.­Obviously,­their­acceptance­depends­on­the­fact­that­an­author­can­expect­acknowledg-ment­of­a­used­format,­an­acknowledgment­which­is­supported­by­a­shared­value­system­that­corresponds­with­this­format.­As­early­as­2010,­Bechhofer,­Ainsworth,­et­al.­(2010)­remark­in­the­context­of­ROs­that­a­credit­and­reward­system­is­a­key­factor­for­the­success­of­ROs.­This­remark,­however,­remained­just­that­and­is­still­an­open­issue­today.­Nüst­et­al.­(2017),­currently,­refer­to­the­same­issues­as­having­to­be­dealt­with­in­the­future.­Although­it­seems­that­awareness­exists­for­these­issues­in­the­ROs­community,­they­mostly­conceive­of­them­as­issues­that­will­be­solved­by­others.­This­attitude­makes­it­easy­to­let­the­publication­format­focus­on­technical­or­epistemological­aspects,­and­treat­issues­of­stability­as­something­pertaining­solely­to­the­environment­and­the­surrounding­infrastructure.

Beyond­problems­such­as­those­above,­there­are­other­issues­regarding­the­stability­of­digital­publications­that­are­rarely­mentioned,­for­which­no­empirical­basis­exists­( Jankowski­et­al.­2012),­or­for­which­existing­insights­are­seldom­considered­in­the­design­of­publication­formats.­The­persistent­identification­of­digital­publications,­parts­of­digital­publications,­and­

302 Beyond the Flow

micro-contributions­of­different­types­of­contributors­(Stäcker­et­al.­2016,­sec­2.1),­for­example,­is­not­just­a­technical­issue.­It­is­also­a­question­of­the­social­valuing­and­of­efficient­citing­practices.­The­question­is­if­each­of­the­new­types­of­citations­and­giving­of­credit­support­a­functional­and­sustainable­citing­culture.­An­ethos­that,­in­the­spirit­of­presence­and­authenticity,­focuses­on­granularity­and­preciseness,­misses­significant­facets­of­citing.

The­same­could­be­said­about­the­question­of­how­published­data­in­data-centric­digital­publications­is­really­used.­In­other­words,­do­the­data-usage­patterns­that­formats­assume­match­with­the­usage-patterns­by­which­consumers­of­digital­publications­engage­with­such­publications?­The­ambiguity­of­the­concept­of­data-centric­form­in­digital­publications­has­already­been­discussed­elsewhere.­This­ambiguity­would,­however,­have­remained­more­of­a­theoretical­issue­if­digital­publication­designers­had­related­their­designing­process­to­analysis­about­existing­data­practices­(Key­Perspectives­2010;­Dodds­2013),­instead­of­building­on­one­specific­empiricist­data­practice­(e-Science).­The­principle­of­authenticity­is­only­applied­to­the­relationship­between­research­situations­and­publications,­but­not­to­the­relationship­between­real-world­publications­and­their­dis-semination­in­specific­research­domains.­This­brought­forth­publications­that­express­the­abstract­idea­of­data,­but­have­a­hard­time­sustaining­and­promoting­data-driven­research­practices.­Theoretically,­they­are­stable­across­place,­time,­and­discipline,­because­they­are­indeed­generic.­Unfor-tunately,­this­has­not­made­them­more­stable­across­the­time­that­has­passed­in­the­history­of­digital­publications.

On­a­more­abstract­level,­this­issue­also­includes­questions­about­the­interfaces­of­digital­publications­in­general.­Here,­the­term­interface­defines­different­things,­such­as­visual­and­technological­interfaces,­but­also­logical­interfaces­with­the­research­process.­The­question­is­what­type­of­interactions­are­suggested­on­all­these­levels,­and­do­they­prove­themselves­when­publication­formats­become­operational.­Few­examples­exist­where­such­perspectives­go­hand­in­hand­with­the­development­of­digital­publications­formats.­Such­examples,­however,­illustrate­well­how­a­development­model,­which­develops­concrete­strategies­for­the­sta-bility­of­digital­publications­instead­of­just­referring­to­it­in­an­abstract­way,­may­look­like.­In­the­context­of­EPs,­Adriaansen­and­Hooft­(2010)­and­Jankowski­et­al.­(2012)­tried­to­implement­such­a­strategy­for­issues­such­as­authoring­tools­and­user­interfaces.­Pensoft’s­approach­to­DPs­also­shows­well­how­the­design­of­new­interaction­models­between­publishing­stake-holders­by­means­of­formats­can­emerge­gradually,­out­of­established­and­

… Publishing 303

ongoing­publishing­practices.­The­Scalar­project­developed­its­platform,­an­authoring­software­at­its­core,­as­a­nexus­for­all­its­other­engagements­in­digital­publishing.

Hence,­it­is­possible­to­develop­digital­publication­formats­in­setups­that­mediate­very­differently­between­the­layers­of­format,­technology,­and­their­social­environment.­If­an­integrative­approach­seems­too­resource-intensive,­the­obvious­prioritization­still­does­not­need­to­be­in­favor­of­the­model,­or­of­technology.­As­written­in­the­introduction­and­throughout­the­whole­study,­the­impact­of­digital­publication­formats­in­terms­of­use­and­acceptance­is­limited.­Many­digital­publication­formats­remained­experiments­and­did­not­succeed­in­becoming­established­components­of­scholarly­publishing­until­today.­An­interesting­observation­can,­however,­be­made­about­those­efforts­that­are­successful­in­one­way­or­another.­This­observation­illustrates­that­projects­in­digital­publishing­might­have­underestimated­the­complexity­of­the­dynamics,­possibly­leading­to­stable­publication­formats.

For­the­sake­of­this­discussion,­impact­is­understood­as­projects­in­digital­publishing which:

– engendered­publications­that­constitute­significant­contributions­in­their­research­domain;

– gave­testimony­of­a­significant­degree­of­institutionalization­beyond­the­project­phase;

– created­a­high­level­of­participation.

Looking­at­the­examples­of­the­Pensoft­Writing­Toolkit­and­the­GBIF­Integrated­Publishing­Toolkit,­the­Scalar­platform,­and­finally­the­AiME­project,­which­succeeded­in­one­or­more­of­these­criteria,­one­common­aspect­stands­out.­All­three­projects­invested­tremendous­resources­in­assuring­the­success­of­its­approaches­to­publishing.­Additionally,­a­great­deal­of­these­resources­was­spent­on­means­and­technologies­applied­to­mobilizing­stakeholders.­In­contrast­to­ROs­or­OLBs,­which­perceive­publications­as­recordings­or­documentations,­these­projects­adopt­a­curational­approach­to­content.

Accordingly,­the­toolchain­associated­with­Pensoft­organizes­new­relation-ships­between­stakeholders­and­orchestrates­workflows,­in­order­to­sup-port­the­emergence­of­DPs.­Counting­the­Vectors­Journal­and­the­Scalar­project­together,­Scalar­took­around­ten­years­to­gradually­and­strategically­form­a­community.­Within­this­process,­this­community­participated­in­the­design­of­the­process­itself.­Finally,­the­AiME­project­created­an­extremely­sophisticated­workflow­in­order­to­stimulate,­maintain,­and­channel­

304 Beyond the Flow

content­creation­for­its­UBs.­It­invested­into­technology­which­mediated­this­workflow,­and­into­human­resources­that­controlled­the­process.

Obviously­not­all­digital­publication­initiatives­were­able­to­acquire­resources­on­this­scale.­However,­it­is­also­necessary­to­understand­the­issue­of­digital­publications­as­a­problem­that­in­fact­needs­those­resources­in­order­to­become­more­successful.­This­is­especially­true­for­time­resources.­The­last­paragraphs,­but­also­the­complaints­and­problems­that­appeared­throughout­this­study,­showed­that­often,­resources,­but­more­importantly­the­way­they­are­strategically­used,­do­not­match­the­goal­of­absolute­stability­of­publications­across­space­and­time.­Thus,­the­under-estimation­of­the­scope­of­related­problems­and­the­type­of­intervention­they­deem­necessary­for­the­stability­of­digital­publications­resembles­the­misconception­of­social­dimensions­discussed­in­the­respective­chapter.

Looking­at­the­entire­section,­it­was­argued­that­the­relationship­between­issues­subsumed­under­terms­of­authenticity,­presence,­exclusion­and­persistence­are­not­generally­well­balanced.­The­fact­that­often­only­those­aspects­of­research­that­can­now­be­made­present­in­new­formats­appear­in­the­discourse,­but­not­those­that­have­to­be­excluded­as­part­of­the­same­process,­suggests­such­an­imbalance.­The­way­in­which­the­stability­and­persistence­of­publications­across­time,­space,­and­social­boundaries­is­dealt­with­theoretically­confirmed­this­impression.

It­has­been­addressed­that,­if­so­many­authors­of­digital­publications­aim­at­accelerating­science­up­to­the­point­of­instant­discovery,­then­this­has­to­mean­also­that­research­and­resources­representing­this­research­lose­value­more­quickly.­Similarly,­the­fact­that­the­formats­of­digital­pub-lications­are­deeply­entangled­with­the­disciplinary­discourse­rolled­out­in­publication­formats­easily­questions­the­need­for­placing­such­formats­into­a­transdisciplinary­scope.

These­tensions,­between­publications’­loyalty­to­the­moment­of­discovery­and­the­demanded­provision­of­eternal­accountability,­between­the­pub-lication­format’s­methodological­concretization­and­the­goal­of­transdis-ciplinary­dissemination,­superposes­all­the­others­that­have­been­dis-cussed­in­the­context­of­digital­publication.­Using­the­terms­that­are­used­respectively­in­the­discourse­of­digital­publications­themselves,­this­means­there­is­a­tension­between­what­is­meant­by­communication­and­what­is­addressed­when­the­term­publication­is­used.­The­engagement­with­issues­in­the­first­perspective­is­very­concrete,­while­those­in­the­second­are­dis-cussed­in­a­formal­or­abstract­way,­if­at­all.

… Publishing 305

Against­this­background,­it­is­also­possible­to­argue­that­the­whole­issue­of­information­overload­and­data­deluge­is­less­of­a­technical­problem­but­more­a­result­of­a­misconception­between­different­aspirations­and­ideas­in­the­discourse­on­digital­publications.­The­issue­of­data­deluge­and­information­overload­might­thus­result­from­the­fact­that­publication­formats­not­only­differ­in­what­they­present­and­how­they­are­structured,­but­that­they­are­not­also­distinguished­in­terms­of­how­much­they­are­part­of­a­concept­of­publication­that­is­never­really­specified­—­or­not,­as­it­were.­Robertson­(2013­sec. Kindergarten­and­the­arrival­of­the­newborn­child)­similarly­notes­in­a­more­theoretical­contribution­that­“when­every­potential­publication­is­actually­published,­publication­itself­no­longer­has­value.”­In­short,­the­data­deluge­and­information­overload­might­result from the fact that people in certain areas have similar expectations of­different­things,­and­that­the­proclamation­of­a­data­deluge­problem­derives­from­the­fact­that­different­issues,­some­of­which­might­not­be­issues­at­all,­are­merged­into­one­big­challenge.

A­concise­theoretical­definition­of­publications­rarely­exists­across­projects.­As­a­unit­of­units­in­communication,­publications­are­mostly­defined­as­publications­by­appearing­in­communications.­The­term­unit­offers­no­further­detail.­Summarizing­all­insights­that­came­to­light­up­to­this­point­of­the­present­inquiry,­a­clear­concept­for­publications­after­the­advent­of­digital­technologies­is­missing,­because­of:

– the­attempt­to­use­digital­publications­for­the­comprehensive­exploration­and­implementation­of­possibilities­of­digital­technologies;

– the­attempt­to­use­publication­formats­in­order­to­as­perfectly­as­possible­mirror­the­shape­of­specific­scientific­methodologies­and­research­topics;

– the­fact­that­the­discourse­on­digital­publication­formats­is­primarily­structured­by­notions­of­authenticity,­purity,­and­presence,­among­others.

No­definition­arises­from­these­aspects­because: – digital­technologies­are­conversion­technologies,­and­thus­only­lead­to­the­representation­of­heterogeneous­ideas,­instead­of­revealing­a­common­ground,­based­on­which­it­might­be­possible­to­conceive­of­them­as­part­of­the­same­concept;

– despite­any­claims­made­in­the­research­field­of­digital­publications,­digital­technologies­do­not­dissolve­general­epistemological­dis-tinctions,­such­as­between­theoretical­and­empirical­knowledge,­or­typological­and­topological­knowledge;

306 Beyond the Flow

– the­conceptual­frame­of­speaking­about­digital­publications­in­terms­of­communication­is­not­sufficient­to­derive­any­general­definition­of­scholarly­publications.­Especially,­it­is­not­enough­to­just­call­publishing­a­unique­type­of­communication.­What­set­of­properties­constitutes­this­uniqueness?

The­question­of­whether­it­is­still­necessary­to­define­publications­in­digital­publishing,­however,­is­not­discussed­explicitly,­either.­Publications­and­publishing­are­still­the­most­used­terms­in­the­field,­even­though­their­purpose­is­to­posit­the­topic­of­communication.­Only­from­an­angle­that­is­able­to­treat­publications­as­something­different­from,­or­as­a­defined­case­of­communication­in­the­first­place,­it­is­possible­to­discuss­the­eventuality­of­getting­rid­of­the­concept.­Regardless­of­the­intent­to­foster­or­dismiss­the­notion­of­publications,­a­grasp­of­how­it­is­possible­to­talk­about­it­while­looking­at­it­through­the­lens­of­communication­is­needed.

Publications in Terms of CommunicationSince­the­theme­of­communication­is­at­the­center­of­the­discussion­of­digital­publications,­but­within­it­any­overarching,­thought-provoking­sense­of­the­term­publication­is­missing,­the­question­arises­of­whether­a­com-munication-oriented­approach­exists­elsewhere­that­can­provide­such­a­meaning­in­a­systematic­manner?­It­would­also­be­desirable­for­such­an­approach­to­offer­further­insights­into­the­tensions­between­what­has­been­called­elements­of­authenticity,­presence,­exclusion­and­persistence.­In­concrete­terms,­this­includes­the­attempt­to­let­the­research­process­stay­alive­as­much­as­possible­in­the­publication­format,­to­treat­sustainability­of­publications­and­publication­formats­as­an­absolute­value,­or­to­develop­strategies­for­such­sustainability­as­a­formal­issue.

The­methodological­framework­of­MuA­has­been­used­on­several­occasions­already.­It­has­proven­useful­in­some­places,­because­it­allows­the­insight­that­the­heterogeneity­in­digital­publications,­still­today­perceived­as­“a­fragmented­hybrid­publication­landscape”­(Richards­2018,­37),­is­an­integral­part­of­the­development­of­digital­technologies.­In­fact,­it­similarly­anchors­this­heterogeneity­of­the­production­of­sense­and­meaning­in­the­topic­of­communication­as­well.­It­therefore­seems­reasonable­enough­to­deepen­the­understanding­of­this­field­of­research,­and­to­discuss­some­concepts­that­may­prove­useful­for­these­two­tasks.

… Publishing 307

Framing

One­of­the­key­concepts­in­MuA­—­and­probably­also­the­most­fundamental,­according­to­Kress­(2013)­—­is­the­concept­of­framing.­Framing­basically­describes­how­the­creation­of­something­meaningful­in­com-munication­depends­on­the­creation­of­demarcations­made­on­different­levels.­Meaning­can­exist­only­with­such­demarcations,­because­the­demar-cation­creates­a­seclusion­that­is­necessary­in­order­to­interpret­something­as­meaningful.­Written­language­is­a­good­illustration­in­this­situation.­Only­the use of spaces as framing devices­for­word­boundaries­creates­words,­by­including­and­excluding­letters.­Likewise,­the­full­stop­is­a­framing­device­that­introduces­the­possibility­of­a­new­type­of­meaning,­in­which­words­create­meaning­by­relating­to­each­other­and­not­to­others.­As­in­the­case­of­words,­the­logic­of­framing­is­such­that­in­order­to­create­the­possibility­of­something­meaningful,­it­is­necessary­“to­draw­a­line”­that­includes­something­and­excludes­something­else,­which­then­can­create­meaning­on­its­own.

This­relationship­between­framing­and­meaning­is­the­same­across­all­resources­which­might­become­resources­for­communication­purposes.­Accordingly,­Kress­explains­how­things­like­pitch­and­intonation­work­as­framing­devices­in­speech,­and­how­breaks­form­and­separate­rhythm­patterns­in­music.­The­process­of­framing­does­not­stop­at­the­fine-grained­level­from­which­these­examples­were­taken.­Certain­spatial­compositions­constitute­another­type­of­information­unit­in­text:­the­paragraph.­Margins­that­create­text­blocks­and­columns­are­frames.­The­binding­of­a­book­that­bundles­papers­together­is­a­frame­that­enforces­us­to­interpret­its­content­as­belonging­to­a­connected­discourse,­topic,­or­a­more­complex­semiotic­entity­that­could­be­called­a­monograph.­Accordingly,­different­framing­devices­(Kress­2013)­usually­exist­side­by­side:­a­sheet­of­paper,­certain­aspects­of­layout,­punctuation,­and­markings­among­other­things.­In­con-clusion,­a­book­works­just­as­much­as­a­frame­as­a­dot­does,­although­the­book­combines­several­framing­devices.12­Consequently,­Kress­(2000,­134)­understands­“text­as­a­complex­sign.”­Accordingly,­publication­formats­can­be­understood­as­frames­which­draw­together­a­certain­set­of­framings­and­frame­devices,­and­reject­others.­This­process­of­excluding­and­including­is­a­precondition­for­the­creation­of­complex­meaning,­and­creates­what­van­Leeuwen­(2005,­4)­calls­semiotic meaning potential­of­a­specific­type.

12­ Gary­Hall’s­remarks­about­the­monograph­were­not­so­different­from­what­is­dis-cussed­here,­though­the­concept­of­frames­and­framing­highlights­the­necessity­and­the­empowering­aspects­of­frames­such­as­a­binding.

308 Beyond the Flow

The­key­element­of­the­concept­of­framing­for­the­purpose­of­this­inquiry­is­the­structural­dependency­of­what­is­communicated­on­the­way­com-munication­resources­are­structured.­In­other­words,­no­intrinsic­nature­of meaning exists that enforces a certain structure of complex signs such­as­publication­formats,­and­no­other­logic­of­communication­exists­beyond­the­creation­and­delivery­of­syntactical­units­of­different­kinds­in­consequence­of­framing.­The­restrictions­of­framing­devices­and­their­applications­are­hence­tightly­coupled­with­people’s­notions­of­and­famil-iarity­with­the­structure­of­knowledge.­Such­notions­do­not­precede­them­(van­Leeuwen­2005,­3).

Consequently,­the­boundaries­of­atomic­units­of­information­that­are­presented­to­the­human­brain­by­approaches­like­MAs­are­in­fact­more­a­consequence­of­the­use­of­certain­framing­devices­that­underlie­complex­signs.­In­MuA,­the­term­information­unit­actually­also­exists,­but­only­to­refer­to­syntactical­boundaries­that­exist­due­to­framing­(Kress­2013),­and­not­in­terms­of­any­type­of­meaningful­content.

Similar­things­can­be­said­about­the­emphasis­put­on­the­dynamic­facets­of­knowledge­by­authors­behind­UBs,­LPs,­OLBs,­and­others.­Again,­the­logic­of­framing­suggests­rejecting­the­idea­that­such­formats­come­closer­to­the­true­nature­of­knowledge,­which­is­described­as­being­dynamic­and­ephemeral.­Digital­technologies­provide­complex­new­means­that­allow­technological­and­social­framing­of­the­temporal­dimension­of­com-munication­in­different­ways.­By­doing­so,­however,­it­also­re-frames­our­perception­of­knowledge.­The­claim­that­knowledge­is­dynamic­cannot­be­separated­from­the­introduction­of­new­framing­devices­which­create­information­units­of­a­new­kind,­but­framing­devices­they­remain.­They­also­force­communication­into­a­certain­temporal­logic,­from­which­they­cannot­escape­without­using­a­different­format­that­frames­time­differently.­On­the­one­hand,­Hall’s­critique­of­the­enforcement­of­binding­is­confusing,­insofar­as­binding­as­an­example­of­framing­is­constitutive­of­meaning,­and­thus­of­communication­as­such.­On­the­other­hand,­Hall’s­emphasis­of­the­dynamic­nature­of­knowledge­happens­at­the­same­time­as­technologies­appear­which­allow­decisions­about­its­constancy.

All­things­considered,­the­application­of­the­concept­of­framing­to­the­topic­of­digital­publications­forces­emphasis­on­the­following­points:

– By­introducing­the­notion­of­the­complex­sign,­it­is­a­first­step­to­developing­a­concept­of­publications­out­of­a­theory­of­com-munication.­Accordingly,­it­meets­the­requirements­of­a­situation­in­which­the­distinction­between­the­form­and­the­content­of­

… Publishing 309

publications­gradually­disintegrates,­because­digital­technologies­provide­more­direct­access­to­more­framing­devices.

– It­will­not­lead­to­sustainable­publication­formats­if­the­design­of­such­formats,­understood­as­a­process­of­framing,­primarily­looks­for­the­perfect­relationship­between­the­research­process­and­its­notion­of­truth­on­the­one­hand,­and­the­format­of­a­publication­on­the­other.­This­is­true­not­only­because­research­methodologies­are­different.­It­is­true,­because­each­frame­—­configured­in­order­to­provide­a­resource­and­used­to­represent­something­from­the­research­process­—­in­most­cases­leads­to­the­exclusion­of­other­options.­It­thus­brings­with­it­the­preconditions­for­different­opinions­on­the­issue,­if­the­configuration­of­this­specific­framing­device­better­suits­its­purpose,­or­excluded­ones­might­be­better.­It­also­causes­the­question­of­whether­the­excluded­devices­refer­to something crucial in a research process that is less accessible to the­framing­devices­used­in­a­certain­format.­These­issues­cause­the­definition­of­new­formats­in­consequence­of­the­definition­of­formats,­as­long­as­their­appropriateness­for­the­representation­of­the­research­process­and­their­notion­of­truth­is­the­primary­criterion­in­the­definition­and­interpretation­of­digital­publications.­That­does­not­mean­that­certain­frames­and­framing­devices­may­be­more­appropriate­for­a­specific­notion­of­research­process.­It­only­means­that­this­aspect­cannot­be­central­for­the­design­of­pub-lication­formats.

– The same is also true for those formats which more consciously reflect­these­dynamics,­but­try­to­define­formats­that­minimize­their­effects­by­minimizing­the­timespan­in­which­certain­frames­are­set,­notably­OLBs,­LPs,­LBs,­and­UBs.­These­formats­intend­to­undermine­the­logics­of­frames.­The­issue­with­such­formats,­however,­is­the­fact­that­they­do­so­by­violently­configuring­framing­devices­for­the­temporal­dimension­of­publications.­As­has­been­demonstrated,­this­dimension­is­a­valid­resource­for­the­production­of­meaning­in­digital­publications.­The­corresponding­approaches­thus­operate­outside­of­the­logics­of­frames­as­suggested­by­them.

– In­this­sense­the­concept­of­frames­and­framing­devices­illuminate­the fact that certain opposing facets of communication form part of the­same­process.­They­may­help­to­tone­down­some­of­the­afore-mentioned­tensions­in­the­field­of­digital­publications­that­relate­to­them.

310 Beyond the Flow

The­discussion­of­the­concept­of­frames­therefore­suggests­that­the­field­of­digital­publications­needs­to­emancipate­itself­from­overemphasizing­the­epistemological­functions­and,­in­the­case­of­UBs­and­of­some­notions­of­open­science,­the­ethical­implications­of­publications.

Mode

The­example­of­the­book­as­a­complex­sign­was­given­in­order­to­describe­how­framing­is­a­practice­across­different­levels­of­granularity­in­com-munication.­It­might­thus­provide­a­good­tool­in­order­to­avoid­some­of­the­problematic­perceptions­that­have­driven­the­design­of­digital­publication­formats.­It­does,­however,­not­suffice­for­obtaining­a­supportive­concept­of­digital­publications.­To­approach­such­a­concept,­it­is­necessary­to­refer­again­to­the­three­aspects­of­communication­in­MuA­that­have­been­sum-marized­in­the­discussion­of­topological­and­typological­knowledge.

These­functions­comprise­the­ideational,­the­interpersonal,­and­the­textual,­or­maybe­better­structural,­function­of­signs.­This­means­that­when­people­communicate,­what­is­communicated­refers­to­something,­that­is­to­say,­it­represents­something­they­wish­to­communicate­to­others,­which­means­communication­is­directed.­It­also­means­that­the­means­of­communication­possess­a­certain­internal­structure:­communication­is­composed­of­elements­and­these­elements­relate­to­each­other­in­a­certain­important­way.

In­fact,­Halliday­introduces­such­aspects­not­primarily­in­order­to­under-stand­how­language­alone­works,­but­in­order­to­understand­the­nature­of­signs­and­the­change­of­sign­systems.­As­mentioned,­this­opens­up­the­perspective­of­the­analysis­of­semiotic­structures­outside­of­language,­a­perspective­that­has­been­used­intensively­in­the­present­inquiry.­But­it­obviously­also­provides­the­means­to­analyze­concrete­acts­of­com-munication­in­language­and­other­forms­of­communication.­O’Toole­(2006),­for­instance,­by­following­this­strategy,­offers­an­impressive­example­of­the­multimodal­interpretation­of­the­Sydney­opera­house­as­an­object­that­carries­a­certain­discourse.­Looking­at­how­a­phenomenon,­analyzed­as­an­act­of­communication,­embodies­these­three­functions,­one­obtains­an­interface­to­the­meaning­it­engenders.­Kress­(2013)­lists­the­same­three­angles­in­order­to­explain­concrete­discourse­rolled­out­by­people­writing­diaries.­Here,­the­three­functions­are­analytical­lenses,­allowing­a­deeper­sense­of­the­meaning­produced­in­a­specific­situation.­This­type­of­research,­that­uses­the­foundations­of­Halliday,­is­called­Multimodal Discourse Analysis (Kress­and­van­Leeuwen­2001;­O’Halloran­2011).

… Publishing 311

It­would­be­possible­to­describe­both­angles,­the­creation­of­means­to­produce­meaning,­as­well­as­the­production­of­meaning­in­such­a­way,­as­an­act­of­framing.­The­usage­of­space­in­order­to­create­the­unit­of­words­is­a­framing­process,­as­is­the­creation­of­the­Sydney­opera­house,­or­the­writing­of­a­diary.­The­opera­is­not­just­a­functional­building,­but­it­is­designed­to­have­a­message.­The­issue­of­the­publication­cannot­be­compared­to­the­organization­of­resources­in­order­to­build­a­whole­meaning­system­such­as­language.­It­is­however­also­not­comparable­to­the­writing­process­of­a­particular­diary­or­monograph.­The­specification­of­a­type­of­publication,­such­as­the­monograph,­could­be­described,­by­referring­to­a­point­from­McPherson,­as­a­“template.”13­Consequently,­in­all­of­these­angles,­framing­takes­place,­but­it­is­the­framing­of­a­peculiar­type­that­needs­to­be­described.­In­order­to­do­so,­it­is­necessary­to­discuss­another­concept­of­MuA:­mode.

Kress­defines­mode­as­an­entanglement­of­media,­semiotic­logics­—­sometimes­also­referred­to­as­ontology­—,­and­social­practices­(Kress­2013,­61).­In­this­context,­the­term­media­would­be­best­understood­as­a­technological­device­or­material­means.­Thus,­again,­at­the­heart­of­mode­lies­the­trias­of­perspectives­on­communication,­but­in­this­case­not­as­functions­alone.­Instead,­mode­addresses,­and­more­importantly­is­the­out-come­of,­the­application­of­“organizing­principles”­(Kress­2010)­within­these­three­areas.­Consequently,­“definitions­of­mode­are­dependent­on­what­are­counted­as­well-acknowledged­regularities­within­any­one­community”­Mavers­and­Gibson­(2012,­para.­2).

The­acknowledgment­of­a­community­is­a­social­issue,­and­compared­to­other­concepts­in­MuA,­mode­puts­significantly­more­emphasis­on­com-munication­as­a­social­phenomenon,­and­on­those­elements­of­it­that­are­shared­across­people­and­situations.­It­is­derived­from­the­fact­that­these­regularities­can­be­observed­—­sometimes­more­and­sometimes­less­—­when­people­communicate.­Monographs­and­diaries,­but­also­for­instance­architecture,­are­socially­highly­codified­configurations­creating­“frameworks”­(O’Halloran­2004)­in­which­the­production­of­meaning­as­well­as­communication­can­take­place,­and­which­serve­as­a­reference­system­for­specific­acts­of­communication.­Hence,­the­concept­of­mode­is­built­on­the­claim­that­a­significant­part­of­the­understanding­of­communication­

13­ The­reader­might­have­the­impression­that­at­this­point­the­notion­of­form­and­con-tent­that­was­qualified­before­is­used­again.­Although­these­angles­address­the­same­issue,­it­will­become­clear­during­the­rest­of­this­section­that­the­proposed­frame-work­uses­these­angles­slightly­differently­and­that­it­adds­a­significant­twist­to­the­form-content­debate­in­the­field­of­digital­publications­and­beyond.

312 Beyond the Flow

remains­hidden­if­the­issue­of­social­organizational­principles­is­not­addressed­independently.­This­is­not­to­say­that­any­aspect­of­com-munication­is­governed­by­such­configurations,­but­that­it­is­a­crucial­angle­of­communication.

Accordingly,­the­more­framing­is­concerned­with­or­aims­at­supporting­the­regularities­in­communication,­the­more­it­is­part­of­the­level­of­mode­as­the­angle­of­stability­in­communication.­Since­this­mode­is­located­within­the­social­semiotic­notion­of­communication,­the­effectiveness­is­determined­by­how­well­the­three­facets­are­served­all­in­all.­As­a­socially­driven­process,­mode­is­where­actions­resemble­practices,­agents­are­sup-ported­by­institutions,­arrangements­of­means­overlap­with­grammatical­relationships,­and­material­means­have­become­accepted­tools.­“Mode­is­typically­seen­as­a­stable­backdrop­for­multimodal­communication”­(Boeriis­and­Johannessen­2015,­8).

Examples­of­modes­often­given­are­books­or­computer­screens.­Both­include­certain­technologies­of­production­and­consumption,­the­use­of­specific­visual­means­for­representation,­and­the­support­of­established­practices­like­writing,­in­order­to­form­a­functional­mode­of­communication­within­a­certain­social­community.­Burn­(2013,­2)­speaks­of­theatre­as­a­mode,­where,­again,­material­means,­such­as­the­stage,­enable­the­use­of­gaze,­movement,­and­the­voice­among­others­in­a­culturally­encoded­and­institutionalized­environment.­However,­the­author­also­introduces­the term kineiconic mode­—­his­main­object­of­interest­—­of­which­he­remarks­that­it­partially­incorporates­the­theatrical­mode­at­the­early­stage­of­moving­image­media.­Movement­and­voice­are­furthermore­treated­as­“supportive”­and­“embodied”­modes­(6)­throughout­the­book.­Con-sequently,­the­concept­of­mode­can­become­very­fuzzy,­and­the­interplay­between the three perspectives on communication is not always clear or balanced.­Kress­and­van­Leeuwen­(2002)­even­speak­of­color­as­a­semiotic­mode.­This­introduces­a­level­of­abstraction­where­specific­social­or­techno-material­aspects­can­hardly­be­analyzed­productively.

It­is­thus­not­surprising­that­the­concept­of­mode­is­challenged­vigorously,­even­within­certain­branches­of­MuA­itself.­From­the­multimodal­inter-action­analysis­point­of­view,­Norris­(2009)­criticizes­that­mode­is­only­a­heuristic­category­that­does­not­exist­empirically.­With­the­intent­to­analyze­multimodal­meaning­production­in­micro­situations,­she­fur-thermore­argues­that­the­macro­perspective­of­mode­neglects­the­con-tingency­by­which­each­such­situation­undermines­the­concept­of­mode.­In­other­words,­if­communication­is­only­analyzed­as­the­use­and­application­

… Publishing 313

of­mode,­which­she­accuses­Multimodal­Discourse­Analysis­of­doing,­significant­parts­of­the­produced­meaning­remain­hidden.­In­contrast,­Stöckl­(2013,­276)­criticizes­that­“the­term­‘mode’­…­represents­a­rather­heterogeneous­concept,­as­various­notions­converge­in­it.”

Both­claims,­the­one­addressing­mode­as­only­a­heuristic­concept,­and­the­other­one­stressing­inconsistencies­in­the­use­of­the­term,­are­argued­well­and­cannot­be­invalidated.­However,­this­is­not­necessary­in­order­to­maintain­the­key­element­that­still­assures­its­integrity­and­usefulness.­First,­there­are­indications­that­neither­Kress­nor­Leeuwen­consider­modes­to­exist­effectively,­a­fact­that­will­become­more­transparent­below­—­there­are­just­different­research­interests.­Kress­and­Leeuwen­are­interested­in­evaluating­the­existence­and­the­effect­of­socio-cultural­conditions­of­com-munication,­while­Norris­and­her­school­of­MIA­try­to­analyze­how­multi-modal­means­are­appropriated­by­specific­people­in­temporally­limited­situations.­Second,­although­the­concept­of­mode­refers­to­many­different­things,­a­certain­perspective­is­applied­when­the­term­is­used.­This­per-spective­refers­to­the­referenced­phenomenon­as­one­which­is­in­some­way­organized,­and­by­this­characteristic­facilitates­communication.­The­present­study­therefore­argues­that­the­key­element­of­mode­as­a­concept­is­not­so­much­defining­exactly­what­properties­need­to­be­found­in­order­to­be­able­to­speak­of­mode.­It­also­argues­that­it­is­not­necessary­to­treat­con-crete­communication­as­a­subclass­of­mode.­It­is­a­specific­aspect­of­com-munication,­revealing­that­socially­motivated­regulation­of­communication­happens,­and­that­this­type­of­regulation­is­a­source­of­a­specific­type­of­meaning­that­depends­on­this­regulation­process.­In­the­words­of­Burn­(2013,­376),­mode­is­the­outcome­of­a­process­of­orchestration,­“the­over-arching­framing­systems­in­space­and­time.”

The­research­field­of­digital­publications­can­benefit­in­multiple­ways­from­the­inclusion­of­the­perspective­of­mode­into­its­conceptual­frame-work.­It­builds­on­the­notion­that­stable­structures­in­communication­are­an­issue­that­is­not­external­to­the­logics­of­communication,­but­a­part­of­it.­Communication­is­the­output­of­a­socio-cultural­endeavor.­Com-munication­happens­because­people­communicate,­and­where­people­communicate­with­each­other,­regularities­emerge­and­where­regularities­become­recognizable,­means­to­support­them­are­built.­The­whole­of­this­process,­starting­from­individual­motivations­and­reaching­to­com-munication­systems,­is­formed­by­the­conflation­of­social,­technological,­and­ontological­angles­—­or,­in­a­different­context,­interpersonal,­textual,­and­ideational­functions.­Mode,­as­framing,­thus­provides­the­framework­

314 Beyond the Flow

to­discuss­issues­of­stability­and­sustainability­of­digital­publications­within­the­same­theoretical­context,­and­not­as­separate­issues.

The­stability­and­sustainability­of­publications,­then,­refers­to­the­con-cept­of­mode.­It­allows­re-use­of­the­form-content­distinction,­but­in­a­way­that­prevents­the­artificial­and­simplifying­distinctions­in­parts­of­the­field­of­digital­publications,­and­that­protects­from­the­problems­of­that­field­caused­by­this.­The­distinction­is­one­that­does­not­originate­in­any­technological­or­semiotic­logic.­It­is­an­outcome­of­social­practices­by­people­and­institutions­who­start­to­refer­to­certain­sets­of­frames­as­the­stable­backdrop­used­to­give­one’s­own­communication­purposes­a­form.­It­is­the­act­of­referring­that­constitutes­mode.­The­concept­of­mode­thereby­explains­why­different­form-content­distinctions­emerged­in­the­field­of­digital­publications,­why­this­is­a­reasonable­and­useful­dynamic,­and­that­this­research­field­should­support­selected­versions­of­these­distinctions,­instead­of­clinging­to­the­idea­of­one­meta-logical­form­of­them.­The­form-content­distinction­and­the­existence­of­modes­of­communication­is­a­framing­process­itself,­not­ontologically­different­from­the­separation­of­words­by­spaces.

Where­the­enabling­and­empowering­aspects­of­making­this­distinction­are­highlighted­—­aspects­depending­on­the­availability­of­such­backdrops­—­the­concept­of­mode­also­shows­that­any­kind­of­backdrop­requires­building­upon­some­sense­of­regularity­and­its­enforcement.­The­concept­of­mode,­thus,­also­makes­clear­that­sustainability­of­the­field­of­digital­pub-lications­can­likewise­not­emerge­from­a­general­acceptance­of­its­immense­heterogeneity,­or­from­its­politically­motivated­positive­re-interpretation,­but­only­by­applying­“organizational­principles.”

Finally,­and­probably­most­importantly­of­all,­mode­makes­transparent­what­is­necessary­to­gain­more­or­less­stable­digital­publication­formats­and­a­sustainable­publishing­environment,­of­which­digital­publications­are­a­part.­By­building­on­the­three­functional­requirements­of­signs,­mode­shows­that­digital­publications­can­emerge­only­out­of­setups­in­which­material­and­technological­means,­social­practices­and­bodies,­and,­last­but­not­least,­semiotic­logics­and­ontological­premises,­mutually­support­each­other,­each­with­equal­rights.­It­was­shown­throughout­the­whole­of­the­study­at­hand­that­this­was­not­the­case­in­most­circumstances.­Not­only­were­some­of­these­areas­not­included­in­the­design­of­digital­publications­or­corresponding­tasks­postponed;­equal­rights­mean­that­any­of­these­areas­have­to­be­given­the­right­to­overrule­demands­of­other­areas,­for­the­

… Publishing 315

overall­goal­of­creating­sustainable­publications.­This­perspective­—­with­few­exceptions­—­can­hardly­be­found­in­any­of­the­analyzed­initiatives.

Semiosis

It­was­indicated­before­that­critique­comparable­to­the­one­by­Norris­also­arises­from­a­completely­different­point­of­view.­Several­authors­have­argued­during­the­last­ten­to­fifteen­years­that­digital­technologies,­sometimes­called­multimedia­technologies,­have­made­the­appearance­of­modes­unlikely­(Lemke­2005;­Jewitt­2013;­Boeriis­and­Johannessen­2015).­Thus,­these­authors­do­not­challenge­the­concept­of­mode­in­general.­What­they­question­is­its­relevance­for­communication­today.­More­precisely,­they­argue­that­the­means­of­communication­today­do­not­produce­the­necessary­conditions­for­new­modes­to­appear.­The­inquiry­into­digital­technologies­this­study­has­carried­out­indeed­also­offers­some­results­supporting­this­observation.­It­will­not­deny­that­the­conditions­for­mode­have­changed.­It­nonetheless­argues­that­its­complete­rejection­both­mis-understands­the­concept­of­mode­and­exaggerates­the­impact­of­digital­technologies­on­communication.­In­order­to­do­so,­this­section­will­con-clude­with­a­discussion­of­MuA’s­concept­of­semiosis.

In­short,­semiosis­is­defined­as­the­historical­process­in­which­semiotic­resources­—­means­of­communication­—­appear­as­such­and­change­over­time­(Kress­2010;­MODE­2012;­Newfield­2013).­It­was­mentioned­several­times­now­that­the­unique­element­of­Halliday’s­view­on­language­is­the­extent­to­which­he­discusses­language­as­a­socially­created­project.­The­transfer­of­Halliday’s­premises­to­phenomena­other­than­language­by­MuA­are­at­the­foundation­for­the­concept­of­semiotic­resources,­for­modes­as­well­as­for­the­analysis­of­digital­publications­in­the­study­at­hand.

While­in­the­present­study­the­term­semiotic­resource­was­primarily­used­in­order­to­refer­to­the­situational­availability­of­resources­other­than­language,­for­the­purpose­of­concrete­acts­of­communication,­mode­and­specifically­semiosis­open­up­the­perspective­for­a­holistic­analysis­of­how­semiotic­resources­emerge­and­change­as­socially­shared­and­codified­phenomena.­The­concept­of­mode­encompasses­semiotic­resources­insofar,­as­their­use­is­shared­within­social­communities­of­a­certain­size­that­make­it­reasonable­to­speak­of­them­as­social­phenomena.­Semiosis­substantiates­the­centrality­of­the­social­dimension­of­communication,­by­offering­a­viewpoint­for­understanding­the­place­of­modes­in­the­overall­socio-historical­project­of­engendering­communication.

316 Beyond the Flow

It­could­be­argued­that­the­concept­of­semiosis­is­a­necessary­consequence­of­the­claim­that­signs­do­not­exist­as­such,­but­are­socio-historically­con-structed.­As­constructed­entities,­they­may­not­only­change,­but,­of­course,­also­disappear.­In­other­words,­there­is­no­other­realm­in­which­signs,­modes,­and­meaning­reside­than­in­practice.­Halliday’s­approach­then­suggests­conceptualizing­some­logic­behind­the­coming,­the­change,­and­the­going­of­sign­systems­and­communicative­means­that­originates­with­this­school­of­thought.

The two components of this logic are given by the terms chain of semiosis and­punctuation of semiosis.­These­terms­give­names­to­the­statements­that­signs­and­sign­systems­are­constructed­and­emerge­historically,­as­well­as­the­fact­that­this­aspect­makes­them­dependent­on­actual­use.­In­principle,­the­chain­of­semiosis­refers­to­the­process­of­semiosis­itself,­as­it­was­described­above.­The­specification­of­this­process­as­a­chain,­however,­adds­an­important­aspect.­A­process­of­semiosis­could­have­provoked­the­idea­that,­if­not­specific­signs­and­modes,­then­at­least­semiosis­as­such­—­the­need­to­create­signs­and­modes­—­is­an­autonomous­and­self-sup-porting­phenomenon.­The­illustration­of­this­process­as­a­chain­emphasizes­that­no­such­self-supporting­dynamic­of­semiosis­exists.­It­encourages­looking­out­for­the­means­by­which­this­process­is­mediated­and­driven:­the­punctuations­which­create­the­chain.

On­the­abstract­and­formal­level,­which­is­the­one­taken­in­semiosis,­punctuations­are­phenomena­“of­relative­stasis­and­stability”­(Kress­2010,­121;­see­also­Kress­1996)­within­communication,­i.e. the­process­of­semiosis.­The­dependency­between­semiosis­and­its­punctuations­is­twofold:

1.­ Punctuations­are­the­only­manifestations­of­signs­and­sign­systems.­Concrete­objects­or­acts­of­communication­such­as­particular­monographs,­dialogues,­performances,­movies,­buildings,­diagrams,­and­paintings­among­others­are­the­only­form­by­which­it­is­pos-sible­to­say­that­signs­and­sign­systems­exist.­Punctuations­thereby­provide­the­only­points­of­reference,­or­starting­points­for­future­punctuations,­to­use­and­modify­signs­and­sign­systems.­Only­due­to­this­process­of­reproduction­and­actualization,­meaning­the­memorization­and­anticipation­of­past­and­future­punctuations,­can­signs­become­part­of­a­socio-historical­sign­system,­i.e. the­process­of­semiosis­in­which­a­specific­phenomenon­is­conceived­of­as­a­monograph­or­a­movie,­among­others.

2.­ Consequently,­only­the­angle­of­semiosis­provides­the­necessary­means­to­conceive­of­something­as­a­sign­or­a­semiotics­resource,­in­short,­something­that­has­meaning.­It­becomes­a­punctuation,­

… Publishing 317

because­it­reveals­itself­as­something­that­beyond­being­itself­is­a­link­in­a­chain­that­is­the­chain­of­semiosis.­It­is­this­link,­the­relational­structure­people­put­around­such­phenomena,­that­makes­a­punctuation­“readable,”­and­that­indicates­the­realm­of­mode.

Corresponding­with­these­two­interdependencies,­Kress­(2010)­remarks­that­punctuations­of­semiosis­have­two­dimensions.­The­first­is­the­material­dimension­and­the­second­is­the­abstract­dimension.

The­concepts­of­the­chain­of­semiosis­and­its­punctuations­specifically­address­the­issue­of­stability­and­organization­in­communication,­as­high-lighted­in­the­quote­by­Gunther­Kress­already.­Punctuations­are­the­only­things­that­can­be­regarded­as­stable­enough­to­sustain­semiosis,­and­the­projected­stability­of­an­ongoing­process­of­semiosis­is­the­only­notion­that­enables­communication.­In­contrast,­both­dimensions­have­their­ephemeral­aspects.­Books­are­forgotten­or­get­lost,­they­are­re-edited­into­new­versions.­Dialogues­and­performances­end,­sometimes­they­are­recorded.­Paintings­yellow­with­age­and­all­of­these­punctuations­are­con-tinuously­replaced­or­re-represented­by­new­ones.­Semiosis,­consequently,­is­always­in­motion­and­change,­and­has­always­been.­Therefore,­semiosis­is­about­“relative­stasis­and­stability,”­and­mode­is­exactly­the­one­concept­that­provokes­substantiation­of­the­notion­of­relativity,­instead­of­referring­to­it­in­a­purely­theoretical­or­formal­sense.

It­could­be­argued­that­mode­is­also­a­punctuation­of­semiosis,­but­one­of­a­specific­type.­This­seems­to­be­partially­inconsistent­with­what­has­been­said­so­far.­The­notion­of­mode­is­neither­a­concrete­act­nor­an­object­of­communication.­Additionally,­it­was­mentioned­above­that­a­particular­branch­of­MuA­criticizes­mode­for­being­too­inflexible­to­grasp­peculiarities­and­contingencies­of­concrete­acts­of­communication.

The­inconsistency,­however,­is­less­critical­when­reconsidering­Kress’­remark­that­punctuations­possess­two­dimensions,­an­abstract­and­a­material­one.­Having­said­that,­mode­is­at­the­center­of­two­constructivist­processes.­Where­the­concept­of­mode­is­affirmed­and­analyzed,­it­sub-stantiates­the­idea­of­an­abstract­semiotic­context­(semiosis).­The­neces-sity­to­assume­this­context­turns­into­the­definition­of­concrete­means­and­practices­combined­by­mode­that­allow­an­understanding­of­certain­facets­of­concrete­communicative­acts.­Where­mode­is­criticized,­it­is­used­as­a­delimiter,­in­order­to­posit­a­level­of­meaning­that­is­more­subtle­than­the­meaning­that­would­have­been­derived­solely­from­an­understanding­of­a­certain­definition­of­mode.­By­declaring­that­certain­semiotic­choices­in­an­analysis­situation­do­not­correspond­with­common­usage­patterns,­defined­

318 Beyond the Flow

in­modes,­such­an­analysis­similarly­defines­what­is­not­characteristic­in­most­cases.­The­characteristic­gains­much­of­its­meaning­here­by­having­a­contrasting­relationship­to­the­general­rules­of­mode.­The­first­per-spective­approaches­mode­within­the­“abstract­dimension,”­as­a­condition­for­concrete­acts­of­communication­of­a­certain­type.­The­second­per-spective­approaches­it­from­the­“material­dimension”­of­a­concrete­use­of­semiotic­resources,­which­in­confrontation­reveals­itself­as­richer­than­any­abstraction­can­express.

For­both­perspectives,­the­assumption­of­a­layer­addressed­by­the­concept­of­mode­is­indispensable.­It­is­this­indispensability­by­which­mode­becomes­a­phenomenon­in­itself,­and­by­which­it­could­be­said­to­exist.­As­such,­it­can­be­analyzed­and­addressed­within­its­own­logic.­It­does­in­fact­become­a­punctuation­of­semiosis­on­its­own,­a­punctuation­of­a­type­that­tries­to­give­concrete­answers­to­the­question­of­how­necessary­it­is­to­analyze­and­to­aim­at­the­social­organization­of­communicative­means­at­any­given­point­in­time,­so­that­concrete­acts­of­communication­create­value.

In­the­context­of­digital­publications,­the­issue­of­semiosis­indeed­sub-stantiates the claim that the questions of how far it is reasonable to assume­the­emergence­of­stable­publication­setups,­and­what­form­sta-bility­will­take­in­this­respect,­are­more­important­than­the­discussion­of­specific­formats.­It­has­been­shown­that­in­the­overall­discourse­on­digital­publications,­an­unbalanced­relationship­between­the­notions­of­com-munication­and­publication­prevents­a­serious­discussion­of­this­issue.­While­certain­ideals­of­persistence­and­maturity­of­publications­remain­untouched,­everything­that­connects­to­a­more­flexible,­dynamic,­context­aware,­or­precise­notion­of­communication­is­celebrated,­without­putting­it­into­any­context.­It­is­then­not­surprising­that­those­formats­that­address­the­issue­of­stability­and­sustainability­of­formats­as­such­explicitly­tend­to­define­the­one­new­format­that­will­supersede­the­older­ones­(EPs,­SPs),­or­are­likely­to­give­up­on­any­notion­of­persistence­of­organized­structures­in­publishing­(HPs).­Mode­is­without­doubt­a­heuristic.­As­a­necessary­heuris-tic­between­the­process­of­semiosis­and­its­punctuations,­it­demands­a­response­to­the­question­of­the­conditions­and­needs­for­the­organization­of­persistent,­sustainable­setups­in­scholarly­communication,­specifically­in­any­new­period­and­situation.

Having­said­this,­the­design­of­publications­as­sustainable­scholarly­pub-lication setups appears to be an issue of a social practice of a particular type.­This­type­of­practice­does­not­equate­stability­with­a­static­formal­definition­of­something­(see­below).­It­furthermore­does­not­strive­for­any­

… Publishing 319

accelerationist­visions­—­semiosis­­does­not­move­towards­ends,­it­sat-urates­the­here­and­now­—­though­such­visions­may­become­true­along­the­way.­It­is­a­relational-social­practice­evaluating­the­possibilities­of­new­publications­on­the­grounds­of­three­conditions,­again,­representing­the­three­meta-functions­of­signs­following­Halliday,­i.e. how­may­publications­exist­and­look­like:

1.­ when­confronted­with­semiotic­resources­and­established­rep-resentational­strategies­at­our­disposal;

2.­ in­order­to­be­understandable,­consumable,­and­processable;3.­ in­order­to­be­socialized,­sustained,­institutionalized,­or­patronized.

The­first­condition­asks­questions­such­as­what­does­the­combination­of­semiotic­resources­in­the­design­of­a­digital­publication­look­like?­How­do­such­designs­interoperate­with­each­other?­How­are­they­embedded­in­a­notion­about­the­state­of­semiosis­in­scholarly­communication,­and­finally­which­communicative­purpose­is­embodied­by­a­particular­design­in­comparison­with­others,­possibly­with­their­own­designs?­The­second­condition­looks­at­issues­like­how­much­the­semiotic­material­used­can­be­considered­to­be­easily­understandable­or­efficiently­readable.14 It analyses patterns­of­practices­by­which­target­audiences­interact­with­publications,­and­the­situations­in­which­this­happens.­This­does­not­in­fact­necessarily­mean­reproducing­existing­patterns,­but­that­it­is­necessary­to­know­and­consider­them.­The­last­condition­is­more­obvious­and­concerns­the­fact­that­publications­require­financial,­institutional,­personal,­and­temporal­resources­among­others,­in­order­to­become­and­remain­persistent,­acces-sible,­and­socially­valuable.­The­likeliness­with­which­such­resources­can­be­produced­in­a­long-term­perspective­depends­on­the­organizational­shape­both­of­the­publication­concept­and­the­state­of­the­scholarly­(com-munication)­environment.

While­in­this­paragraph,­and­in­the­section­on­mode,­these­angles­provide­the­means­to­successfully­build­publication­setups,­their­application­in­the­context­of­semiosis­is­different.­Here,­they­provide­aid­for­making­concrete­responses­to­the­question­of­the­conditions­and­needs­for­the­organization­of­persistent,­sustainable­setups­in­scholarly­communication,­earlier­found­to­be­necessary.­In­other­words,­they­provide­the­means­to­identify­and­frame­an­area­within­the­broad­social­space­of­science­in­which­first,­it­seems­useful­and­necessary­to­organize­communication­around­specific­

14­ A­simple­and­good­example­are­the­elements­and­types­of­diagrammatic­com-munication,­but­also­the­state­of­use­for­specific­semiotic­resources­in­specific­fields.­Sequential­and­discursive­organization­of­resources,­for­instance,­are­variously­part­of­different­fields­of­research,­as­has­been­shown­before.

320 Beyond the Flow

publication­designs,­and­second,­where­such­an­intervention­meets­the­necessary­requirements.­In­its­entire­equivocalness­one­could­say­that­semiosis­allows­to­ask­within­which­social­boundaries­publication­formats­make­sense,­but­without­questioning­the­formatting­of­communication­as­such.

Some­of­the­publication­concepts­discussed­before­could­actually­be­described­in­this­respect.­It­has­been­argued­that­Nano-Publications,­for­instance,­make­sense­within­the­well-defined­boundaries­of­certain­areas­in­the­bio-­and­life-sciences.­Accordingly,­it­could­be­that­some­things­might­look­similar­in­a­research­field­on­new­scholarly­publications­informed­by­arguments­such­as­those­made­in­the­current­research.­The­point­is­that­such­engagements­would­have­different­goals,­would­make­different­strategic­decisions,­intervene­differently­into­the­scholarly­community,­would­relate­their­work­in­a­more­sensible­way­to­other­initiatives,­and­the­outcome,­regardless­of­how­similar­or­different­it­would­look­to­current­formats,­would­be­an­outcome­of­maturation­and­not­definition.

Together­with­such­clarifications,­it­is­necessary­to­specify­further­what­the­adjective­“relative”­might­denote,­in­order­to­prevent­issues­such­as­those­discussed­in­the­field­of­digital­publications.­The­horizon­of­semi-osis­is­temporal.­Projecting­the­future­of­semiosis­means­thinking­about­new­forms­of­communication­that­have­not­been­rendered­in­punctuations­yet.­The­dependency­between­the­chain­of­semiosis­and­its­punctuations,­together­with­the­notion­of­relative­stability,­means­that­punctuations­are­only­stable­insofar­as­they­neither­just­duplicate­existing­punctuations,­nor­focus­on­realizing­the­imaginative­horizon­of­semiosis­lying­ahead­(the­accelerationist­viewpoint).­They­exist­in­time,­that­means­they­are­embedded­in­the­process­of­semiosis.­They­are­not­solely­oriented­towards­the­two­ends­of­the­horizon­of­semiosis.­This­does­not­mean­that­the­latter­are­not­punctuations­of­semiosis,­but­that­it­is­necessary­to­think­differently­about­the­scope­and­quality­of­its­stability.­Just­like­publication­formats­should­mature­instead­of­being­defined,­initiatives­in­the­field­of­digital­publications­should­understand­their­work­as­an­intervention,­instead­of­foundational­or­avant-garde.­The­crucial­question­is­then­what­an­inter-vention­might­look­like­that­is­most­efficient­in­a­given­context,­in­a­given­time­period,­and­under­the­considerations­of­the­three­angles­identified­above.­Such­an­intervention­can­provide­foundational­work,­but­it­can­also­mean­positing­and­promoting­a­very­fuzzy­term­such­as­Data­Papers.

A­second­misunderstanding­is­the­one­that­could­arise­from­the­centrality­of­the­concept­of­framing,­when­seen­in­conjunction­with­punctuations­of­

… Publishing 321

semiosis.­It­has­been­noted­that­any­communicative­act­is­an­act­of­framing­in­multiple­ways­and­on­multiple­levels.­Since­punctuations­of­semiosis­are­effectively­communicative­acts,­the­issue­of­framing­needs­to­be­dealt­with­here,­too.­Burn’s­specification­of­the­act­of­orchestration,­and­the­framing­of­the­appropriate­social­space­for­an­intervention,­has­indicated­this­already.­The­aforementioned­misunderstanding­would­consist­of­claiming­that­the­higher­the­degree­of­consciously­and­intentionally­set­frames,­the­more­stable­the­punctuations.­The­relative­stability­of­punctuations­does­not­correspond­with­the­quantity­of­explicitly­defined­frame­boundaries­observable­across­the­same­period­of­relative­stasis­and­stability.­The­con-cept­of­framing­allows­analysis­of,­or­intervention­into,­the­inner­structure­of­punctuations­of­semiosis,­not­judgment­about,­or­prediction­of,­its­role­within­semiosis.15.­It­would­however­also­be­wrong­to­assume­that­there­is­no­relationship­between­these­concepts.­It­is­just­not­a­fixed­relationship.­Instead,­it­depends­on­the­specific­situation­in­semiosis.

Evaluating­stability­in­the­context­of­semiosis­does­not­mean­aiming­at­an­abstract­or­fixed­notion­of­stability,­or­at­the­highest­degree­of­stability­seemingly­possible.­It­means­looking­out­for­a­reasonable­way­to­influence­the­process­of­semiosis­and­shaping­punctuations­of­semiosis­in­a­sus-tainable­way,­so­that­each­supports­the­other­within­their­constitutive­relationship­before­the­backdrop­of­a­given­state­of­affairs.

With­this­emphasized,­it­appears­necessary­to­briefly­re-approach­the­critique­of­several­branches­of­MuA­regarding­the­impossibility­of­modes­—­i.e. the­relative­stability­of­the­structure­of­certain­ways­of­com-munication­—­in­the­light­of­digital­technologies­leading­to­the­discussion­of­semiosis.­This­is­even­more­relevant­considering­the­background­that­this­claim­is­supported­by­the­heterogeneity­and­volatility­of­new­publication­formats,­and­the­insight­that­no­notion­of­stability­in­communication­exists­as­such.­Two­paths­can­be­taken­in­reaction­to­this­critique.­One­is­to­revise­and­clarify­what­is­meant­by­using­the­term­stability­as­a­point­of­reference­within­this­topic.­The­other­is­to­qualify­the­critique­and­to­put­supporting­observations­into­context.

It­has­been­indicated­several­times­already­that­the­concept­of­semiosis­does­not­permit­assuming­any­general­idea­of­stability.­Consequently,­there­is­only­more­or­less­stability­in­relation­to­other­conceived­or­quantified­dynamics.­Modular­Articles­were­obviously­a­less­stable­concept­than­the­

15­ The­difference­is­comparable­to­the­difference­between­clarity­and­usefulness,­which­has­been­analyzed­in­depth­in­philosophy­of­language,­especially­in­Wittgenstein­(2006).

322 Beyond the Flow

monograph,­and­maybe­even­the­notion­of­a­module­will­be.­The­pace­of­innovation­in­the­era­of­digital­technologies­is­often­conceived­of­as­too­unstable­to­match­the­expectations­of­stability­of­digital­publications­and­publication­environments.­Accordingly,­the­concept­of­stability­as­seen­in­semiosis­seeks­to­define­setups­of­relative­stability.­Precisely­such­qual-ification­distinguishes­the­leitmotif­of­stability,­as­it­is­suggested­here,­from­abstract­and­absolute­notions­of­stability.­The­issue­of­stability­for­scholarly­publications­is­neither­represented­well­within­the­foundational­thinking­of­infrastructure­projects­such­as­OpenAIRE,­nor­within­the­narratives­of­“forced­bindings.”­To­aim­at­relative­stability­means­opening­up,­con-cretizing,­and­using­the­possibilities­to­promote­stability­in­scholarly­com-munication,­without­idealizing­them­by­assuming­any­kind­of­inherent­logic­towards­a­certain­type­of­maturity.­The­observation­that­the­conditions­for­modes­of­communication­as­representations­of­relative­stability­in­com-munication­have­changed­does­thus­not­impose­stopping­to­reach­for­new­and­more­appropriate­modes.­Such­attempts­will,­nonetheless,­have­to­take­into­account­much­more­flexible­notions­of­stability­than­those­presup-posed­in­many­attempts­to­establish­new­publication­formats.

This­argument­is­already­leading­to­the­critiques­of­the­concept­of­mode­in­MuA­and­corresponding­insights­presented­in­part­one.­Although­it­has­been­confirmed­that­digital­technologies­do­change­the­conditions­for­stable­patterns­in­scholarly­communication­that­would­engender­scholarly­publication­modes,­it­is­of­crucial­importance­to­note­that­very­few­attempts­have­been­made­to­more­broadly­evaluate­current­conditions­for­stable­communicative­modes.­From­the­implementation­level­of­con-crete­projects,­through­the­conceptual­level­of­publication­formats­up­to­the­theoretical­level­in­parts­of­MuA16,­research­activities­have­primarily­focused­on­showcasing,­representing,­and­analyzing­the­pluralization­of­resources­and­strategies­in­scholarly­communication­instigated­by­digital­technologies.­Stöckl’s­critique,­that­the­concept­of­mode­is­fuzzy­and­inconsistent,­can­also­be­interpreted­against­this­background:­since­much­analysis­in­MuA­is­done­for­the­purpose­of­describing­new­and­complex­multimodal­setups­in­communication­under­the­label­of­mode,­the­con-cept’s­main­issue,­which­as­has­been­argued­is­the­issue­of­stability,­sus-tainability,­and­persistence­in­communication,­gets­lost­from­view.

Norris,­by­declaring­that­mode­is­a­heuristic­concept­obscuring­the­subtle­meanings­of­today’s­communication,­is­also­not­willing­or­able­to­

16­ Significant­examples­for­this­type­of­research­include­Doloughan­(2011),­Smith­et­al.­(2011),­Rowsell­(2013),­Ferdig­and­Pytash­(2014).

… Publishing 323

substantially­analyze­the­concrete­dimension­of­this­tension,­due­to­the­methodological­focus­of­her­research­agenda.­It­leaves­open­what­kind­of­an impact the application or the abolishment of such heuristics itself has on­their­usefulness.­An­analysis­is­not­just­an­observation­but­at­the­same­time­an­intervention­that­changes­the­state­of­the­analyzed­object.­In­short,­not­only­do­few­activities­function­in­the­spirit­of­a­sophisticated­concept­of­mode,­some­of­these­activities­even­persistently­undermine­any­possibility­of­new­modes.­It­is­therefore­highly­double-edged­to­argue­that­the­heuris-tic­of­mode­is­of­no­use,­or­to­complain­from­the­opposite­point­of­view­that­digital­publications­have­never­gone­beyond­the­“lumpen­pdf.”­Judgments­on­the­possibilities­of­new­forms­of­publishing,­finally,­also­have­to­take­into­account­what­has­been­called­issues­of­epistemological­shifting.­To­put­it­differently,­claims­that­are­made­about­the­impossibility­of­modes­in­times­of­digital­technologies­cannot­be­judged­independently­from­the­fact­that­intermedial­situations­of­high­dynamic­provoke­simplifications­of­the­nature­of­ongoing­changes,­in­order­to­regain­epistemological­confidence­on­lost­grounds.

In­fact,­the­discussion­of­mode­as­a­mediating­concept­seems­appropriate­for­also­mediating­between­the­emphasis­of­the­plurality­of­present-day­communication­caused­by­unbalanced­notions­of­authenticity­and­presence,­and­the­abstract­demands­for­absolute­sustainability­and­persistence­that­do­not­stop­despite­such­emphasis.­Mode­is­a­concept­that­raises awareness of the fact that the important question is not whether sustainable­configurations­in­scholarly­communication­are­still­possible.­It­allows­to­ask­where­stable­patterns­in­all­these­new­experiments­and­explorations­in­digitally­mediated­scholarly­communication­might­be­con-ceivable,­and­what­would­be­needed­in­order­to­support­these­areas.

Intervening in Communication: Designing Scholarly Publication Modes

After­analyses­of­the­concept­of­framing,­mode,­and­semiosis,­and­their­partial­application­to­the­issues­of­new­publication­formats,­the­attempt­will­now­be­made­to­briefly­indicate­what­interventions­into­scholarly­communication,­like­the­ones­discussed­in­this­work,­could­look­like­when­shaped­by­the­arguments­made.­It­goes­without­saying­that­even­the­intent­to­sit­down­and­pretend­to­define­and­design­the­new­format­for­publishing­within­a­specific­scholarly­environment­“at­once”­—­as­some­of­the­projects­have­done­—­contrasts­with­the­aforementioned­framework.­It­might,­nonetheless,­be­a­useful­exercise­in­order­to­put­some­of­the­

324 Beyond the Flow

points­back­into­a­well-known­context­and­thereby­support­the­process­of­familiarization­with­them.­The­outline­of­this­intervention­will­remain­an­outline,­as­its­primary­goal­is­to­communicate­a­certain­spirit.­It­was,­after­all,­claimed­that­it­is­the­spirit­that­prevented­the­field­from­making­fur-ther­progress­on­the­goals­it­sought­to­achieve,­not­specific­elements­or­a­particular­type­of­inventions.

For­the­purpose­of­this­exercise,­the­notion­of­mode­is­simplified,­in­order­to­represent­what­was­discussed­as­the­publication­format­in­many­of­the­preceding­approaches.­The­illustrating­task­thus­is­to­start­with­a­design­approach­to­the­creation­of­a­mode­of­scholarly­communication,­meaning­a­socially,­technically,­and­structurally­more­saturated­and­reliable­form­of­communication.­Candela­et­al.­(2015),­has­criticized­DPs­as­“slow­com-munication.”­By­intentionally­misusing­this­phrase,­one­could­say­that­publications­by­definition­always­belong­to­slow­communication­in­a­certain­sense.­They­are­slow­because­they­are­organized­via­demands­which­exceed­those­that­are­immediately­transparent­and­comprehensible­in­the­communicative­situation­itself.

As­modes,­the­three­constitutive­dimensions­for­publications­equate­to­the­three­meta-functions­of­communication.­It­is­possible­to­apply­a­functional­approach­to­the­design­of­publication­concepts­as­well,­which­is­then­seen­as­a­communicative­act.­As­said­before,­the­three­dimensions­are­rep-resented­by­three­questions­in­Halliday’s­and­successive­works.­Applied­to­the­goal-oriented­design­of­publication­concepts­and­related­projects,­these­points­can­be­translated­into­questions­by­asking:

1.­ How­should­the­structure­of­knowledge­be­modified?­Which­new­semiotic­resources­and­regulations­should­be­promoted,­and­which­methodological­commitments­for­the­creation­of­accountability­of­research­should­be­supported?

2.­ What­does­the­network­of­stakeholders­look­like­that­should­be­shaped­by­the­publication­concept?­Which­stakeholders­are­there,­and­how­do­they­interoperate­with­each­other?­Where­is­institutional­support­desired­and­where­does­institutionalization­have­to­take­place?

3.­ What­is­the­technological­and­infrastructural­environment­that­it­tries­to­sustain­or­introduce?

The­phrasing­of­these­questions­reflects­the­intention­of­the­intervention­to­introduce­changes­and­reach­goals.­The­last­sections­above­suggest­that­it­is­supportive­of­the­design­process­to­relate­the­answers­to­these­questions­with­each­other,­instead­of­responding­to­them­in­isolation.­That­does­not­

… Publishing 325

necessarily­mean­that­answers­need­to­be­perfectly­fitted­to­each­other.­Since­each­dimension­brings­with­it­its­own­specific­logic,­this­is­hardly­possible­in­any­case.­Becoming­aware­of­the­relationships­and­maybe­rearranging­them­here­and­there,­however,­is­something­different.­An­intervention,­furthermore,­changes­the­given­situation,­which­is­more­than­a­zero­point­of­future­modes­of­communication.­It­is­a­situation­under­con-struction,­partially­satisfactory­and­partially­not.­There­is­something­to­lose­and­something­to­gain.­Addressing­this­situation,­Halliday’s­meta-functions­can­therefore­be­similarly­re-phrased­in­order­to­make­more­than­a­zero­point­out­of­them.­Accordingly:

1.­ What­are­conventional­strategies­for­organizing­knowledge,­and­what­semiotic­resources­are­used­how­in­order­to­do­so?

2.­ What­practices­between­which­agents­support­such­strategies?3.­ What­does­the­infrastructure­and­technology­look­like­that­

embodies­and­sustains­these­strategies­and­practices?

While­the­first­version­of­the­questions­takes­a­strategic­point­of­view,­the­second­version­has­more­of­an­analytical­angle.

Any­new­publication­format­or­intervention­into­the­landscape­of­scholarly­publications­takes­up­a­position,­first­within­the­matrix­of­possible­answers­to­the­strategical­set­of­questions,­and­secondly­by­creating­a­specific­connection­between­the­strategic­angle­and­the­retrospective­one.­This­position­is­marked­by­a­variety­of­decisions.­For­the­first­set­of­questions,­such­decisions­may­reveal­different­levels­of­attention­to­or­interest­in­one­of­three­dimensions.­In-between­the­strategical­and­the­analytical­set­of­questions,­decisions­may­appear­conservative,­generative,­adaptive,­or­creative.

A­conservative­decision­follows­established­ways­of­doing­things.­It­is­important­to­mention­that­the­term­conservative­does­not­include­any­type­of­judgment.­The­PDF­takes­a­conservative­stand­in­terms­of­structuring­and­presenting­knowledge,­as­the­majority­of­advocates­of­digital­pub-lications­have­highlighted­so­well.­It­does­so­because­it­tries­to­resemble­the­presentational­and­organizational­knowledge­in­paper­articles­or­monographs.­A­creative­decision­is­a­decision­that­leads­to­the­introduction­of­a­completely­new­idea­of­how­things­should­change­in­one­of­the­three­areas.­Collections­and­ROs,­accordingly,­staged­the­use­of­the­OAI-ORE­technology­as­a­key­technology­of­digital­publications.­Open­Laboratory­Books­posited­the­idea­of­open-endedness­as­an­organizational­paradigm­for­publications­and­so­forth.­Adaptive­decisions­transfer­ideas­of­change­that­might­be­known­or­operative­in­other­scholarly­environments­into­

326 Beyond the Flow

environments­where­this­is­not­the­case.­The­Open­Notebook­Humanities­project­outlined­earlier­is­a­project­and­a­concept­which­tried­to­implement­ideas­of­OLBs­and­of­NPs,­and­which­has­already­been­implemented­in­other­domains­of­the­humanities.­Generative­decisions,­finally,­are­decisions­leading­to­concept­sand­implementations­that­facilitate­changes­in­the­direction­of­concepts,­and­implementations­that­are­more­difficult­to­realize­directly.­These­decisions­are­not­identical­with­the­original­goals,­but­stimulate­changes­to­reach­such­goals.­Many­decisions­behind­DPs­are­of­a­generative­nature,­and­it­has­been­argued­in­this­work­that­generative­decisions,­at­least­after­the­period­of­digital­publications,­are­potentially­those­with­the­greatest­impact.

This­does­not­mean­that­only­generative­decisions­create­the­ideal­type­of­intervention­as­such,­it­depends­on­the­overarching­purpose­of­an­inter-vention­nor­a­new­publication­format­design.­If­the­attempt­is­to­create­a­beacon­project,­generative­decisions­are­not­a­good­fit.­It­goes­without­saying­that­a­beacon­project­may­be­a­valuable­contribution,­for­instance­in­order­to­show­alternative­paths­in­a­deadlock­situation.­This­contribution­nonetheless­has­to­be­evaluated­and­identified­between­the­strategical­and­analytical­angle­and­its­three­dimensions.­The­important­aspect­is­to­adapt­any­following­design­decision­to­the­general­decision­about­what­such­an­intervention­or­such­contributions­should­represent­and­com-municate.­A­beacon­project­does­not­require­infrastructure­development,­and­a­serious­attempt­to­introduce­changes­to­the­landscape­of­scholarly­publications­should­probably­avoid­building­on­the­most­creative­concepts­and­technologies.­The­analysis­of­publication­concepts­in­part­one­suggests­that­few­efforts­have­been­made­to­clearly­evaluate­and­define­what­these­concepts­could­become­and­what­they­should­become­in­the­scope­of­the­projects­that­pushed­them­forward.

Applied­to­the­example­of­the­Unbound­Book,­the­following­answers­to­the­first­set­of­questions­can­be­formulated:

1.­ The­UB­understands­knowledge­as­an­uncentred,­inconsistent­phenomenon.­Thus,­the­publication­should­reflect­the­plurality­of­viewpoints­and­the­diversity­of­modes­of­representing­knowledge.

2.­ The­UB­wants­to­democratize­the­political­economy­of­knowledge­production­in­the­context­of­critical­relationships­with­concepts­of­power­and­hierarchy­in­academia.

3.­ Technology­has­to­be­accessible­and­must­allow­participation­of­as­many­stakeholders­as­possible,­but­there­is­no­original­technical­goal.

… Publishing 327

In­consequence­to­these­responses,­the­following­design­decisions­on­aspects­and­resources­were­made.­Most­of­these­aspects­were­discussed­in­the­section­on­UBs­already.

The answers to the strategical versions of the three questions illustrate the intent­of­UBs­to­introduce­changes,­mostly­in­the­areas­of­social­practice.­The­most­innovation­is­introduced­within­the­second­dimension,­and­even­the­first­dimension­is­interpreted­in­a­way­that­relates­to­the­second­dimension.­Another­step­reveals­the­relationship­between­the­responses­and­the­design­decisions,­summarized­in­the­table­above.­The­portal­decision,­for­instance,­clearly­links­to­the­second­questions.­Neither­a­channel­nor­an­object­could­engender­the­level­of­participatory­curation­of­content.­The­scale­of­the­information­unit­rendered­within­UBs­also­refers­to­the­second­question.­In­contrast,­issues­like­the­intermodal­relationship­type­and­modal­complexity­more­strongly­reflect­the­first­question.­The­moderate­way­in­which­they­make­use­of­this­approach­reflects­the­afore-mentioned­relationship­between­dimension­one­and­two.­The­technological­serialization­shows­very­well­that­technological­decisions­are­driven­by­the­first­two­questions,­and­not­so­much­by­goals­that­are­genuinely­technological.­This­is­very­different­from­many­other­publishing­concepts­that­have­been­introduced.

resource decision resource decisionarchitectural integrity

portal intermodal­relationship type

inter-medial

scale the whole of a research­track

cohesion given by the social network­of­agents

secularization none residence­time defined­by­contributions

synchronist parallel-incremental

structural rigor moderate

modal­complexity moderate technological serialization

contingent (different­proprietary software solutions)

[Table­6.3]­Design­decisions­behind­the­Unbound­Book­concept

By­using­these­terms­in­order­to­describe­the­relationship­between­the­different­angles­behind­the­two­sets­of­questions,­further­specifications­are­possible.­The­choices­by­which­UBs­implement­the­goal­of­allowing­additional­media­resources­in­a­publication­can­be­described­as­generative,­even­conservative,­when­compared­with­the­use­of­different­media­in­

328 Beyond the Flow

anthologies­and­monographs.­Only­the­appearance­of­videos­in­one­or­the­other­distinguishes­them,­while­TPs’­role­is­really­to­be­creative­in­this­respect.­The­second­goal­can­be­defined­as­creative,­or­at­least­adaptive.­A­non-restricted­collaborative­and­continuous­authoring­of­books­was­a­very­new­approach­at­a­time­when­projects­presented­in­this­work­implemented­UBs.­The­adaptive­to­conservative­decision­regarding­technological­goals­is­represented­by­the­way­UBs­are­technologically­serialized.

The­importance­of­the­modelling­of­the­example­lies­not­so­much­in­correctness,­it­is­probably­possible­to­argue­about­one­or­the­other­aspect,­and­the­description­is­far­from­being­complete.­The­importance­lies­in­the­creation­of­references­in­order­to­enable­a­design­process­which­is­more­environmentally­aware.­In­an­ecological­approach­towards­innovation­for­scholarly­publications,­every­contribution­is­a­contribution­situated­between­stabilizing­and­destabilizing­effects,­a­contribution­which­attracts­and­rejects.­One­way­to­interpret­the­lack­of­success­of­digital­publishing­concepts,­diagnosed­by­their­advocates,­would­be­to­argue­that­often,­the­potentially­destabilizing­effects­on­the­existing­landscape­of­digital­pub-lications­outrank­the­attraction­they­create.­Yet­again,­it­is­important­to­not­idealize­this­landscape­as­the­de­facto­stable­backdrop.­It­goes­without­saying­that­the­analysis­of­the­existing­landscape­can­reveal­a­very­unstable­state­calling­for­innovative­impulses.­In­semiosis,­as­it­was­highlighted­in­the­last­section,­there­is­no­general­stability,­and­any­intervention­into­the­landscape­of­scholarly­publications,­conceived­in­the­context­of­semiosis,­can­be­described­as­a­“design­of­social­relations”­(Kress­2010,­143).

In­an­ecological­perspective­such­as­the­one­above,­the­many­ways­in­which­a­new­concept­requires­adjustment­to­the­existing­landscape­may­appear­too­expensive.­This­is­especially­true­if­the­number­of­concepts­that­demand­adjustment­is­that­high.­Once­again,­such­adjustments­can­be­described­in­terms­of­the­three­constitutive­dimensions­of­communication.­Hence,­they­require­technological­and­infrastructural­adjustments,­adjustments­of­social­practices­and­institutions,­as­well­as­adjustments­on­the­level­of­semiotic­practices­and­symbolic­values­(Bourdieu­2010).­It­is­possible­to­model­these­issues­in­terms­of­a­cost-benefit­calculation.­Specifications­like­those­exemplified­above­can­help­to­gain­an­under-standing­of­the­complexity­and­extent­of­such­costs.­Additionally,­they­may­allow­more­strategic­and­thus­more­effective­handling­of­costs,­meaning­the­distinct­efforts­necessary­to­establish­a­certain­type­of­publication.­Thinking­about­them­as­abstract,­in­terms­of­cost,­may­also­allow­thinking­about­the­exchange­of­costs­in­one­dimension­with­resources­available­in­another­dimension.­This­is­exactly­the­strategy­that­NPs­adopted­when­

… Publishing 329

trying­to­solve­social­issues­of­publications­with­technological­means.­It­was­an­attempt­that­did­not­work­out­well,­because­NPs­neglected­the­fact­that­such­means­must­become­socially­acceptable­in­order­to­really­function.­Nonetheless,­such­strategies­of­value-exchange­between­implementation­and­construction­work,­social­engagement,­and­other­type­of­tasks­do­not­need­to­be­wrong­in­general­when­applied­in­a­more­sensible­way.

When­talking­about­scholarly­publication­formats­as­modes­of­com-munication­that­saturate­and­stabilize­over­time,­and­about­generative­interventions,­the­inclusion­a­time-oriented­angle­into­the­design­per-spective­of­publication­concepts­seems­natural.­It­makes­a­lot­of­sense­to­conceive­of­design­as­an­iterative­process,­in­which­the­design­of­the­pub-lication­format­becomes­more­and­more­concrete­over­multiple­iterations.­In­each­iteration,­the­intervention­takes­a­position­between­the­analytical­and­the­strategic­perspective.­However,­each­iteration­also­brings­with­it­the­adaption­of­the­analysis­to­the­changes­that­took­place­since­the­last­iteration,­as­well­as­possible­modifications­to­the­strategic­goals.­The­iterative­process,­consequently,­is­not­just­a­stepwise­procedure­towards­fixed­goals,­but­a­course­of­action­that,­by­using­information­technology­terms,­could­be­defined­as­an­agile­process.­The­term­was­also­used­by­the­LPs­project­in­order­to­describe­the­“more­natural”­procedure­by­which­publications­can­be­created­within­the­LPs­framework.­The­irony­is­that­this­principle,­emphasized­as­more­appropriate­for­grasping­how­research­works,­was­not­applied­to­the­research­on­the­LPs­format.

In­the­final­analysis,­an­approach­conceiving­of­publications­as­modes­establishing­themselves­within­a­process­of­semiosis­needs­to­consider­seven­tasks:

1.­ the­definition­of­communicative­goals,2.­ the­evaluation­of­semiotic,­socio-cultural,­and­technological­

resources,3.­ the­evaluation­of­stabilities­and­instabilities­in­the­existing­pub-

lication­landscape,4.­ the­definition­of­certain­social­boundaries­that­permit­reasonably­

carrying­out­task­two­and­three,5.­ the­type­of­intervention­(beacon­project,­solving­a­problem,­

establishing­a­new­format­etc.),6.­ the­composition­of­one­or­more­interventions,­each­conceptually­

situated­somewhere­between­the­analytical­(3)­and­the­strategical­(2)­angle,

7.­ optionally,­the­organization­of­an­iterative­process.

330 Beyond the Flow

This­last­section­of­the­study­at­hand­has­shown­how­concepts­from­the­field­of­MuA­can­re-arrange­key­motifs­in­the­field­of­digital­publications­in­a­way­that­tones­down­the­tensions­highlighted­in­the­preceding­sections.­The­relationship­between­technological­and­social­issues,­the­status­of­heterogeneity­and­the­data­deluge,­the­mediation­between­different­desires­regarding­the­representational­capacity,­and­the­sustainability­of­publications­—­all­these­and­other­issues­can­be­described­by­such­concepts­in­a­form­that­accentuates­their­interplay­instead­of­positing­false­hierarchies.­They­thereby­help­to­avoid­unproductive­expectations,­unreasonable­resource­allocation,­and,­last­but­not­least,­emotional­frus-tration,­such­as­outlined­in­the­introduction,­based­on­selective­or­con-troversial­conceptions.­The­analysis­presented­publications­as­modes­in­communication,­and­thus­as­the­issue­of­organizing­communication.­This­does­not­mean­that­communication­is­not­always­organized­in­one­way­or­the­other.­It­means,­as­has­been­emphasized­before,­that­mode,­and­thus­publications­as­modes,­evaluate­the­stabilizing­organization­of­communicative­resources­over­time­as­a­semiotic­resource­itself.­In­other­words:­to­what­extent­does­this­type­of­organization­create­“meaning­potentials”­that­would­not­exist­without­it,­and­to­what­extent­is­this­pos-sible­and­desirable­within­a­defined­social­context­and­within­a­specific­period?­This­viewpoint­opened­up­a­distinct­area­of­publications­under­the­theme­of­communication.­It­turns­this­concept­into­more­than­an­empty­placeholder­—­a­unit­of­communication­—­because­it­has­its­own­logic­that­can­be­made­methodical­use­of.­The­illustration­at­the­end­is­far­from­providing­such­a­complete­methodology,­but­it­should­suffice­to­convince­that­such­a­methodology­is­possible­and­empowering.

ConclusionIn­the­introduction,­the­topic­of­digital­publications­was­presented­via­the­early­work­of­Owen­as­one­of­the­first­authors­who­tried­to­raise­the­ques-tion­of­the­impact­of­digital­technologies­on­scholarly­publications,­in­a­way­that­would­go­beyond­programmatic­excitement­or­categorical­skepticism.­Much­of­the­analysis­can­be­situated­between­perspectives­of­articulated­expectations,­reasonable­expectations,­misled­expectations,­expectations­that­came­true­and­those­that­did­not,­all­framed­by­discourses­on­a­coming­revolution,­a­failed­revolution,­or­a­revolution­that­would­never­happen.­It­therefore­stands­to­reason­that­in­his­concluding­sections,­Owen­tries­to­develop­his­own­theoretical­model­of­change,­one­that­would­go­beyond­the­empirical­results,­showing­significantly­fewer­modifications­of­pub-lication­formats­and­related­scholarly­communication­practices.

This­model­of­change­derives­from­what­he­refers­to­as­the­evolutionary model or selection theory.­According­to­Owen­(2006,­198),­selection­theory­brings­about­progress­on­the­basis­of­three­types­of­steps:­innovation,­selection,­and­reproduction.­Innovations­in­technology­provide­new­pos-sibilities­and­new­options.­Selection­is­a­step­carried­out­by­agents­who­decide­to­make­use­of­some­of­these­options­and­reject­others.­Another­aspect­of­selection­is­the­liberty­to­choose­in­which­way­the­selected­options­are­used.­This­appropriation­can­vary­significantly­from­the­intentions­that­led­to­the­introduction­of­said­innovations.­Reproduction­addresses­the­need­for­individual­selections­to­turn­into­common­practices,­in­order­to­provoke­real­changes.­While­this­model­is­still­quite­linear­and­progress-oriented,­it­includes­significant­differences­compared­to­the­progress-oriented­narratives­in­the­field­of­digital­publications.­In­selection­theory,­subsequent­steps­are­not­determined­by­earlier­ones.­It­cannot­be­assumed­that­the­introduction­of­new­options­equates­with­the­selection­of­such­options,­or­defines­how­they­are­appropriated.­No­selection­by­any­agents­causes­a­change­of­cultural­norms­and­common­practices.­The­reason­for­this­is­that­each­step­adds­its­own­assessment­criteria­and­modifications,­changing­what­appears­to­be­beneficial­and­useful­overall.­Following­from­this­is­that:

…­the­outcome­of­evolutionary­development­processes­such­as­that­studied­here­is­emergent­and­contingent.­It­is­emergent­in­the­sense­that­the­outcome­of­a­change­process­cannot­be­deduced­from­the­pressures­that­bear­on­it,­however­relevant­these­pressures­are­to­the­outcome.­And­it­is­contingent­in­the­sense­that­the­outcomes­can­be­expected­to­fit­the­pragmatic­context­of­the­actors­(e.g. scientists)­

334 Beyond the Flow

rather­than­any­theoretical­or­ideological­model.­When­closure­has­happened,­the­process­and­its­outcomes­can­be­described­in­a­logical­fashion.­But­as­the­result­of­a­highly­complicated­process­with­a­multi-tude­of­pressures­bearing­on­the­path­towards­closure,­the­outcome,­however­logical­once­it­has­been­achieved,­cannot­be­predicted­from­the­beginning.­(Owen­2006,­200)

As­mentioned­above,­Owen’s­research­led­him­to­the­conclusion­that­in­2006,­digital­technologies­have­not­changed­publications­and­related­scholarly­communication­practices­in­any­way­that­revolutionaries,­or,­as­he­calls­them,­change­agents,­presupposed.­In­his­view,­these­agents,­and­with­them­a­certain­notion­of­progress,­oversimplify­the­meaning­of­progress­as­a­sequence­of­steps.­They­treat­technology­as­the­main­agent,­while­it­is­merely­the­agent­that­delivers­possibilities.­This­reductionism­then­causes­a­“battle­against­more­conservative­and­ignorant­forces”­(211)­that­is­inherent­in­the­revolutionary­point­of­view.

Owen­continues­that,­due­to­the­abovementioned­logic,­change­agents­have­overlooked­a­significant­tension­preventing­digital­technologies­from­becoming­originary­technologies­of­scholarly­communication.­Drawing­on­the­results­of­his­empirical­analysis­of­properties­of­digital­publications,­he­notes­that­digital­technologies­appear­to­favor­changes­supporting­ephemeral­aspects­and­subjectivation.­In­line­with­his­change­model,­he­concludes­that­digital­technologies­are­more­open­to­being­shaped­than­they­are­shaping­technologies­themselves­(212).­This,­however,­constitutes­a­fundamental­incompatibility­with­what­he­calls­the­“objectifying­function”­and­the­requirement­of­persistence­of­publications.­These­two­aspects­are,­in­his­view,­aspects­of­publications­that­are­beyond­cultural­or­technological­change­(223).­Consequently,­Owen­claims­that­no­fundamental­changes­could­be­expected­any­longer,­and­that­the­revolutionary­excitement­driven­by­digital­technologies­has­little­further­basis.

It­is­indeed­astonishing­just­how­much­many­of­the­results­of­the­present­study­are­reminiscent­of­observations­made­by­Owen.­The­emphasis­that­is­put­on­social­appropriation­of­technology,­the­insight­that­digital­technologies­go­hand­in­hand­with­the­accentuation­of­ephemeral­aspects­in­publishing,­and­the­description­of­a­quasi­post-digital­situation­all­had­counterparts­in­the­last­chapters.­This­insight,­however,­causes­a­problem.­The­study­at­hand­divided­the­history­of­digital­publications­into­four­phases.­Owen­worked­on­his­research­during­the­second­phase,­which­was­shaped­by­a­decrease­in­the­production­of­innovative­scholarly­pub-lications.­His­observations­thus­match­the­characteristics­of­this­phase.­

Conclusion 335

How­then­should­it­be­interpreted­that­immediately­after­the­publication­of­his­book,­a­second,­much­more­vibrant,­phase­of­innovative­publication­formats­started­that­not­only­renewed­the­revolutionary­discourse­but­even­surpassed­the­earlier­one?­This­observation­apparently­not­only­challenges­Owen’s­claims:­it­must­also­be­understood­as­a­challenge­to­the­ones­in­the­present­study,­insofar­as­these­claims­resemble­Owen’s.­There­is,­nonetheless,­no­doubt­that,­again,­this­new­outburst­of­initiatives­has­calmed­and­turned­into­a­less­active­phase­in­recent­years.­It­appears­that­there­is­a­pattern­in­which­reasons­that­fuel­the­revolutionary’s­excitement­and­those­that­support­general­skepticism­seem­to­alternate.

This­alternation­suggests­looking­for­differences­between­the­first­and­the­second­iteration;­first,­in­terms­of­differences­between­claims­in­this­study­and­those­by­Owen,­and­second,­between­the­two­“revolutionary”­phases­and­the­quieter­phases.

Although­this­study­shares­a­certain­tendency­in­the­evaluation­of­the­field­of­digital­publications,­there­are­two­significant­differences.­On­the­one­hand,­Owen,­as­described­above,­builds­his­claim­about­the­impact­of­digital­technologies­on­scholarly­publishing­around­the­same­fundamental­distinction­between­“ephemeral”­aspects­of­digital­publications­and­the­requirement­of­an­abstract­notion­of­stability.­The­only­point­at­which­he­differs­from­digital­publications­advocates­is­his­judgement­on­the­feasibility­of­integrating­both­facets­into­new­publication­formats.­On­the­other­hand,­his­judgement­often­refers­to­the­topic­of­scholarly­publications­as­a­more­or­less­homogeneous­issue.­This­means­that­he­evaluates­change­in­terms­of­changes­that­are­applied­to­the­article­format,­while­it­has­been­mostly­argued­in­the­present­study­that­change­strives­towards­additional­formats­and­plurality­of­communication­practices.­The­perceptible­change­is­more­of­a­diversification­than­a­replacement.­Again,­this­orientation­towards­a­mostly­homogeneous­scholarly­publication­landscape­is­a­sim-ilarity­between­Owen­and­many­—­not­all­—­of­the­projects­discussed­before.­Thus,­in­parts­his­line­of­arguments­remains­attached­to­what­he­criticizes.

Inasmuch­as­Owen’s­conclusions­are­still­shaped­by­the­two­abovementioned­bipolarities,­he­might­not­have­been­able­to­predict­how­much­the­following­phase­would­be­driven­by­the­vast­possibilities­offered­by­digital­technologies­to­fill­the­space­between­the­two­poles­respectively,­i.e. the­space­for­possible­publication­formats­in­different­domains­and­different­methodologies,­and­the­space­between­communication­and­pub-lication.­Furthermore,­phase­three­and­four­are­obviously­more­than­just­

336 Beyond the Flow

repetitions­of­phase­one­and­two.­Looking­at­initiatives­such­SPARC,­the­open­access­declaration,­Science­Commons,­OAI-ORE,­and­linked­open­data­in­general,­the­second­phase­is­shaped­by­initiatives­intending­to­change­foundational­conditions­for­intellectual,­legal,­and­technological­aspects­of­publishing.­In­contrast,­the­fourth­phase­produced­initiatives­like­the­Alliance­for­Networking­Visual­Culture­and­boundary­objects­such­as­Data­Papers,­attempting­to­relate­stakeholders­to­the­form­of­publications­and­to­embed­as­well­as­adapt­existing­standards­and­technologies,­respectively.­The­second­phase­is­foundational,­while­the­fourth­phase­starts­to­be­relational.­Similarly,­the­first­phase­comprises­initiatives­which­very­much­focus­on­concrete­journals­such­as­the­Living­Review­of­Relativity­or­The­IMEJ of Computer-Enhanced Learning.­In­the­third­phase,­those­initiatives­promote­innovations­that­are­widely­independent­of­specific­journals­or­other­types­of­established­communication­channels.­Approaches­such­as­ROs,­NPs,­and­with­some­restriction­even­SPs­were­defined­as­a­concept­before,­or­at­least­in­parallel­to,­their­application­in­concrete­publishing­environments.­It­was­furthermore­described­how­much­the­third­phase­applied­technological­standards,­where­few­standardization­processes­existed­in­the­first­phase.

Having­said­this,­the­fourth­phase­might­be­similar­to­the­second­phase­in­terms­of­the­slowing­development­around­new­publication­formats.­Yet,­there­is­a­difference­when­it­comes­to­the­situation­the­fourth­phase­responds­to,­as­well­as­the­type­of­response.­As­mentioned­at­the­beginning­of­the­last­paragraph­and­argued­in­chapter­five­and­six,­the­third­phase­has­demonstrated­that­it­is­not­feasible­to­innovate­scholarly­publishing­under­the­theme­of­digital­technologies­while­at­the­same­time­maintaining­a­holistic­view­on­publishing­as­well­as­a­“transcendental”­core­of­absolute­values­of­publications.­In­1997,­Eason­et­al.­(1997,­sec.­7.4)­had­already­argued­that­“it­is­our­belief­that­progress­across­the­entire­academic­community­will­depend­upon­recognizing­the­differences.”­At­least­another­fifteen­to­twenty­years­had­to­pass­until­it­was­possible­to­estimate­what­such­differences­would­include.­Initiatives­of­the­third­phase­would­likely­have­had­more­impact­—­less­disappointment­for­sure­—­if­they­had­reflected­more­on­this­background.­Heterogeneity­today­is­not­just­the­surrounding­circumstance­of­a­transformative­process,­there­is­something­constitutive­within­heterogeneity­for­today’s­state­of­affairs.­It­has­nonetheless­also­been­discussed­that­accepting­this­situation­equates­to­the­celebration­of­“messiness.”­“Recognizing­the­differences”­means­acknowledging­different­options­between­the­ephemeral­and­the­

Conclusion 337

persistent,­it­means­to­stop­debating­whether­there­will­be­digital­pub-lications­or­not.

In­all­these­respects,­the­conclusions­of­the­present­study,­albeit­resem-bling­those­of­Owen,­are­quite­different.­They­reflect­a­different­state­of­affairs.­The­goal,­as­said­in­the­introduction,­was­to­present­a­way­of­perceiving­digital­publications­that­avoids­the­distinction­between­the­rev-olutionary­and­the­skeptic­view.­The­result­is­an­approach­that­simply­puts­differences­in­their­place­as­one­distinction,­and­a­very­basic­model­that­makes­recognizing­these­differences­more­of­a­systematic­endeavor­than­a­basic­attitude.­For­obvious­reasons,­this­study­had­to­call­this­approach­“post-digital”­at­a­certain­point­in­time.­Post-digital,­as­Cramer­(2014)­puts­it,­is­“a­term­that­sucks­but­is­useful.”

Another­conclusion­of­the­present­research­is­that­such­engagements­will­not­stop,­as­some­skeptics­might­eventually­think.­Section­5­showed­that­the­author­acknowledges­that­the­introduction­of­what­is­referred­to­as­digital­logics,­and­what­has­been­analyzed­under­the­theme­of­the­calculatedly-calculating­machine,­is­disruptive­in­many­aspects.­The­difference­is­that­this­disruption­is­less­the­result­of­what­digital­technologies­allegedly­prescribe,­but­precisely­a­consequence­of­what­they­do­not­prescribe.­They­introduce­uncountable­new­options­and­possibilities­of­referring­to­or­engaging­with­the­world,­without­suggesting­any­specific­form­of­application.­They­qualify­and­question­options­and­possibilities­of­the­past,­without­bringing­experiences­and­arrangements­of­the­future­along.

How­then­should­engagements­with­forms­of­scholarly­publications­be­different­from­those­with­digital­publications?­They­would­differ­insofar­as­they­reject­the­implementation­of­supposedly­most­innovative­technological­innovations,­most­appropriate­types­of­representation,­or­the­greatest­extent­of­freedom.­They­are­informed­by­all­these­developments­and­prospects,­they­reflect­and­consider­them­in­one­way­or­another,­but­they­do­not­act­on­their­behalf.­Accordingly,­such­engagements­with­scholarly­publishing­are­probably­always­a­disappointment.­They­reference­a­field­and­a­discourse­of­exciting­promises,­but­seem­to­not­take­such­promises­seriously.­They­do­so­in­order­to­facilitate­the­realization­of­some­of­these­promises,­but­at­a­time­where­these­do­not­appear­exciting­any­longer.

They­are,­however,­more­radical­when­it­comes­to­another­aspect­of­digital­publishing.­Nothing­has­been­emphasized­more­strongly­in­the­discourse­on­digital­publications­than­that­scholarly­publishing­is­about­scholarly­

338 Beyond the Flow

communication.­It­turned­out­that­this­motif­was­not­taken­seriously­enough.­The­radicalization­of­this­thought­under­the­theme­of­semiosis­revealed­a­more­systematic­and­balanced­description­of­facets­necessary­for­communication­in­order­to­function­well.

Such­facets­were­of­material-technological,­socio-cultural,­as­well­as­semi-otic-epistemological­nature.­The­history­of­digital­publications­brought­to light publication concepts focusing on one or two of these areas while neglecting­the­other:­new­“units­of­information,”­a­more­appropriate­rep-resentation­of­knowledge,­a­more­efficient­mediator­of­progress,­a­more­democratic­catalyst­of­knowledge­creation­processes,­less­costly­forms­of­distribution,­and­many­more.­New­publication­formats­will­have­to­do­a­better­job­of­considering­all­three­areas­within­the­same­design­process­at­the­same­time­in­order­to­become­significant.

While­the­abovementioned­three­areas­are­constitutive­for­any­type­of­communication,­it­was­shown­in­the­sections­on­mode­and­semiosis­that­their­belonging­together­is­of­even­greater­significance­when­it­comes­to­the­development­of­more­organized­configurations­in­communication,­configurations­desired­in­the­field­of­digital­publishing­itself,­but­which­the­same­field­has­partially­undermined­as­well.

Accordingly,­hybrid­publishing­strategies­cannot­invalidate­technological­issues­of­standardization­and­interoperability­in­publishing­today.­Embracing­HPs­without­taking­care­of­such­issues,­as­is­done­in­some­of­the­examples,­risks­arbitrary­publishing­without­much­of­a­strategic­aspect­left.­TPs,­comparably,­emphasize­the­representational­function­of­pub-lications­but­neglect­socio-cultural­issues­of­dissemination,­readability,­and­the­feasibility­of­long-term-preservation.­The­engagement­into­socio-cul-tural­issues­in­ROs­only­makes­an­initial­difference.­Even­though­it­is­true­that­authors­like­David­De­Roure­talk­a­lot­about­the­social­dimension­of­publications,­it­has­been­shown­that­when­it­comes­to­the­impact­of­this­dimension­on­the­design­of­the­format,­social­aspects­are­only­respected­in­as­much­as­they­fit­in.­Research­Objects­are­not­in­fact­social­objects­within­the­current­socio-cultural­horizon.

In­contrast,­promising­examples­also­exist,­giving­an­idea­of­facets­of­engagements­into­scholarly­publishing­after­the­digital.­They­can­be­derived­from­Scalar,­DPs,­video-essays,­the­Guide­to­Open­and­Hybrid­Publishing,­the­Journal­of­Digital­Humanities,­OLBs,­SPPs,­and­others.­Accordingly,­it­was­shown­how­the­Scalar­project­uses­the­Alliance­for­Visual­Networking­Culture­to­create­an­innovation­process­driven­by­stakeholder­integration,­not­only­for­the­question­of­how­to­realize­goals,­but­more­

Conclusion 339

importantly­to­set­the­goals­in­the­first­place.­Scalar,­furthermore,­offers­an­exceptional­example­of­innovation­planned­to­be­a­long­and­incremental­process­instead­of­a­one-time­intervention.­Together­with­its­predecessor­Vectors,­Scalar­publications­look­back­at­a­history­of­nearly­fifteen­years.­With­its­agency­in­the­Critical­Commons­initiatives­and­the­contract-based­association­with­contributing­digital­archives,­Scalar,­finally,­offers­very­subtle insights into the limitations of purely formal approaches to inter-operability­and­openness,­so­common­in­the­context­of­digital­publications.­Data­Papers­demonstrated­how­success­and­impact­might­be­the­product,­not­of­precisely­and­formally­defined­publication­concepts,­but­of­the­right­level­of­fuzziness­and­flexibility­that­makes­this­concept­accessible­enough­for­a­broad­range­of­stakeholders,­but­also­decisive­enough­to­guide­a­directed­innovation­process.­The­format­of­the­video-essay­is­a­great­example­of­how­innovations­in­publishing­that­are­accepted­and­that­have­impact­can­be­created­by­considering­and­mobilizing­existing­capacities­and­regard­within­a­defined­environment.­The­Guide­to­Open­and­Hybrid­Publishing­is­interesting­because,­despite­its­discussed­limitations,­it­at­least suggests establishing strategic relationships between forms of pub-lishing,­instead­of­pursuing­a­new­form­of­publishing.­The­Journal­of­Digital­Humanities­and­some­activities­in­the­area­of­OLBs­are­worth­mentioning,­with their attempt to lift ongoing online communications into more elab-orated­publication­environments,­instead­of­trying­to­change­the­original­communication­environment.­Yet­again,­Hunter’s­SPPs­have­to­be­named­for­the­opposite­point­of­view.­The­decay­factor­of­SPPs,­in­conjunction­with the notion of situationally lifting existing informal communication into­more­organized­publication­environments,­is­a­convincing­first­setup­for­dealing­with­today’s­fluent­transition­between­publication­and­communication.

Engagements­and­experiments­in­publishing­may­become­convincing­insofar­as­they­are­willing­to­build­upon­strategically­set­boundaries­or­frames,­whereby­strategic­refers­to­frames­that­support­the­cohesion­of­the­three­constitutives­of­communication­within­a­defined­publishing­environ-ment.­A­cohesive­frame­is­a­frame­that­has­a­supportive,­or­at­least­non-breaking,­relationship­with­frames­within­the­other­two­constitutive­areas­of­communication.­Accordingly,­engagements­into­scholarly­publishing­should­be­conceived­of­as­something­that­is­often­called­an­ecological­approach.­The­tension­between­cohesion­and­innovation­might­be­one­of­the­main­reasons­for­the­frustration­described­in­the­introduction,­because­cohesion must always restrict possible innovations in one of the con-stitutives,­due­to­the­affordances­of­the­other­two.

340 Beyond the Flow

Similarly,­there­need­no­longer­be­attempts­to­create­generic­approaches,­a­term­that­is­often­used­in­information­technology­environments,­but­sta-bilizing­approaches.1­The­different­notions­of­interoperability­referenced­above­reflect­the­same­issue.­Future­scholarly­publishing­will­greatly­benefit­from­a­socio-culturally­motivated­misappropriation­and­reinterpretation­of­technological­concepts.­The­same­could­however­also­be­stated­in­the­opposite­way:­future­scholarly­publishing­will­greatly­benefit­from­technological­substantiation­of­socio-culturally­motivated­approaches­to­new­forms­of­publishing,­which­often­treated­technological­implementation­as­a­negligible­aspect.

Design­questions­that­follow­the­cohesion­principle­may­ask,­for­instance,­what­type­and­level­of­volatility­of­continuously­updatable­publications­still­meet­the­requirements­of­efficient­citing­practices;­which­degree­of­multi-modality­and­multimedia­in­publications­can­be­sustained­by­preservation­infrastructure­and­remain­accessible­for­consumers;­in­which­ways­should­publications­share­data­and­computations,­considering­that­there­are­different­notions­of­the­nature­of­data­and­computation?

How­to­interlace­principles­of­methodological­“openness”­and­accessibility­in­terms­of­copyright­with­the­political­economy­of­researcher­careers­and­the­uneven­relationship­between­public­and­private­research?2

Building­on­the­principle­of­cohesion,­many­initiatives­in­the­first­and­third­phase­of­the­digital­publication­history­were­not­engineering­the­new­scholarly­publishing­landscape.­They­mostly­just­outlined­the­elements­and­components­that­an­emergent­publishing­landscape­might­refer­to.­This­is­not­to­say­that­such­contributions­are­not­important­or­necessary,­but­it­put­a­different­light­on­corresponding­expectations­and­desires,­the­analysis­of­which­was­one­of­the­primary­goals­of­this­study.­The­mismatch­between­the­type­of­engagement­these­contributions­choose­to­carry­out­and­the­type­of­engagement­they­proclaimed­to­follow­can­be­found­without­doubt­in­all­situations­in­which­frustration­and­disappointment­went­hand­in­hand­with­the­design­of­digital­publications­as­presented­in­the­introduction.­To,­therefore,­qualify­these­engagements­can­hopefully­also­lead­to­a­better­

1­ Dallas­(2016),­in­the­context­of­modelling,­calls­a­comparable­difference­the­difference­between­the­“wild­frontier”­approach­and­the­“contact­zone”­approach.­The­first­approach­seeks­harmonization­in­a­top-down­fashion,­while­the­latter­emphasizes­negotiation­and­agreements­between­relevant­stakeholders.

2­ In­this­context,­the­new­initiative­by­Herb­and­Schöpfel­(2018)­to­establish­a­domain­of­critical­open­access­studies­for­the­support­of­open­access­values­has­to­be­very­much­welcomed.

Conclusion 341

valorization­of­the­gains­that­they­actually­made,­especially­by­those­skeptic­of­changes­of­scholarly­publications.

The­term­cohesion­and­the­discussion­of­design­decisions­that­support­cohesion­refers­to­the­description­of­scholarly­publications­as­modes­of­communication­that­were­developed­at­the­end­of­the­final­chapter.­The­introduction­mentioned­that­a­certain­notion­of­scholarly­publications­needs­to­be­developed­in­order­to­re-configure­the­discourse­on­digital­publications,­and­mode­is­the­cautious­response­to­this­need.­It­fur-thermore became clear why this notion has to remain cautious: although the­phenomena­of­mode­and­stability­in­communication­are­crucial­issues­for­the­purpose­of­communication­in­general,­resources­are­now­avail-able­for­the­realization­of­situational­communicative­goals­which­formerly­shaped­the­possibility­of­communicating­as­such.

It­was­said­that­more­than­ever,­form­is­hardly­separable­from­content.­This­is­just­another­way­of­phrasing­Owen’s­remark­that­digital­technologies­are­technologies­that­are­formed­instead­of­forming­technologies.­It­is­therefore­not­reasonable­to­assume,­nor­to­strive­for,­the­one­new­pub-lication­format,­not­even­for­the­fewest­imaginable­numbers­of­formats.­Heterogeneity­of­publication­formats­is­and­will­be­a­fact­of­publishing­after­the­digital.­To­realize­and­to­accept­this­may­significantly­help­to­overcome­great­parts­of­the­frustration­in­the­field.­It­is­therefore­necessary­to­refrain­from­overambitious­ideas­of­defining­contemporary­scholarly­publishing,­an­idea­which,­for­instance,­drives­the­fields­of­SPs,­EPs,­ROs,­and­others.

This­does­not­mean,­on­the­other­hand,­that­publishing­formats­should­be­arbitrary,­a­direction­that­can­be­observed­in­some­arguments­of­TPs­and­HPs.­If­the­ongoing­success­of­the­PDF­is­to­be­interpreted,­then­it­is­both,­the­incapacity­of­the­digital­publishing­field­to­deal­with­the­extent­of­different­and­conflicting­demands­articulated­in­the­field,­as­well­as­the­unsystematized­or­welcomed­randomness­of­options­for­“going­digital”­in­publishing.­No­new­type­of­scholarly­publication,­but­neither­no­typing­at­all,­that­is­the­space­in­which­scholarly­publishing­finds­itself­today.­This­is­the­situation­of­publications­in­terms­of­communication.

The­example­of­the­chain­of­developments­from­SPs­to­NPs­to­MPs,­as­well­as­the­coexistence­of­professionally­operated­research­blogs­next­to­monograph­publications,­show­very­well­how,­in­defined­social­environ-ments,­demands­for­different­levels­of­publishing­exist­in­parallel.­Accordingly,­certain­formats­might­become­publishing­modes­across­different­social­environments,­and­in­each­environment,­there­will­probably­be­more­than­one­publishing­mode.­A­systematic­description­and­

342 Beyond the Flow

development­of­this­ecology,­in­contrast­to­the­often­isolated­or­strongly­focused­contributions­in­the­past,­is­a­task­for­further­research­on­scholarly­publishing.

Concerning­the­analysis­of­the­effects­of­digital­technologies­on­the­semi-otic­landscape,­it­seems­appropriate­indeed­to­conceive­of­publishing­from­a­standpoint­of­communication.­In­contrast­to­the­way­of­doing­so­in­the­field­of­digital­publishing,­in­which­the­meaning­of­the­concept­of­publishing­remains­widely­unrelated,­publishing­is­an­organizational­intervention­into­communication.­As­such,­the­two­are­neither­the­same­nor­opposites.­Publications­in­form­of­communication­create­a­continuum,­in­which­due­to­digital­technologies­transitions­have­become­extremely­fluent­and­are­marked­by­different­communicative­goals.

It­would­in­any­case­offer­great­support­to­research­on­new­forms­of­scholarly­publishing­to­evaluate­and­systematize­the­backgrounds­and­goals­of­acts­of­scholarly­communication,­and­relate­them­to­possible­formats.­The­argument­of­Pettifer's­et­al.­(2011)­observations­on­the­success­of­the­PDF­has­emphasized­this­already.­This­study­has­also­taken­a­first­step­in­this­respect,­even­if­it­only­made­epistemological­goals­and­goals­in­innovation­transparent.­It­should­be­obvious­from­the­arguments­given­that­communication­goals­mean­so­much­more­than­this.

The­description­of­publications­as­“currency”­for­the­curricula­of­academics,­the­dissemination­of­knowledge,­or­the­provision­of­accountability­for­truth­are­all­aspects­that,­of­course,­are­not­false,­but­far­too­abstract­for­understanding­the­entire­context­of­different­communications­today.­Vari-ation­refers­to­questions­such­as:­dissemination­to­whom,­what­kind­of­knowledge,­which­step,­what­part­of­the­curriculum,­and­many­more.

The­abovementioned­continuum­of­stability­of­new­forms­of­scholarly­publications­brings­to­mind,­again,­the­positive­mention­of­the­Journal­for­Digital­Humanities­and­the­OLBs,­for­their­effort­to­“lift”­certain­com-munications­to­more­formal­forms­of­communication.­Scholarly­publishing­after­the­digital­is­indeed­an­activity­that­defines­certain­organizational­stages­in­this­continuum.­Such­stages­correspond­to­clearly­defined­com-munication­strategies,­with­environments­able­to­sustain­them.­They­do­not­exist­just­because­it­is­possible­to­imagine­them.­Accordingly,­it­is­not­necessary­to­generally­treat­a­tweet­or­a­twitter­dump­as­a­publication,­like­the­publication­taxonomy­suggests­(Worthington­and­Furter­2014).­Never-theless,­communication­goals­may­exist­that­make­it­worth­transforming­such­tweets­or­dumps­into­publications,­by­lifting­them­into­a­context­that­has­another­organizational­stage­and­adds­structure.­In­this­respect,­

Conclusion 343

the­Debates­in­the­Digital­Humanities­series­provides­another­insightful­example.­These­anthologies­publish,­among­other­things,­texts­which­have­been­written­and­published­as­blog­posts­already.­Accordingly,­they­pull­content­out­of­a­more­day-to-day­and­ephemeral­publication­context­and­stage­it­in­a­publishing­environment­with­greater­social,­infrastructural,­and­symbolic­support.­Following­such­examples,­publishing­after­the­digital­can­also­be­defined­as­staging­communication.­The­task­for­an­accompanying­research­field­would­then­be­to­take­care­of­popular­or­promising­stages.­For­each­publication­mode­to­arise­it­is­hence­also­necessary­to­ask­how­far­staging,­in­terms­of­intended­organizational­complexity,­has­to­go.

The­answers­to­this­and­other,­aforementioned,­questions­that­attempt­to­describe­the­attitude­towards­scholarly­publishing­after­the­digital­have­to­come­from­an­autonomous­conceptual­space­of­publications.­This­space­is­rendered­by­the­potential­to­design­more­than­ephemeral­formations­between­techno-materiality,­socio-culture,­and­epistemologico-semiology,­but­indeed­also­less­stable­ones­than­required­for­the­ultimate­resource­of­“objectivation,”­as­Owen­has­put­it.­It­must­refrain­from­objectifying­the­objectivation­function­of­publications­itself.­These­abovementioned­formations­do­not­just­emerge­along­the­way.­This­is­what­the­experiences­of­the­first­and­third­period­of­digital­publishing­can­teach.­Neither­only­a­fascination­for­new­ways­to­represent,­nor­ethical­drives­to­restructure­the­political­economy­of­knowledge­production­and­dissemination,­and­certainly not the implementation of technological principles will be able to­help­saturate­the­landscape­of­scholarly­publishing.­Instead,­publishing­modes­will­emerge­in­spaces­where­costs,­motivations,­and­benefits­in­such­areas­are­able­to­accommodate­each­other.­And­there­is­still­a­long­way­to­go­for­this­to­happen.

According­to­the­arguments­presented­in­the­last­sections,­the­key­question­of­a­research­field­of­scholarly­publishing­today­actually­is:­when­is­it,­and­should­it­be,­publishing?­This­is­a­question­calling­for­concrete­answers­in­concrete­contexts.­The­notion­of­a­revolution­to­come­and­its­counter-claim­that­no­substantial­changes­will­actually­take­place,­that,­as­shown­in­the­introduction,­so­much­drive­the­engagement­into­the­field­of­publications­today,­require­some­final,­general­answers.­To­the­revolutionaries,­a­suit-able­response­alludes­to­a­title­by­UB­advocate­Bruno­Latour­(1993).­Just­like­he­tries­to­convince­that­“we­have­never­been­modern,”­it­could­be­argued­that­there­never­have­been­digital­publications­and­there­will­never­be­any.

A­response­to­the­skeptics­would­be­to­emphasize­that­the­discourse­on­digital­technologies,­and­the­drive­towards­digital­publications­has­

344 Beyond the Flow

disrupted­scholarly­publishing­too­much­already.­Whether­such­realities­emerged­under­questionable­circumstances­or­not­is­of­secondary­con-cern.­It­could­even­be­argued­that­it­is­not­so­much­about­how­convincing­these­circumstances­are,­but­about­how­much­the­historical­configuration­of­scholarly­publications­dealt­with­its­own­questionable­circumstances,­heterogeneity,­and­imaginary­drivers.­It­thereby­might­have­caused­the­drive­towards­digital­publications­in­the­first­place,­long­before­digital­technologies­gave­it­form.­In­any­case,­the­important­task­now­is­to­make­sense­of­these­realities.­The­present­study­has­tried­to­contribute­to­this­task,­by­providing­the­means­to­see­and­build­some­patterns­where­there­is­so­much­regret­about­heterogeneity,­or­celebration­of­messiness.

A P P E N D I X

Acronyms

ACM­­ Association­for­Computing­

Machinery

AIDA­ Atomic,­Independent,­

Declarative,­Absolute

ANVC­ Alliance­for­Networking­Visual­

Culture

API­ Application­Programming­

Interface

APs­ Automated­Publications

CRIS­ Current­Research­Information­

Systems

CSS­ Cascading­Style­Sheets

CWA­ Concept­Web­Alliance

DDC­ Dewey­Decimal­Classification

DH­ Digital­Humanities

DIDL­ Digital­Item­Declaration­

Language

DOI­ Digital­Object­Identifier

DP Data Paper

DPO­ Digital­Publishing­

Organizations

DRIVER­ Digital­Repository­Infra-

structure­Vision­for­European­

Research

EP­ Enhanced­Publication

EPMS­ Enhanced­Publications­Man-

agement­Systems

ERC­ Executable­Research­

Compendiums

FORCE­ The­Future­of­Research­Com-

munications­and­e-Scholarship

FRBR­ Functional­Requirements­for­

Bibliographic­Records

GBIF­ Global­Biodiversity­Infor-

mation­Facility

HP­ Hybrid­Publication

HTML­ Hypertext­Markup­Language

IMEJ­(IMMJ)­Interactive­Multimedia­Elec-

tronic Journals

IMRaD­ Introduction,­Methods,­Results­

and­Discussion

JDH­ Journal­for­Digital­Humanities

JSON­ JavaScript­Object­Notation

JSTOR­ Journal­STORage

KISS­ Keep­it­simple,­stupid

LB­ Living­Book

LOD­ Linked­Open­Data

LORE­ Literature­Object­Re-use­and­

Exchange

LP­ Liquid­Publication

LaP­ Layered­Article

MA­ Modular­Article

MIA­ Multimodal­Interaction­

Analysis

MP­ Micro­Publication

MuA­ Multimodal­Analysis

NP Nano Publication

OA­ Open­Access

OAI­ Open­Archives­Initiative

OAI-ORE­ Open­Archives­Initiative­Object­

Reuse­and­Exchange

OAI-PMH­ Open­Archives­Initiative­

Protocol­for­Metadata­

Harvesting

OCR­ Optical­Character­Recognition

OLB­ Open­Laboratory­Book,­

sometimes­also­referred­to­as­

Open­Notebook­Science

OWL­ Web­Ontology­Language

PDF­ Portable­Document­Format

PID­ Persistent­Identifier

PLOS­ Public­Library­of­Science

RDF­ Resource­Description­

Framework

350 Beyond the Flow

RDFS­ Resource­Description­Frame-

work­Schema

RIDE­ Review­Journal­for­Scholarly­

Digital­Editions

RIP Rich Internet Publication

RO­ Research­Object

RSS­ Really­Simple­Syndication

SALT­ Semantically­Annotated­LaTeX

SCI­ Scholarly­Communication­

Infrastructure

SCOPE­ Scientific­Compound­Object­

Publishing

SCP­ Self-Contained­Publication

SGML­ Standard­Generalized­Markup­

Language

SKO­ Scientific­Knowledge­Object­

Pattern

SP­ Semantic­Publication

SPARC­ Scholarly­Publishing­and­

Academic­Resources­Coalition

SPARQL­ SPARQL­Protocol­and­RDF­

Query­Language

SPP­ Scientific­Publication­Package

SPRO­ Semantic­Publishing­and­

Referencing­Ontologies

SW­ Semantic­Web

SWAN­ Semantic­Web­Applications­in­

Neuromedicine

TEI­ Text­Encoding­Initiative

TP­ Transmedia­Publication

UB­ Unbound­Book

UML­ Unified­Modelling­Language

UMLS­ Unified­Medical­Language­

System

UNIX­ Uniplexed­Information­and­

Computing­Service

URI­ Uniform­Resource­Identifier

URL­ Uniform­Resource­Locator

VCS­ Version­Control­System

WYSIWIG­ What­you­see­is­what­you­get

WYSIWYM­ What­you­see­is­what­you­mean

XML­ Extensible­Markup­Language

References

Aalbersberg,­Ijsbrand­Jan,­Sophia­Atzeni,­Hylke­Koers,­Beate­Specker,­and­Elena­Zudilova-Seinstra.­2014.­“Bringing­Digital­Science­Deep­Inside­the­Scientific­Article:­The­Elsevier­Article­of­the­Future­Project.”­Liber Quarterly­23­(4):­274–99.­doi:10.18352/lq.8446.

Abargues,­Carlos,­Carlos­Granell,­and­Joaquín­Huerta.­2010.­“Describiendo­colecciones­de­recursos­para­la­Web­de­Datos.”­GeoInfo.­http://www.geoinfo.uji.es/pubs/2010-jiide-GeoCollector.pdf.

Abbinnett,­Ross.­2017.­The Thought of Bernard Stiegler: Capitalism, Technology and the Politics of Spirit.­London:­Taylor­&­Francis.

Ackoff,­Russell­L.­1989.­“From­Data­to­Wisdom.”­Journal of Applied Systems Analysis­16­(1):­3–9.Adema,­Janneke.­2014.­“Hybrid­Publishing:­Scalar­and­Watching­Reading­Write.”­

Open Reflections.­March­18.­https://openreflections.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/hybrid-publishing-scalar-and-watching-reading-write/.

———.­2015.­“Knowledge­Production­Beyond­the­Book?­Performing­the­Scholarly­Monograph­in­Contemporary­Digital­Culture.”­Coventry:­Coventry­University.

Adema,­Janneke,­and­Gary­Hall.­2016.­“Posthumanities:­The­Dark­Side­of­‘The­Dark­Side­of­the­Digital’”.­Journal of Electronic Publishing­19­(2).­doi:10.3998/3336451.0019.201.

Adriaansen,­Dennis,­and­Jürgen­Hooft.­2010.­“Properties­of­Enhanced­Publications­and­the­Supporting­Tools.”­http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/mdic/papers/Adriaansen-fin.pdf.

Agosti,­Maristella,­Owen­Conlan,­Nicola­Ferro,­Cormac­Hampson,­and­Gary­Munnelly.­2013.­“Interacting­with­Digital­Cultural­Heritage­Collections­via­Annotations:­The­CULTURA­Approach.”­In­Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering,­13–22.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2494266.2494288.

Akers,­Katherine.­2014.­“A­Growing­List­of­Data­Journals.”­Data@MLibrary.­May­9T13:00:29+00:00.­https://mlibrarydata.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/data-journals/.

Alsop,­Graham,­Chris­Tompsett,­and­James­Wisdom.­1997.­“A­Study­of­Human­Com-munication­Issues­in­Interactive­Scholarly­Electronic­Journals:­eLib­Supporting­Study.”­35423.­UKOLN,­University­of­Bath.­http://opus.bath.ac.uk/35423/.

Amerika,­Mark.­2011a.­“Remixthebook.”­http://www.remixthebook.com/.———.­2011b.­Remixthebook.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press.Andersen,­Christian­Ulrik,­Geoff­Cox,­and­Georgios­Papadopoulos,­eds.­2014.­“Post-Digital­

Research.”­A Peer-Reviewed Journal About­3­(1).­http://www.aprja.net/?page_id=1291.Anderson,­Chris.­2008.­“The­End­of­Theory:­The­Data­Deluge­Makes­the­Scientific­

Method­Obsolete.”­Wired,­no.­16.07­(March).­https://www.google.de/url?sa=-t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2v4iK-KzaAhWGb1AKHd0QCKwQFggrMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2F2008%2F06%2Fpb-theory%2F&usg=AOvVaw0e06Sdy3GcTRtNvbdynoAG.

Anderson,­Nicholas­R.,­Peter­Tarczy-Hornoch,­and­Roger­E.­Bumgarner.­2006.­“On­the­Persistence­of­Supplementary­Resources­in­Biomedical­Publications.”­BMC Bioinformatics 7­(1).­doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-260.

Andrews,­Ian.­2002.­“Post-Digital­Aesthetics­and­the­Return­to­Modernism.”­Presented­at­the­MAP-Uts­Lecture.­http://www.ian-andrews.org/texts/postdig.html.

Andriopoulos,­Stefan.­2003.­“Okkulte­und­technische­Television.”­In­Text und Wissen: technologische und anthropologische Aspekte,­edited­by­Renate­Lachmann­and­Stefan­Rieger,­105–26.­Tübingen:­Gunter­Narr­Verlag.

Assante,­Massimiliano,­Leonardo­Candela,­Donatella­Castelli,­and­Alice­Tani.­2016.­“Are­Scientific­Data­Repositories­Coping­with­Research­Data­Publishing?”­Data Science Journal 15­(April).­doi:10.5334/dsj-2016-006.

352 Beyond the Flow

Assante,­Massimiliano,­Leonardo­Candela,­Donatella­Castelli,­Paolo­Manghi,­and­Pasquale­Pagano.­2015.­“Science­2.0­Repositories:­Time­for­a­Change­in­Scholarly­Communication.”­D-Lib Magazine­21­(1):­4.­doi:10.1045/january2015-assante.

Attwood,­Teresa­K.,­David­Kell,­Philip­McDermott,­James­Marsh,­and­David­Thorne.­2010.­“Utopia­Documents:­Linking­Scholarly­Literature­with­Research­Data.”­Bioinformatics­26­(18):­i568–i574.­doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq383.

Baez,­Marcos,­and­Fabio­Casati.­2010.­“Liquid­Journals:­Knowledge­Dissemination­in­the­Web­Era.”­DISI-10-028.­University­of­Trento.­http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00001814/01/028.pdf.

Baez,­Marcos,­Aliaksandr­Birukou,­Fabio­Casati,­Maurizio­Marchese,­and­Daniil­Mirylenka.­2009.­“Liquid­Journals:­Overcoming­Information­Overload­in­the­Scientific­Community.”­https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=10spyCxs-G5jcUD7AhTr6TVRON9QTddCkUg00TO9tmK8&pli=1.

Ball,­Cheryl­E.­2016.­“The­Shifting­Genres­of­Scholarly­Multimedia:­Webtexts­As­Innovation.”­The Journal of Media Innovations­3­(2):­52–71.­doi:10.5617/jmi.v3i2.2548.

———.­2017.­“Building­a­Scholarly­Multimedia­Publishing­Infrastructure.”­Journal of Scholarly Publishing­48­(2):­99–115.­doi:10.3138/jsp.48.2.99.

Ball,­Cheryl­E.,­and­Douglas­Eyman.­2015.­“Editorial­Workflows­for­Multimedia-Rich­Scholar-ship.”­The Journal of Electronic Publishing­18­(4).­doi:10.3998/3336451.0018.406.

Bardi,­Alessia.­2014.­“Scholarly­Communication:­What’s­Wrong­with­It?”­https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/attachment/AlessiaBardi.pdf.

Bardi,­Alessia,­and­Paolo­Manghi.­2014.­“Enhanced­Publications:­Data­Models­and­Infor-mation­Systems.”­Liber Quarterly­23­(4):­240–73.­doi:10.18352/lq.8445/.

———.­2015a.­“A­Framework­Supporting­the­Shift­from­Traditional­Digital­Publications­to­Enhanced­Publications.”­D-Lib Magazine­21­(1/2).­doi:10.1045/january2015-bardi.

———.­2015b.­“Enhanced­Publication­Management­Systems:­A­Systemic­Approach­Towards­Modern­Scientific­Communication.”­In­Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion,­1051–2.­International­World­Wide­Web­Conferences­Steering­Committee.­doi:10.1145/2740908.2742026.

Bartling,­Sönke,­and­Sascha­Friesike.­2014.­“Towards­Another­Scientific­Revolution.”­In­Opening Science,­edited­by­Sönke­Bartling­and­Sascha­Friesike,­3–15.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_1.

Beall,­Jeffrey.­2013.­“Predatory­Publishing­Is­Just­One­of­the­Consequences­of­Gold­Open­Access.”­Learned Publishing­26­(2):­79–84.­doi:10.1087/20130203.

———.­2017.­“Scholarly­Open­Access­Critical­Analysis­of­Scholarly­Open-Access­Publishing.”­January­11.­https://web.archive.org/web/20170111172309/https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/.

Bechhofer,­Sean,­John­Ainsworth,­Jiten­Bhagat,­Iain­Buchan,­Philip­Couch,­Don­Cruickshank,­Mark­Delderfield,­Ian­Dunlop,­Matthew­Gamble,­and­Carole­A.­Goble.­2010.­“Why­Linked­Data­Is­Not­Enough­for­Scientists.”­In­2010 IEEE Sixth International Conference on E-Science (E-Science),­300–307.­Brisbane:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/eScience.2010.21.

Bechhofer,­Sean,­Khalid­Belhajjame,­Jun­Zhao,­Daniel­Garijo,­Kristina­Hettne,­Raul­Palma,­Óscar­Corcho,­José-Manuel­Gómez-Pérez,­Graham­Klyne,­and­Carole­A.­Goble.­2014.­“The­Research­Object­Suite­of­Ontologies:­Sharing­and­Exchanging­Research­Data­and­Methods­on­the­Open­Web.”­ArXiv Preprint­1401­(4307).­https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4307.

Bechhofer,­Sean,­Óscar­Corcho,­Daniel­Garijo­Verdejo,­Khalid­Belhajjame,­Jun­Zhao,­Paolo­Missier,­David­Newman,­et­al.­2012.­“Workflow-Centric­Research­Objects:­First­Class­Cit-izens­in­Scholarly­Discourse.”­In­Proceedings of Workshop on the Semantic Publishing.­Vol.­994.­Crete:­CEUR.

References 353

Bechhofer,­Sean,­David­De­Roure,­Matthew­Gamble,­Carole­Goble,­and­Iain­Buchan.­2010.­“Research­Objects:­Towards­Exchange­and­Reuse­of­Digital­Knowledge.”­Nature Precedings,­no.­713­( July).­doi:10.1038/npre.2010.4626.1.

Becker,­Gabriel,­Cory­Barr,­Robert­Gentleman,­and­Michael­Lawrence.­2017.­“Enhancing­Reproducibility­and­Collaboration­via­Management­of­R­Package­Cohorts.”­Journal of Sta-tistical Software­82­(1).­doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i01.

Bekaert,­Jeroen,­Patrick­Hochstenbach,­and­Herbert­Van­de­Sompel.­2003.­“Using­MPEG-21­DIDL­to­Represent­Complex­Digital­Objects­in­the­Los­Alamos­National­Laboratory­Digital­Library.”­D-Lib Magazine­9­(11).­doi:10.1045/november2003-bekaert.

Berners-Lee,­Tim.­2009.­“Linked­Data­-­Design­Issues.”­http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html.

Berners-Lee,­Tim,­James­Hendler,­and­Ora­Lassila.­2001.­“The­Semantic­Web­A­New­Form­of­Web­Content­That­Is­Meaningful­to­Computers­Will­Unleash­a­Revolution­of­New­Pos-sibilities.”­Scientific American­284­(5):­34–43.­doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34.

Bernstein,­Paula.­2016.­“What­Is­a­Video­Essay?­Creators­Grapple­with­a­Def-inition.”­Filmmaker Magazine.­May­3.­https://filmmakermagazine.com/98248-what-is-a-video-essay-creators-grapple-with-a-definition/.

Berry,­David­M.­2013.­“Post-Digital­Humanities.”­Stunlaw.­October­17.­http://stunlaw.blog-spot.de/2013/10/post-digital-humanities.html.

Bijker,­Wiebe­E.­2009.­“Social­Construction­of­Technology.”­In­A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology,­edited­by­Stig­Andur­Pedersen,­Vincent­F.­Hendricks,­Jan­Kyrre­Berg­Olsen,­and­Marc­Vries,­1st­ed.,­88–94.­Blackwell­Companions­to­Philosophy­43.­Chichester,­UK:­Wiley-Blackwell.

Birchall,­Clare,­and­Gary­Hall.­2006.­New Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory.­Athens,­Georgia:­University­of­Georgia­Press.

Bishop,­Ann­Peterson.­1999.­“Document­Structure­and­Digital­Libraries:­How­Researchers­Mobilize­Information­in­Journal­Articles.”­Information Processing & Management­35­(3):­255–79.­doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00061-2.

Bizer,­Christian,­Richard­Cyganiak,­and­Tom­Heath.­2007.­“How­to­Publish­Linked­Data­on­the­Web.”­http://wifo5-03.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/.

de­Boer,­Tim,­and­Kim­Verkooij.­2011.­“Interactive­Visualization­Toolkits­for­Rich­Internet­Pub-lications.”­http://www.computerscience.nl/docs/vakken/mdic/papers/Verkooij-deBoer-fin.pdf.

Boeriis,­Morten,­and­Christian­Mosbaek­Johannessen.­2015.­“Semogenetic­Perspectives­on­Conventionalization­Dynamics.”­In­Conference Abstracts. Multimodality: Methodological Explorations.­London:­University­College­London.­https://multimodalmethodologies.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/mme-programme-and-abstracts.pdf.

Boettiger,­Carl.­2015.­“An­Introduction­to­Docker­for­Reproducible­Research,­with­Exam-ples­from­the­R­Environment.”­ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review­49­(1):­71–79.­doi:10.1145/2723872.2723882.

Bogost,­Ian.­2012.­Alien Phenomenology, or What It ’s Like to Be a Thing.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press.

Borgman,­Christine­L.,­Jillian­C.­Wallis,­and­Noel­Enyedy.­2007.­“Little­Science­Confronts­the­Data­Deluge:­Habitat­Ecology,­Embedded­Sensor­Networks,­and­Digital­Libraries.”­Inter-national Journal on Digital Libraries­7­(1-2):­17–30.­doi:10.1007/s00799-007-0022-9.

Bourdieu,­Pierre.­2010.­“The­Forms­of­Capital.”­In­Cultural Theory: An Anthology,­edited­by­Imre­Szeman­and­Timothy­Kaposy,­81–93.­Chichester:­Wiley-Blackwell.

Bourne,­Philip­E.­2005.­“Will­a­Biological­Database­Be­Different­from­a­Biological­Journal?”­PLoS Computational Biology­1­(3):­179–81.­doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010034.

———.­2010.­“What­Do­I­Want­from­the­Publisher­of­the­Future?”­PLoS Computational Biology 6­(5).­doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000787.

354 Beyond the Flow

———.­2011.­“Digital­Research/Analog­Publishing­One­Scientist’s­View.”­Serials­24­(2):­119–22.­doi:10.1629/24119.

Bourne,­Philip­E.,­Simon­Buckingham­Shum,­Paolo­Ciccarese,­Bradley­P.­Allen,­Aliaksandr­Birukou,­Judith­A.­Blake,­Gully­Burns,­Leslie­Chan,­Olga­Chiarcos,­and­Tim­Clark.­2012.­“Improving­the­Future­of­Research­Communications­and­E-Scholarship.”­Dagstuhl Man-ifestos,­41–60.­doi:10.4230/DagMan.1.1.41.

Bourne,­Philip­E.,­David­Shotton,­Ivan­Herman,­Anita­de­Waard,­Timothy­W.­Clark,­Robert­Dale,­and­Eduard­H.­Hovy.­2012.­“Improving­the­Future­of­Research­Communications­and­E-Scholarship.”­Dagstuhl Manifestos.­doi:10.4230/DagMan.1.1.41.

Boyd,­Danah.­2017.­“Toward­Accountability­Data,­Fairness,­Algorithms,­Consequences.”­Data & Society: Points.­April­13.

Bradley,­Arthur.­2011.­Originary Technicity: The Theory of Technology from Marx to Derrida.­London,­New­York:­Palgrave­Macmillan.

Bradley,­Jean-Claude.­2007.­“Open­Notebook­Science­Using­Blogs­and­Wikis.”­Nature Precedings,­no.­713­( June).­doi:10.1038/npre.2007.39.1.

Bradley,­Jean-Claude,­and­Kevin­Owens.­2008.­“Chemistry­Crowdsourcing­and­Open­Notebook­Science.”­Nature Precedings,­no.­713­( January).­doi:10.1038/npre.2008.1505.1.

Bradley,­Jean-Claude,­Rajarshi­Guha,­Andrew­Lang,­Pierre­Lindenbaum,­Cameron­Neylon,­Antony­Williams,­and­Egon­L.­Willighagen.­2010.­“Beautifying­Data­in­the­Real­World.”­Nature Precedings,­no.­713­(September):­259–78.­doi:10.1038/npre.2010.4918.1.

Brammer,­Grant­R.,­Ralph­W.­Crosby,­Suzanne­J.­Matthews,­and­Tiffani­L.­Williams.­2011.­“Paper­Mâché:­Creating­Dynamic­Reproducible­Science.”­Procedia Computer Science,­Proceedings­of­the­International­Conference­on­Computational­Science,­ICCS­2011,­4:­658–67.­doi:10.1016/j.procs.2011.04.069.

Bresland,­John.­2010.­“On­the­Origin­of­the­Video­Essay.”­Blackbird­9­(1).­https://blackbird.vcu.edu/v9n1/gallery/ve-bresland_j/ve-origin_page.shtml.

Breure,­Leen.­2014.­“Transforming­a­Research­Paper­into­a­Rich­Internet­Publication.”­Infor-mation Services & Use­34­(3–4):­335–44.­doi:10.3233/ISU-140757.

Breure,­Leen,­Maarten­Hoogerwerf,­and­René­van­Horik.­2014.­“Xpos’re:­A­Tool­for­Rich­Inter-net­Publications.”­Digital Humanities Quarterly­8­(2).

Breure,­Leen,­Hans­Voorbij,­and­Maarten­Hoogerwerf.­2011.­“Rich­Internet­Publications:­‘Show­What­You­Tell’.”­Journal of Digital Information­12­(1).

Brooking,­Charles,­Stephen­R.­Shouldice,­Gautier­Robin,­Bostjan­Kobe,­Jennifer­L.­Martin,­and­Jane­Hunter.­2009.­“Comparing­METS­and­OAI-ORE­for­Encapsulating­Scientific­Data­Products:­A­Protein­Crystallography­Case­Study.”­In­E-Science’09. Fifth IEEE International Conference On,­148–55.­Oxford:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/e-Science.2009.29.

Brown,­Titus.­2016.­“What­Is­Open­Science?”­Living in an Ivory Basement Stochastic Thoughts on Science, Testing, and Programming.­October­22.­http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2016-what-is-open-science.html.

Brüggemann-Klein,­Anne.­1995.­“Wissenschaftliches­Publizieren­im­Umbruch.”­Informatik Forschung und Entwicklung­10­(4):­171–79.­doi:10.1007/s004500050025.

Brüggemann-Klein,­Anne,­Günther­Cyranek,­and­Albert­Endres.­1995.­“Die­fachlichen­Informations-­und­Publikationsdienste­der­Zukunft­Eine­Initiative­der­Gesellschaft­für­Informatik.”­In­GISI 95,­edited­by­Friedbert­Huber-Wäschle,­Helmut­Schauer,­and­Peter­Widmayer,­2–12.­Informatik­aktuell.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.

Buckingham­Shum,­Simon,­and­Tim­Clark.­2010.­“Scientific­Discourse­on­the­Semantic­Web:­A­Survey­of­Models­and­Enabling­Technologies.”­Semantic Web Journal: Inter-operability, Usability, Applicability.­http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/scientific-discourse-semantic-web-survey-models-and-enabling-technologies.

Buckley,­Jake.­2011.­“Believing­in­the­(Analogico-)­Digital.”­Culture Machine­12.­http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/viewDownloadInterstitial/432/463.

References 355

Burg,­Jennifer,­Yue-Ling­Wong,­Ching-Wan­Yip,­and­Anne­Boyle.­2000.­“The­State­of­the­Art­in­Interactive­Multimedia­Journals­for­Academia.”­In­Proceedings of EdMedia: World Con-ference on Educational Media and Technology 2000,­2:­37–42.­Montréal:­Association­for­the­Advancement­of­Computing­in­Education.­http://www.editlib.org/p/16036.

Burkhardt,­Marcus.­2015.­“Hybrid­Publishing­Lab.­Wissenschaftliche­Kommunikation­Im­Digitalen­Zeitalter.”­Leuphana.­https://www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/portale/inkubator/download/1504_A01_HybridPublishing_DIN_lang_16s_de_RZ_lay.pdf.

Burn,­Andrew.­2013.­“The­Kineiconic­Mode.­Towards­a­Multimodal­Approach­to­Moving-Image­Media.”­In­The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis,­edited­by­Carey­Jewitt,­2nd­ed.,­375–85.­Routledge.

Callaghan,­Sarah.­2013.­“Data­Journals­–­as­Soon-to-Be-Obsolete­Stepping­Stone­to­Something­Better?”­Citing Bytes – Adventures in Data Citation.­January­29.­http://citingbytes.blogspot.com/2013_01_01_archive.html.

Callaghan,­Sarah,­Fiona­Hewer,­Sam­Pepler,­Paul­Hardaker,­and­Alan­Gadian.­2009.­“Overlay­Journals­and­Data­Publishing­in­the­Meteorological­Sciences.”­Ariadne,­no.­60.­http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue60/callaghan-et-al.

Candela,­Leonardo,­Donatella­Castelli,­and­Pasquale­Pagano.­2013.­“Virtual­Research­Environments:­An­Overview­and­a­Research­Agenda.”­Data Science Journal­12:­GRDI75–GRDI81.­https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/dsj/12/0/12_GRDI-013/_article/-char/ja/.

Candela,­Leonardo,­Donatella­Castelli,­Paolo­Manghi,­and­Alice­Tani.­2015.­“Data­Journals:­A­Survey.”­Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology­66­(9):­1747–62.­doi:10.1002/asi.23358.

Candela,­Leonardo,­Donatella­Castelli,­Pasquale­Pagano,­and­Manuele­Simi.­2005.­“From­Heterogeneous­Information­Spaces­to­Virtual­Documents.”­In­Digital Libraries: Implementing Strategies and Sharing Experiences,­edited­by­Edward­A.­Fox,­Erich­J.­Neu-hold,­Pimrumpai­Premsmit,­and­Vilas­Wuwongse,­11–22.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science­3815.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.

Caracciolo,­Caterina.­2003.­“Towards­Modular­Access­to­Electronic­Handbooks.”­Journal of Digital Information­3­(4).­https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/86.

Carr,­Les­A.,­David­De­Roure,­Wendy­Hall,­and­Gary­J.­Hill.­1995.­“The­Distributed­Link­Service:­A­Tool­for­Publishers,­Authors­and­Readers.”­Project­Report.­Southampton:­Uni-versity­of­Southampton.­http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/250739/.

———.­1998.­“Implementing­an­Open­Link­Service­for­the­World­Wide­Web.”­World Wide Web­1­(2):­61–71.­doi:10.1023/A:1019251328413.

Carter-Thomas,­Shirley,­and­Elizabeth­Rowley-Jolivet.­2017.­“Open­Science­Notebooks:­New­Insights,­New­Affordances.”­Journal of Pragmatics­116­( July):­64–76.­doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.003.

Casati,­Fabio,­Fausto­Giunchiglia,­and­Maurizio­Marchese.­2007.­“Liquid­Publications:­Scientific­Publications­Meet­the­Web.”­Technical­Report­07-073.­Povo.­http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1313/.

Casati,­Fabio,­Maurizio­Marchese,­Cristian­Parra,­Luca­Cernuzzi,­and­Ralf­Gerstner.­2011.­“Liquid­Book:­Collaborative­Reuse­and­Sharing­of­Multifaceted­Content.”­In­Proceedings of 7th European Computer Science Summit.­Trento:­University­of­Trento.

Cascone,­Kim.­2000.­“The­Aesthetics­of­Failure:­“Post-Digital”­Tendencies­in­Contemporary­Computer­Music.”­Computer Music Journal­24­(4):­12–18.

Castelli,­Donatella,­and­Pasquale­Pagano.­2002.­“OpenDLib:­A­Digital­Library­Service­System.”­In­Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries,­292–308.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/3-540-45747-X_22.

Castelli,­Donatella,­Paolo­Manghi,­and­Costantino­Thanos.­2013.­“A­Vision­Towards­Scientific­Communication­Infrastructures.”­International Journal on Digital Libraries­13­(3-4):­155–69.­doi:s00799-013-0106-7.

356 Beyond the Flow

Chavan,­Vishwas,­and­Lyubomir­Penev.­2011.­“The­Data­Paper:­A­Mechanism­to­Incentivize­Data­Publishing­in­Biodiversity­Science.”­BMC Bioinformatics­12­(15):­1–12.­doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-S15-S2.

Chen,­Ya-Ning.­2017.­“An­Analysis­of­Characteristics­and­Structures­Embedded­in­Data­Papers:­A­Preliminary­Study.”­Libellarium: Journal for the Research of Writing, Books, and Cultural Heritage Institutions­9­(2).­doi:10.15291/libellarium.v9i2.266.

Chichester,­Christine,­Pascale­Gaudet,­Oliver­Karch,­Paul­Groth,­Lydie­Lane,­Amos­Bairoch,­Barend­Mons,­and­Antonis­Loizou.­2014.­“Querying­NeXtProt­Nanopublications­and­Their­Value­for­Insights­on­Sequence­Variants­and­Tissue­Expression.”­Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web,­Life­Science­and­e-Science,­29:­3–11.­doi:10.1016/j.websem.2014.05.001.

Chichester,­Christine,­Oliver­Karch,­Pascale­Gaudet,­Lydie­Lane,­Barend­Mons,­and­Amos­Bairoch.­2015.­“Converting­NeXtProt­into­Linked­Data­and­Nanopublications.”­Semantic Web­6­(2):­147–53.­doi:10.3233/SW-140149.

Choudhury,­Sayeed,­Tim­DiLauro,­Alex­Szalay,­Ethan­Vishniac,­Robert­Hanisch,­Julie­Steffen,­Robert­Milkey,­Teresa­Ehling,­and­Ray­Plante.­2008.­“Digital­Data­Preservation­for­Scholarly­Publications­in­Astronomy.”­International Journal of Digital Curation­2­(2):­20–30.­doi:10.2218/ijdc.v2i2.26.

Ciancarini,­Paolo,­Angelo­Di­Iorio,­Andrea­Giovanni­Nuzzolese,­Silvio­Peroni,­and­Fabio­Vitali.­2013.­“Semantic­Annotation­of­Scholarly­Documents­and­Citations.”­In­AI*IA 2013: Advances in Artificial Intelligence,­336–47.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03524-6_29.

Ciccarese,­Paolo,­Marco­Ocana,­and­Tim­Clark.­2012.­“Open­Semantic­Annotation­of­Scientific­Publications­Using­DOMEO.”­Journal of Biomedical Semantics­3­(1).­doi:10.1186/2041-1480-3-S1-S1.

Cito,­Jürgen,­Vincenzo­Ferme,­and­Harald­C.­Gall.­2016.­“Using­Docker­Containers­to­Improve­Reproducibility­in­Software­and­Web­Engineering­Research.”­In­Web Engineering,­edited­by­Alessandro­Bozzon,­Philippe­Cudre-Maroux,­and­Cesare­Pautasso,­609–12.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science­9671.­Berlin:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38791-8_58.

Cito,­Jürgen,­Gerald­Schermann,­John­Erik­Wittern,­Philipp­Leitner,­Sali­Zumberi,­und­Harald­C.­Gall.­2017.­“An­Empirical­Analysis­of­the­Docker­Container­Ecosystem­on­GitHub.”­In­Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories,­323–333.­MSR­’17.­Piscataway:­IEEE­Press.­doi:10.1109/MSR.2017.67.

Clark,­Alex­M.,­Antony­J.­Williams,­and­Sean­Ekins.­2015.­“Machines­First,­Humans­Second:­On­the­Importance­of­Algorithmic­Interpretation­of­Open­Chemistry­Data.”­Journal of Chemin-formatics­7­(March):­9.­doi:10.1186/s13321-015-0057-7.

Clark,­Tim.­2014.­“Next­Generation­Scientific­Publishing­and­the­Web­of­Data.”­Semantic Web Journal­5­(4):­257–59.­http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2786113.2786114.

Clark,­Tim,­and­Paolo­Ciccarese.­2013.­Micropublications.­https://micropublications.googlecode.com/svn/tags/1.17/mp.owl.

Clark,­Tim,­Paolo­Ciccarese,­and­Carole­A.­Goble.­2014.­“Micropublications:­A­Semantic­Model­for­Claims,­Evidence,­Arguments­and­Annotations­in­Biomedical­Communications.”­Journal of Biomedical Semantics­5­(1):­28.­doi:10.1186/2041-1480-5-28.

Clinio,­Anne,­and­Sarita­Albagli.­2017.­“Open­Notebook­Science­as­an­Emerging­Epistemic­Culture­Within­the­Open­Science­Movement.”­Revue Française des Sciences de L’information et de La Communication,­11­(August).­doi:10.4000/rfsic.3186.

Coleman,­Anita­S.­2002.­“Scientific­Models­as­Works.”­Cataloging & Classification Quarterly­33­(3-4):­129–59.­doi:10.1300/J104v33n03_07.

Collin,­Finn.­2008.­Konstruktivismus für Einsteiger.­Paderborn:­Fink.

References 357

Collins,­Ellen,­Caren­Milloy,­and­Graham­Stone.­2015.­“Guide­to­Open­Access­Monograph­Publishing­for­Arts,­Humanities­and­Social­Science­Researchers.”­Jisc­Collections.­doi:10.5920/oapen-uk/oaguide.

Concept­Web­Alliance.­2015.­“Nanopublication­Guidelines.”­February­19.­http://nanopub.org/guidelines/working_draft/.

Cramer,­Florian.­2014.­“What­Is­‘Post-Digital’?”­A Peer-Reviewed Journal About­3­(1).­http://www.aprja.net/?p=1318.

Cranmer,­Kyle,­Lukas­Heinrich,­Roger­Jones,­and­David­M.­South.­2015.­“Analysis­Preservation­in­ATLAS.”­Journal of Physics: Conference Series­664­(3):­032013.­doi:10.1088/1742-6596/664/3/032013.

Creative­Commons.­2005.­“About­Science­Commons.”­Science Commons.­http://sciencecommons.org/about/.

———.­2008.­“Science­Commons­for­Open­Science.”­http://sciencecommons.org/resources/readingroom/principles-for-open-science/.

Crew,­Michael­A.,­and­Timothy­J.­Brennan.­2014.­The Role of the Postal and Delivery Sector in a Digital Age.­Cheltenham:­Edward­Elgar.

Cribb,­Julian,­and­Tjempaka­Hari­Hartomo.­2010.­Open Science: Sharing Knowledge in the Global Century.­Collingwood:­Csiro.

Crick,­Tom,­Benjamin­A.­Hall,­Samin­Ishtiaq,­and­Kenji­Takeda.­2014.­“Share­and­Enjoy:­Pub-lishing­Useful­and­Usable­Scientific­Models.”­In­Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM 7th Inter-national Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing,­957–61.­Washington:­IEEE­Computer­Society.­doi:10.1109/UCC.2014.156.

Critical­Commons.­2016.­“Critical­Commons.­For­Fair­&­Critical­Participation­in­Media­Culture.”­http://www.criticalcommons.org/.

Cyganiak,­Richard.­2015.­“The­Linking­Open­Data­Cloud­Diagram.”­http://lod-cloud.net/.van­Dalen,­Arjen.­2012.­“The­Algorithms­Behind­the­Headlines.”­Journalism Practice­6­(5-6):­

648–58.­doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.667268.Dallas,­Costis.­2016.­“Digital­Curation­Beyond­the­‘Wild­Frontier’:­A­Pragmatic­Approach.”­

Archival Science­16­(4):­421–57.­doi:10.1007/s10502-015-9252-6.Darnton,­Robert.­1999.­“The­New­Age­of­the­Book.”­The New York Review of Books.­46­(5):­5.­

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1999/mar/18/the-new-age-of-the-book/.Davenport,­Elisabeth,­and­Blaise­Cronin.­1990.­“Hypertext­and­the­Conduct­of­Science.”­

Journal of Documentation­46­(3):­175–92.David,­Paul­A.,­Matthijs­den­Besten,­and­Ralph­Schroeder.­2008.­“Will­E-Science­Be­Open­

Science?”­In­World Wide Research,­edited­by­William­H.­Dutton­and­Paul­W.­Jeffreys,­299–316.­Camebridge,­MA:­MIT­Press.

De­Roure,­David.­2010.­“E-Science­and­the­Web.”­IEEE Computer­43­(5):­90–93.­doi:10.1109/MC.2010.133.

———.­2011.­“Machines,­Methods­and­Music:­On­the­Evolution­of­E-Research.”­In­2011 Inter-national Conference on High Performance Computing,­8–13.­Istanbul:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/HPCSim.2011.5999801.

———.­2013.­“Towards­Computational­Research­Objects.”­In­Proceedings of the 1st Inter-national Workshop on Digital Preservation of Research Methods and Artefacts,­16–19.­DPRMA­“13.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2499583.2499590.

———.­2014a.­“Executable­Music­Documents.”­In­Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Digital Libraries for Musicology,­1–3.­DLfM­“14.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2660168.2660183.

———.­2014b.­“The­Future­of­Scholarly­Communications.”­Insights: The UKSG Journal­27­(3):­233–38.­doi:10.1629/2048-7754.171.

De­Roure,­David,­and­Wendy­Hall.­1997.­“Distributed­Multimedia­Information­Systems.”­Multimedia, IEEE­4­(4):­68–73.

358 Beyond the Flow

De­Roure,­David,­Sean­Bechhofer,­and­Carole­A.­Goble.­2011.­“Scientific­Social­Objects:­The­Social­Objects­and­Multidimensional­Network­of­the­MyExperiment­Website.”­In­Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom),­1398–1402.­Boston:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/PASSAT/SocialCom.2011.245.

De­Roure,­David,­Sean­Bechhofer,­Iain­Buchan,­Paolo­Missier,­John­Ainsworth,­Jiten­Bhagat,­Philip­Couch,­et­al.­2013.­“Why­Linked­Data­Is­Not­Enough­for­Scientists.”­Future Generation Computer Systems,­Special­section:­Recent­Advances­in­e-Science,­29­(2):­599–611.­doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.08.004.

De­Roure,­David,­Khalid­Belhajjame,­Paolo­Missier,­José-Manuel­Gómez-Pérez,­Raúl­Palma,­José­Enrique­Ruiz,­Kristina­Hettne,­et­al.­2011.­“Towards­the­Preservation­of­Scientific­Workflows.”­In­Proc 8th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects.­Singapore:­ACM.

De­Roure,­David,­Carole­A.­Goble,­Sergejs­Aleksejevs,­Sean­Bechhofer,­Jiten­Bhagat,­Don­Cruickshank,­Paul­Fisher,­et­al.­2009.­“Towards­Open­Science:­The­MyExperiment­Approach.”­Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience­22­(17):­1–6.­http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17270/.

De­Roure,­David,­Kevin­R.­Page,­Benjamin­Fields,­Tim­Crawford,­J.­Stephen­Downie,­and­Ichiro­Fujinaga.­2011.­“An­E-Research­Approach­to­Web-Scale­Music­Analysis.”­Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences­369­(1949):­3300–3317.­doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0171.

De­Roure,­David,­Marco­Roos,­Kristina­Hettne­Soiland-Reyes,­José­Enrique­Ruiz,­Kevin­R.­Page,­José-Manuel­Gómez-Pérez,­and­Carole­A.­Goble.­2012.­“Ro-Manager:­A­Tool­for­Creating­and­Manipulating­Research­Objects­to­Support­Reproducibility­and­Reuse­in­Sciences.”­In­Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Linked Science 2012.­Boston:­CEUR.

Denning,­Peter­J.,­and­Bernard­Rous.­1995.­“The­ACM­Electronic­Publishing­Plan.”­Com-munications of the ACM­38­(4):­97–109.­doi:10.1145/205323.205348.

Derrida,­Jacques.­1982.­Margins of Philosophy.­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press.Dewar,­James­A.­2000.­“The­Information­Age­and­the­Printing­Press:­Looking­Backward­to­

See­Ahead.”­Ubiquity­2000­(August):­1–es.­doi:10.1145/347634.348784.Diender,­Bas.­2010.­“Enhanced­Publications:­An­Enhanced­Experience?”­University­of­

Utrecht.­http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/mdic/papers/Diender-fin.pdf.Dodds,­Leigh.­2013.­“What­Is­a­Dataset.”­Lost Boy.­February­9.­http://blog.ldodds.com/.Doloughan,­Fiona­J.­2011.­Contemporary Narrative: Textual Production, Multimodality and Multi-

literacies.­London:­Continuum.Doorenbosch,­Paul,­and­Barbara­Sierman.­2011.­“Institutional­Repositories,­Long­Term­

Preservation­and­the­Changing­Nature­of­Scholarly­Publications.”­Journal of Digital Infor-mation­12­(2).­http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/1764.

Dörr,­Konstantin­Nicholas.­2016.­“Mapping­the­Field­of­Algorithmic­Journalism.”­Digital Journalism­4­(6):­700–722.

Drees,­Bastian,­Angelina­Kraft,­and­Thomas­Koprucki.­2018.­“Reproducible­and­Com-prehensible­Research­Results­Through­Persistently­Linked­and­Visualized­Numerical­Simulation­Data.”­Optical and Quantum Electronics­50­(2):­59.­doi:10.1007/s11082-018-1327-1.

Eason,­Ken,­Chris­Carter,­Susan­Harker,­and­Sue­Pomfrett.­1997.­“A­Comparative­Analysis­of­the­Role­of­Multi-Media­Electronic­Journals­in­Scholarly­Disciplines.”­November.­Loughborough:­HUSAT­Research­Institute.­http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/tavistock/eason/eason.pdf.

Eggins,­Suzanne.­1994.­An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.­London:­Pinter­Publishers.

Elsevier.­2008.­“Elsevier­Article­2.0­Contest.”­http://article20.elsevier.com/contest/home.html.

References 359

———.­2011.­“Article­of­the­Future.”­http://www.articleofthefuture.com/.Esposito,­Joseph.­2013.­“The­Digital­Publishing­Revolution­Is­Over.”­The

Scholarly Kitchen.­March­4.­https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/03/04/the-digital-publishing-revolution-is-over/.

Estellés-Arolas,­Enrique,­and­Fernando­González-Ladrón-de-Guevara.­2012.­“Towards­an­Integrated­Crowdsourcing­Definition.”­Journal of Information Science­38­(2):­189–200.­doi:10.1177/0165551512437638.

Eve,­Martin­Paul,­and­Caroline­Edwards.­2015.­“Opening­the­Open­Library­of­Humanities.”­Open Library of Humanities­1­(1).­http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/13030.

Fanghor,­Hans.­2014.­“Blogging­with­the­IPython­Notebook.”­Computational Modeling Blog.­April­22.­http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~fangohr/blog/blogging-with-the-ipython-notebook.html.

Farace,­Dominic,­Jerry­Frantzen,­Christiane­Stock,­Laurents­Sesink,­and­Debbie­Rabina.­2012.­“Linking­Full-Text­Grey­Literature­to­Underlying­Research­and­Post-Publication­Data:­An­Enhanced­Publications­Project­2011-2012.”­The Grey Journal­8­(3):­181–89.

Fenner,­Martin.­2010.­“Beyond­the­PDF­It­Is­Time­for­a­Workshop.”­ Gobbledygook.­November­6.­http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2010/11/06/beyond-the-pdf-it-is-time-for-a-workshop/.

Fenton,­William.­2013.­“Scalar.”­PCMag UK.­May­30T15:47:00+00:00.­http://uk.pcmag.com/scalar/2103/review/scalar.

Ferdig,­Richard­E.,­and­Kristine­E.­Pytash.­2014.­Exploring Multimodal Composition and Digital Writing.­Hershey:­IGI­Global.

Ferwerda,­Eelco,­Frances­Pinter,­and­Niels­Stern.­2017.­“A­Landscape­Study­on­Open­Access­and­Monographs:­Policies,­Funding­and­Publishing­in­Eight­European­Countries.”­Zenodo.­doi:10.5281/zenodo.815932.

Fink,­J.­Lynn,­Pablo­Fernicola,­Rahul­Chandran,­Savas­Parastatidis,­Alex­Wade,­Oscar­Naim,­Gregory­B.­Quinn,­and­Philip­E.­Bourne.­2010.­“Word­Add-in­for­Ontology­Rec-ognition:­Semantic­Enrichment­of­Scientific­Literature.”­BMC Bioinformatics­11­(1):­103–11.­doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-103.

Flusser,­Vilém.­1994.­Gesten: Versuch einer Phänomenologie.­Frankfurt­am­Main:­Fischer.Force,­Megan,­Nigel­Robinson,­Mark­Matthews,­Daniel­Auld,­and­Mariana­Boletta.­2016.­

“Research­Data­in­Journals­and­Repositories­in­the­Web­of­Science:­Developments­and­Recommendations.”­TCDL Bulletin­12­(1):­27–30.­http://www.ieee-tcdl.org/Bulletin/current/papers/IEEE-TCDL-DC-2016_paper_3.pdf.

Foucault,­Michel.­1982.­The Archaeology of Knowledge.­New­York,­NY:­Pantheon­Books.Friend,­Frederick.­1998.­“Alternatives­to­Commercial­Publishing­for­Scholarly­Com-

munication.”­Serials­11­(2).­doi:10.1629/11163.Fukuyama,­Francis.­2006.­The End of History and the Last Man.­Reissue.­New­York:­Free­Press.Gamble,­Matthew,­and­Carole­A.­Goble.­2010.­“Standing­on­the­Shoulders­of­the­Trusted­

Web:­Trust,­Scholarship­and­Linked­Data.”­In­Web Science Conference 2010.­Vol.­2010.­Raleigh:­Journal­of­Web­Science.­doi:10.1.1.611.7967.

Gao,­Yong,­June­Kinoshita,­Elizabeth­Wu,­Eric­Miller,­Ryan­Lee,­Andy­Seaborne,­Steve­Cayzer,­and­Tim­Clark.­2006.­“SWAN:­A­Distributed­Knowledge­Infrastructure­for­Alzheimer­Disease­Research.”­Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web,­Semantic­Web­for­Life­Sciences,­4­(3):­222–28.­doi:10.1016/j.websem.2006.05.006.

Garcia,­Alexander,­Federico­Lopez,­Leyla­Garcia,­Olga­Giraldo,­Victor­Bucheli,­and­Michel­Dumontier.­2018.­“Biotea:­Semantics­for­Pubmed­Central.”­PeerJ­6­( January).­doi:10.7717/peerj.4201.

Garcia-Garcia,­Alicia,­Alexandre­Lopez-Borrull,­and­Fernanda­Peset.­2015.­“Data­journals:­eclosión­de­nuevas­revistas­especializadas­en­datos.”­El Profesional de la informacion­24­(6):­845–54.

360 Beyond the Flow

Gärdenfors,­Peter.­2000.­Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought.­Cambridge:­MIT­Press.Garvey,­William­D.­1979.­Communication the Essence of Science.­Oxford:­Pergamon­Press.Gerber,­Anna,­and­Jane­Hunter.­2008.­“LORE:­A­Compound­Object­Authoring­and­Publishing­

Tool­for­the­Australian­Literature­Studies­Community.”­In­Digital Libraries: Universal and Ubiquitous Access to Information,­246–55.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89533-6_25.

———.­2010.­“Authoring,­Editing­and­Visualizing­Compound­Objects­for­Literary­Scholarship.”­Journal of Digital Information­11­(1).

Ghani,­Norjihan­bt­Abdul,­Suriawati­Suparjoh,­and­Suraya­Hamid.­2008.­“A­Framework­for­Online­Publishing­in­the­University­of­Malaya.”­Edited­by­Soliman,­K.S.­Information Man-agement in the Modern Organizations: Trends & Solutions­1,2:­938–45.

Gibson,­Andrew,­Jesse­van­Dam,­Erik­Schultes,­Marco­Roos,­and­Barend­Mons.­2012.­“Towards­Computational­Evaluation­of­Evidence­for­Scientific­Assertions­with­Nanopub-lications­and­Cardinal­Assertions.”­In­Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and Tools for Life Sciences,­952:28–30.­Paris:­CEUR.

Gibson,­Frank.­2007.­“Do­Scientists­Really­Believe­in­Open­Science?”­We.­http://fgibson.com/2007/06/26/do-scientists-really-believe-in-open-science/.

Gielkens,­Charley,­and­Jeroen­Hulman.­2011.­“Identifying­Requirements­for­Enhanced­Publications.”­University­of­Utrecht.­http://www.charleygielkens.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Gielkens-Hulman-fin.pdf.

Gil,­Yolanda,­and­Daniel­Garijo.­2017.­“Towards­Automating­Data­Narratives.”­In­Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces,­565–76.­IUI­“17.­New­York,­NY,­USA:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/3025171.3025193.

GitHub.­2018.­“About­Gists.”­March­30.­https://help.github.com/articles/about-gists/.Giunchiglia,­Fausto,­Ronald­Chenu,­Hao­Xu,­Aliaksandr­Birukou,­and­Enzo­Maltese.­2010.­

“Design­of­the­SKO­Structural­Model.”Giunchiglia,­Fausto,­Hao­Xu,­Aliaksandr­Birukou,­and­Ronald­Chenu.­2010.­“Scientific­

Knowledge­Object­Patterns.”­In­Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs,­15:1–15:6.­EuroPLoP­“10.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2328909.2328928.

Goble,­Carole.­2015.­“Researchobject.Org.”­http://www.researchobject.org/.Goble,­Carole­A.,­David­De­Roure,­and­Sean­Bechhofer.­2012.­“Accelerating­Scientists”­

Knowledge­Turns.”­Communications in Computer and Information Science,­Communications­in­computer­and­information­science,­348:­3–25.­doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37186-8_1.

Gold,­Matthew­K.­2012.­Debates in the Digital Humanities.­1st­ed.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press.

———.­2016a.­Debates in the Digital Humanities.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press.­https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016.

———.­2016b.­“Debates­in­the­Digital­Humanities.­About.”­Debates in the Digital Humanities.­http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/about.

Golden,­Patrick,­and­Ryan­Shaw.­2015.­“Period­Assertion­as­Nanopublication:­The­PeriodO­Period­Gazetteer.”­In­Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion,­1013–8.­International­World­Wide­Web­Conferences­Steering­Committee.

Gómez-Pérez,­José-Manuel.­2013.­“Wf4ever.”­http://www.wf4ever-project.org.van­Gorp,­Pieter,­and­Steffen­Mazanek.­2011.­“SHARE:­A­Web­Portal­for­Creating­and­

Sharing­Executable­Research­Papers.”­Procedia Computer Science,­Proceedings­of­the­International­Conference­on­Computational­Science,­ICCS­2011,­4:­589–97.­doi:10.1016/j.procs.2011.04.062.

Gosling,­Paul.­1997.­Government in the Digital Age.­Work­in­the­Digital­Age.­London:­Bowerdean.

References 361

Gradmann,­Stefan.­2010.­“From­Books­to­Xanadu­to­Semantic­Pub-lishing.”­presented­at­the­Text­and­Literacy­in­the­Digital­Age,­Den­Haag,­December­17.­https://kulslide.com/download/from-books-to-xanadu-to-semantic-publishing-_59fd7ec8d64ab2f105a29592_pdf.

Grassano,­Nicola,­Daniele­Rotolo,­Joshua­Hutton,­Frédérique­Lang,­and­Michael­M.­Hopkins.­2016.­“Funding­Data­from­Publication­Acknowledgements:­Coverage,­Uses­and­Limitations.”­Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology­forthcoming.­doi:10.2139/ssrn.2767348.

Groth,­Paul,­Andrew­Gibson,­and­Jan­Velterop.­2010.­“The­Anatomy­of­a­Nanopublication.”­Information Services and Use­30­(1):­51–56.

Groza,­Tudor.­2012.­Advances in Semantic Authoring and Publishing.­Vol.­13.­Heidelberg:­IOS­Press.

Gunkel,­David­J.­2007.­“Thinking­Otherwise:­Ethics,­Technology­and­Other­Subjects.”­Ethics and Information Technology­9­(3):­165–77.

———.­2012.­The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics.­Cambridge,­MA:­MIT­Press.

Guo,­Libo.­2006.­“Multimodality­in­a­Biology­Textbook.”­In­Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Sys-temic-Functional Perspectives,­edited­by­Kay­O’Halloran,­196–219.­London:­Continuum.

Hall,­Gary.­2008.­Digitize This Book!: The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press.

———.­2013.­“The­Unbound­Book:­Academic­Publishing­in­the­Age­of­the­Infinite­Archive.”­Journal of Visual Culture­12­(3):­490–507.­doi:10.1177/1470412913502032.

———.­2015.­“Culture­Machine­Liquid­Books.”­http://liquidbooks.pbworks.com.Hall,­Gary,­and­Mark­Amerika.­2011.­“Force­of­Binding:­On­Liquid,­Living­Books­(Version­

2.0:­Mark­Amerika­Mix).”­Remixthebook.­May.­http://www.remixthebook.com/force-of-binding-on-liquid-living-books-version-2-0-mark-amerika-mix.

Hall,­Gary,­and­Clare­Birchall.­2009.­“New­Cultural­Studies:­The­Liquid­Theory­Reader.”­Culture Machine­10.

Hall,­Gary,­Kamila­Kuc,­and­Joanna­Zylinska.­2015.­“A­Guide­to­Open­and­Hybrid­Publishing.”­Europeana­Space.­https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-OGUrkemSMiN0JQbldjNlNNU0U/view.

Hall,­Gary,­Joanna­Zylinska,­and­Clare­Birchall.­2011.­“Living­Books­About­Life­Home.”­http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/.

Halliday,­Michael.­1978.­Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning.­Baltimore:­University­Park­Press.

Halliday,­Michael,­and­Ruqaiya­Hasan.­1985.­Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective.­Geelong,­Victoria:­Deakin­University­Press.

Halliday,­Michael,­and­James­R.­Martin.­1996.­Writing Science Literacy and Discursive Power.­London:­Falmer­Press.

Hammond,­Tony,­Timo­Hannay,­and­Ben­Lund.­2004.­“The­Role­of­RSS­in­Science­Publishing:­Syndication­and­Annotation­on­the­Web.”­D-Lib Magazine­10­(12):­1082–9873.

Haraway,­Donna­J.­1991.­Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.­New­York:­Routledge.

Harmsze,­Frédérique-Anne­Pacifique.­2000.­A Modular Structure for Scientific Articles in an Electronic Environment.­Amsterdam:­Self-published.

Harmsze,­Frédérique-Anne­Pacifique,­and­Joost­G.­Kircz.­1998.­“Form­and­Content­in­the­Electronic­Age.”­In­Proceedings. Socioeconomic Dimensions of Electronic Publishing Work-shop,­43–49.­Piscataway:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/SEDEP.1998.730707.

Harmsze,­Frédérique-Anne­Pacifique,­Maarten­van­der­Tol,­and­Joost­G.­Kircz.­1999.­“A­Modular­Structure­for­Electronic­Scientific­Articles.”­In­Conferentie Informatiewetenschap

362 Beyond the Flow

1999,­2–9.­Amsterdam.­http://www.science.uva.nl/projects/commphys/papers/infwet/infwet.html.

Hayward,­Susan.­2013.­“Digital­Cinema/Post-Digital­Cinema.”­In­Cinema Studies: The Key Con-cepts,­edited­by­Susan­Hayward,­104–8.­New­York:­Routledge.

Heath,­Tom,­and­Christian­Bizer.­2011.­Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space.­Edited­by­James­Hendler.­Vol.­1.­1.­Williston:­Morgan­&­Claypool.

Hendler,­Jim.­2013.­“Broad­Data:­Exploring­the­Emerging­Web­of­Data.”­Big Data­1­(1):­18–20.­doi:10.1089/big.2013.1506.

Herb,­Ulrich.­2017.­“Open­Access­Zwischen­Revolution­Und­Goldesel.”­Information – Wissen-schaft & Praxis­68­(1):­1–10.­doi:10.1515/iwp-2017–0004.

Herb,­Ulrich,­and­Joachim­Schöpfel,­eds.­2018.­Open Divide? Critical Studies on Open Access.­Sacramento:­Litwin­Books.

van­den­Heuvel,­Henk,­René­van­Horik,­Eric­Sanders,­Stef­Scagliola,­and­Paula­Witkamp.­2010.­“The­VeteranTapes:­Research­Corpus,­Fragment­Processing­Tool,­and­Enhanced­Pub-lications­for­the­E-Humanities.”­In­Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation,­2687–92.­Valletta:­European­Language­Resource­Association.­http://hdl.handle.net/2066/85921.

Hey,­Tony,­Stewart­Tansley,­and­Kristin­Tolle.­2009.­The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery.­Redmond:­Microsoft­Research.

Hinsen,­Konrad,­Konstantin­Läufer,­and­George­K.­Thiruvathukal.­2009.­“Essential­Tools:­Version­Control­Systems.”­Computing in Science & Engineering­11­(6):­84–91.­doi:10.1109/MCSE.2009.194.

Hitchcock,­Steve­M.,­Les­A.­Carr,­and­Wendy­Hall.­1996.­“A­Survey­of­STM­Online­Journals­1990–95:­The­Calm­Before­the­Storm.”­ELP2/35.­London:­JISC.­http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/250742/1/survey.html.

Hogenaar,­Arjan.­2009.­“Enhancing­Scientific­Communication­Through­Aggregated­Pub-lications­Environments.”­Ariadne,­no.­61.­http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue61/hogenaar.

Hogenaar,­Arjan,­and­Maarten­Hoogerwerf.­2009.­“Sample­Datasets­and­Demonstrator.”­In­Enhanced Publications. Linking Publications and Research Data in Digital Repositories,­edited­by­Marjan­Vernooy-Gerritsen,­133–56.­Amsterdam:­Amsterdam­University­Press.

Holl,­Andras.­2012.­“Information­Bulletin­on­Variable­Stars­and­Novel­Services­for­an­Enhanced­Publication.”­D-Lib Magazine­18­(5/6).­doi:10.1045/may2012-holl.

Holtermann,­Sabine.­2017.­“Changing­Books,­Changing­Roles:­The­Role­of­the­Academic­Book­Publisher­in­the­Digital­Age.”­Master­thesis,­Leiden:­Leiden­University.­https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/47746.

Hoogerwerf,­Maarten.­2009.­“Durable­Enhanced­Publications.”­In­Proceedings of the African Digital Scholarship Curation Conference.­Vol.­2009.­Pretoria:­University­of­Pretoria.­http://www.ais.up.ac.za/digi/docs/hoogerwerf_paper.pdf.

Humphreys,­Alex,­Christina­Spencer,­Laura­Brown,­Matthew­Loy,­and­Ronald­Snyder.­2017.­“Reimagining­the­Digital­Monograph:­Design­Thinking­to­Build­New­Tools­for­Research.”­JSTOR­Labs­Report.­JSTOR.

Hunter,­Jane.­2006.­“Scientific­Models:­A­User-Oriented­Approach­to­the­Integration­of­Scientific­Data­and­Digital­Libraries.”­In­VALA2006,­1–16.­Melbourne.

———.­2008.­“Scientific­Publication­Packages­Selective­Approach­to­the­Communication­and­Archival­of­Scientific­Output.”­International Journal of Digital Curation­1:­33–52.­doi:10.2218/ijdc.v1i1.4.

Hunter,­Jane,­and­Anna­Gerber.­2009.­“LORE:­A­Compound­Object­Authoring­and­Publishing­Tool­for­Literary­Scholars­Based­on­the­FRBR.”­In­4th International Conference on Open Repositories.­Georgia­Institute­of­Technology.­http://hdl.handle.net/1853/28466.

———.­2011.­“The­Aus-E-Lit­Project:­Advanced­EResearch­Services­for­Scholars­of­Australian­Literature.”­In­VALA2010.­Melbourne.

References 363

Hunter,­Jane,­and­Carl­Lagoze.­2001.­“Combining­RDF­and­XML­Schemas­to­Enhance­Inter-operability­Between­Metadata­Application­Profiles.”­In­Proceedings of the 10th Inter-national Conference on World Wide Web,­457–66.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/371920.372100.

Hunter,­Jane,­Kwok­Cheung,­Anna­Lashtabeg,­and­John­Drennan.­2008.­“SCOPE:­A­Scientific­Compound­Object­Publishing­and­Editing­System.”­International Journal of Digital Curation 3­(2):­4–18.­doi:10.2218/ijdc.v3i2.55.

Hunter,­Philip.­2001.­“The­Management­of­Content:­Universities­and­the­Electronic­Pub-lishing­Revolution.”­Ariadne,­no.­28.­http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/cms.

Hybrid­Publishing­Consortium.­2015.­A-Machine.­http://a-machine.net/.Institute­for­the­Future­of­the­Book.­2008.­“Mission.”­Institute for the Future of the Book.­

http://www.futureofthebook.org/mission.html.Institute­of­Network­Cultures.­2011.­The Unbound Book Conference Report.­Amsterdam:­

Hogeschool­van­Amsterdam.­http://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/the-unbound-book-conference-report/.

———.­2017.­“Postdigital­Publishing.”­Amsterdam.­http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11884/388c0b99-f7a0–4246-a956-ff84925900df.

Ishizuka,­Hidehiro.­1997.­“Author-Friendly­Electronic­Submission­to­SGML-Based­Academic­Journal.”­In­Proceedings of International Symposium on Research, Development and Practice in Digital Libraries 1997: ISDL’97, November 18–21, 1997, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan,­209.­Uni-versity­of­Library­and­Information­Science.­http://www.dl.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/ISDL97/proceedings/ishizuka/ishizuka.html.

Jackson,­Korey.­2014.­“More­Than­Gatekeeping­Close-up­on­Open­Access­Evaluation­in­the­Humanities.”­College & Research Libraries News­75­(10):­542–45.­http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/10/542.

Jankowski,­Nicholas­W.,­and­Steve­Jones.­2013.­“Scholarly­Publishing­and­the­Internet:­A­NM&S­Themed­Section.”­New Media & Society­15­(3):­345–58.

Jankowski,­Nicholas­W.,­Andrea­Scharnhorst,­Clifford­Tatum,­and­Zuotian­Tatum.­2012.­“Enhancing­Scholarly­Publications:­Developing­Hybrid­Monographs­in­the­Humanities­and­Social­Sciences.”­SSRN­Scholarly­Paper­1982380.­Rochester,­NY:­Social­Science­Research­Network.

Jansen,­Bernard­J.,­and­Soo­Young­Rieh.­2010.­“The­Seventeen­Theoretical­Constructs­of­Information­Searching­and­Information­Retrieval.”­Journal of the Association for Infor-mation Science & Technology­61­(8):­1517–34.

Jewitt,­Carey.­2011.­“Different­Approaches­to­Multimodality.”­In­The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis,­edited­by­Carey­Jewitt,­31–43.­London;­New­York:­Routledge.

———.­2013.­“What­Next­for­Multimodality.”­In­The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis,­edited­by­Carey­Jewitt,­450–55.­London;­New­York:­Routledge.

———.­2014.­“Multimodal­Approaches.”­In­Interactions, Images and Texts: A Reader in Multi-modality,­edited­by­Sigrid­Norris­and­Carmen­Daniela­Maier,­11:125–34.­Boston:­De­Gruyter­Mouton.

JISC.­2013.­“Implementing­a­Virtual­Research­Environment­(VRE).”­https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/implementing-a-virtual-research-environment-vre.

Johnson,­Rick.­2001.­“Declaring­Independence:­A­Guide­to­Creating­Community-Controlled­Science­Journals.”­SPARC­(the­Scholarly­Publishing­&­Academic­Resources­Coalition).

jupytercon.­2017.­“Writing­Professional­Documents­for­the­21st­Century­with­Authorea:­JupyterCon,­August­22­-­25,­2017,­New­York,­NY.”­Jupytercon.­https://conferences.oreilly.com/jupyter/jup-ny-2017/public/schedule/detail/63297.

Kaden,­Ben,­and­Michael­Kleineberg.­2017.­“Zur­Situation­des­digitalen­geisteswissen-schaftlichen­Publizierens.­Erfahrungen­aus­dem­DFG-Projekt­‘Future­Publications­in­den­Humanities’.­”­Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis­41­(1):­7–14.

364 Beyond the Flow

Karisiddappa,­C.­R.,­and­Lakshmana­Moorthy.­1996.­“Electronic­Publishing:­Impact­and­Implications­on­Library­and­Information­Centres.”­In­Digital Libraries: Dynamic Storehouse of Digitized Information: Papers Presented at the SIS’96 15th Annual Convention and Con-ference 18–20 January, 1996 Bangalore,­15:15.­Taylor­&­Francis.

Keller,­Alice.­2001.­“Future­Development­of­Electronic­Journals:­A­Delphi­Survey.”­Electronic Library, The­19­(6):­383–96.­doi:10.1108/02640470110412008.

Kennedy,­Eamonn.­2003.­“A­Framework­for­Academic­Electronic­Journal­Publications.”­Dublin:­Trinity­College­Dublin.­http://hdl.handle.net/2262/839.

Kery,­Mary­Beth,­Marissa­Radensky,­Mahima­Arya,­Bonnie­E.­John,­and­Brad­A.­Myers.­2018.­“The­Story­in­the­Notebook:­Exploratory­Data­Science­Using­a­Literate­Programming­Tool.”­In­Proceedings CHI’2017: Human Factors in Computing Systems.­New­York:­ACM.

Key­Perspectives.­2010.­“Data­Dimensions:­Disciplinary­Differences­in­Research­Data­Sharing,­Reuse­and­Long­Term­Viability.”­Edinburgh:­DCC.­http://hdl.handle.net/1842/3364.

King,­Ross­D.,­Jem­Rowland,­Stephen­G.­Oliver,­Michael­Young,­Wayne­Aubrey,­Emma­Byrne,­Maria­Liakata,­et­al.­2009.­“The­Automation­of­Science.”­Science­324­(5923):­85–89.­doi:10.1126/science.1165620.

Kircz,­Joost­G.­1998.­“Modularity:­The­Next­Form­of­Scientific­Information­Presentation?”­Journal of Documentation­54­(2):­210–35.­doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007185.

———.­2001a.­“New­Practices­for­Electronic­Publishing:­How­to­Maintain­Quality­and­Guarantee­Integrity.”­In­Proceedings of the Second ICSU/-UNESCO International Conference on Electronic Publishing in Science, París,­19–23.­Paris:­UNESCO.

———.­2001b.­“New­Practices­for­Electronic­Publishing­1:­Will­the­Scientific­Paper­Keep­Its­Form?”­Learned Publishing­14­(4):­265–72.­doi:10.1087/095315101753141365.

———.­2002.­“New­Practices­for­Electronic­Publishing­2:­New­Forms­of­the­Scientific­Paper.”­Learned Publishing­15­(1):­27–32.­doi:10.1087/095315102753303652.

Kircz,­Joost­G.,­and­Frédérique-Anne­Pacifique­Harmsze.­2000.­“Modular­Scenarios­in­the­Electronic­Age.”­In­Proceedings Conferentie Informatiewetenschap 2000,­31–43.­De­Doelen.

Kitamura,­Keiko,­and­John­J.­Leggett.­1996.­“Representing­Ancient­Books­for­Human­Science­Research­Based­on­a­Hypermedia­Model.”­In­Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,­2:147–54.­Piscataway:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/HICSS.1996.495393.

Knorr-Cetina,­Karin.­1999.­Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Press.

Knuth,­Donald­E.­1984.­“Literate­Programming.”­The Computer Journal­27­(2):­97–111.­doi:10.1093/comjnl/27.2.97.

Kobos,­Mateusz,­Lukasz­Bolikowski,­Marek­Horst,­Paolo­Manghi,­Natalia­Manola,­and­Jochen­Schirrwagen.­2014.­“Information­Inference­in­Scholarly­Communication­Infrastructures:­The­OpenAIREplus­Project­Experience.”­Procedia Computer Science­38:­92–99.­doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.10.016.

Koninklijke­Bibliotheek.­2006.­“DARE.”­https://www.kb.nl/en/organization/research-expertise/research-on-digitisation-and-digital-preservation/completed-projects/dare.

Koukounidou,­Vasiliki.­2017.­“OpenAIRE:­Supporting­the­H2020­Open­Access­Mandate.”­In­Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing,­56.­IOS­Press.

Krämer,­Sybille.­2003.­“Textualität,­Visualität­und­Episteme.­Über­ihren­Zusammenhang­in­der­frühen­Neuzeit.”­In­Text und Wissen: technologische und anthropologische Aspekte,­edited­by­Renate­Lachmann,­17–27.­Tübingen:­Gunter­Narr.

References 365

Kreitzberg,­Charles­B.­1989.­“Designing­the­Electronic­Book:­Human­Psychology­and­Infor-mation­Structures­for­Hypermedia.”­In­Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction on Designing and Using Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge Based Systems,­457–464.­Boston:­Elsevier.

Kress,­Gunther.­1996.­Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy.­London:­Taylor­&­Francis.

———.­2000.­“Text­as­the­Punctuation­of­Semiosis:­Pulling­at­Some­Threads.”­In­Inter-textuality and the Media: From Genre to Everyday Life,­edited­by­Ulrike­Hanna­Meinhof­and­Jonathan­Smith,­132–54.­Manchester:­Manchester­University­Press.

———.­2010.­Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication.­London;­New­York:­Routledge.

———.­2013.­“What­Is­Mode?”­In­The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis,­edited­by­Carey­Jewitt,­2nd­ed.,­54–67.­New­York:­Routledge.

Kress,­Gunther,­and­Theo­van­Leeuwen.­2001.­Multimodal Discourse.­London;­New­York:­Bloomsbury­Academic.

———.­2002.­“Colour­as­a­Semiotic­Mode:­Notes­for­a­Grammar­of­Colour.”­Visual Com-munication­1­(3):­343–68.­doi:10.1177/147035720200100306.

Kuc,­Kamila,­and­Joanna­Zylinska.­2016.­Photoremediations: A Reader.­London:­Open­Humanities­Press.

Kuhn,­Tobias.­2013.­“Nanobrowser.”­http://nanobrowser.inn.ac.———.­2015.­“Science­Bots:­A­Model­for­the­Future­of­Scientific­Computation?”­In­Proceedings

of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion,­1061–2.­International­World­Wide­Web­Conferences­Steering­Committee.

Kuhn,­Tobias,­and­Michel­Dumontier.­2014.­“Trusty­URIs:­Verifiable,­Immutable,­and­Permanent­Digital­Artifacts­for­Linked­Data.”­In­The Semantic Web: Trends and Challenges,­8465:395–410.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_27.

Kuhn,­Tobias,­and­Michael­Krauthammer.­2012.­“Underspecified­Scientific­Claims­in­Nano-publications.”­ArXiv Preprint­1209­(1483).

Kuhn,­Tobias,­Paolo­Emilio­Barbano,­Mate­Levente­Nagy,­and­Michael­Krauthammer.­2013.­“Broadening­the­Scope­of­Nanopublications.”­In­The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data,­487–501.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_33.

Kuhn,­Tobias,­Christine­Chichester,­Michel­Dumontier,­and­Michael­Krauthammer.­2015.­“Publishing­Without­Publishers:­A­Decentralized­Approach­to­Dissemination,­Retrieval,­and­Archiving­of­Data.”­In­The Semantic Web - ISWC 2015,­656–72.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25007-6_38.

La­Manna,­Manfredi,­and­Jean­Young.­2002.­“The­Electronic­Society­for­Social­Scientists:­From­Journals­as­Documents­to­Journals­as­Knowledge­Exchanges.”­Interlending & Doc-ument Supply­30­(4):­178–82.­doi:10.1108/02641610210452475.

Labtiva­Inc.­2015.­“ReadCube­Enhanced­PDF.”­https://www.readcube.com/enhancedpdf.Lagoze,­Carl.­2009.­“The­OreChem­Project:­Integrating­Chemistry­Scholarship­with­the­

Semantic­Web­and­Web­2.0.”­In­WebSci’09: Society On-Line,­18–20.­http://dsc.soic.indiana.edu/publications/The%20oreChem%20Project.pdf.

Lagoze,­Carl,­and­Jane­Hunter.­2006.­“The­ABC­Ontology­and­Model.”­Journal of Digital Infor-mation­2­(2).

Lagoze,­Carl,­and­Herbert­Van­de­Sompel.­2007.­“Compound­Information­Objects:­The­OAI-ORE­Perspective.”­Open­Archive­Initiative.

Lagoze,­Carl,­Jane­Hunter,­and­Dan­Brickley.­2000.­“An­Event-Aware­Model­for­Metadata­Interoperability.”­In­Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries,­103–16.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/3-540-45268-0_10.

366 Beyond the Flow

Lagoze,­Carl,­Herbert­Van­de­Sompel,­Michael­Nelson,­Simeon­Warner,­Robert­Sanderson,­and­Pete­Johnston.­2012.­“A­Web-Based­Resource­Model­for­Scholarship­2.0:­Object­Reuse­&­Exchange.”­Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience­24­(18):­2221–40.­doi:10.1002/cpe.1594.

Larman,­Craig.­2004.­Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager’s Guide.­Agile­Computer-Software­Development­Series.­Boston,­MA.:­Addison-Wesley.

Latar,­Noam­Lemelshtrich.­2015.­“The­Robot­Journalist­in­the­Age­of­Social­Physics:­The­End­of­Human­Journalism?”­In­The New World of Transitioned Media,­edited­by­Gali­Einav,­65–80.­The­Economics­of­Information,­Communication,­and­Entertainment.­Berlin:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09009-2_6.

Latour,­Bruno.­1993.­We Have Never Been Modern.­New­York,­London:­Harvester­Wheatsheaf.———.­2014.­“An­Inquiry­into­the­Modes­of­Existence.”­Modes of Existence.­http://www.

modesofexistence.org.Latour,­Bruno,­and­Heather­Davis.­2014.­“The­Amoderns:­Thoughts­on­an­Impossible­

Project.”­Amodern.­October.­http://amodern.net/article/amoderns-impossible-project/.Leclercq,­Christophe.­2011.­“Summary­of­the­AiME­Project.­An­Inquiry­into­Modes­of­

Existence.”­Bruno-Latour.fr.­October­24.­http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/328.van­Leeuwen,­Theo.­2005.­Introducing Social Semiotics.­London:­Routledge.Lemke,­Jay.­2003.­“Mathematics­in­the­Middle:­Measure,­Picture,­Gesture,­Sign,­and­Word.”­

In Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing,­edited­by­Myrdene­Anderson,­215–34.­New­Directions­in­the­Teaching­of­Math-ematics­1.­Brooklyn:­Legas.

———.­2005.­“Multimedia­Genres­and­Traversals.”­Folia Linguistica­39­(1–2):­45–56.­doi:10.1515/flin.2005.39.1-2.45.

Levin,­Nadine,­and­Sabina­Leonelli.­2017.­“How­Does­One­“Open”­Science?­Questions­of­Value­in­Biological­Research.”­Science, Technology, & Human Values­42­(2):­280–305.­doi:10.1177/0162243916672071.

Li,­Gangmin,­Victoria­Uren,­Enrico­Motta,­Simon­Buckingham­Shum,­and­John­Domingue.­2002.­“ClaiMaker:­Weaving­a­Semantic­Web­of­Research­Papers.”­In­The Semantic Web 2002,­edited­by­Ian­Horrocks­and­James­Hendler,­436–41.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/3-540-48005-6_37.

Licastro,­Amanda.­2017.­“Teaching­Empathy­Through­Virtual­Reality.”­In­Digital Humanities 2017 Book of Abstracts,­504.­Montréal,­Canada:­McGill­University.­https://dh2017.adho.org/abstracts/375/375.pdf.

Liew,­Chee­Sun,­Malcolm­P.­Atkinson,­Michelle­Galea,­Tan­Fong­Ang,­Paul­Martin,­and­Jano­I.­Van­Hemert.­2016.­“Scientific­Workflows:­Moving­Across­Paradigms.”­ACM Computing Surveys­49­(4):­66:1–66:39.­doi:10.1145/3012429.

Liew,­Chern­Li,­and­Schubert­Foo.­1999.­“Derivation­of­Interaction­Environment­and­Infor-mation­Object­Properties­for­Enhanced­Integrated­Access­and­Value-Adding­to­Electronic­Documents.”­Aslib Proceedings­51­(8):­256–68.­doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006985.

———.­2001.­“Electronic­Documents:­What­Lies­Ahead.”­In­The Proceedings of the 4th Inter-national Conference of Asian Digital Libraries. Bangalore, IIIT-B.­Citeseer.­doi:10.1.1.476.5934.

Liu,­Lei,­Rares­Vernica,­Tamir­Hassan,­Niranjan­Damera­Venkata,­Yang­Lei,­Jian­Fan,­Jerry­Liu,­Steven­J.­Simske,­and­Shanchan­Wu.­2016.­“METIS:­A­Multi-Faceted­Hybrid­Book­Learning­Platform.”­In­Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering,­31–34.­DocEng­“16.­New­York,­NY,­USA:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2960811.2967155.

Lobe,­Adrian.­2015.­“Automatisierter­Journalismus:­Nehmen­Roboter­Journalisten­den­Job­weg?”­Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,­April­17.­http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/automatisierter-journalismus-nehmen-roboter-allen-journalisten-den-job-weg-13542074.html.

References 367

Long,­Do,­and­William­Mobley.­2015.­“Single­Figure­Publications:­Towards­a­Novel­Alternative­Format­for­Scholarly­Communication.”­F1000Research;­London­4.­doi:10.12688/f1000research.6742.1.

Lopes,­Pedro,­Pedro­Sernadela,­and­José­Luís­Oliveira.­2013.­“Exploring­Nanopublishing­with­COEUS.”­In­Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and Tools for Life Sciences.­Edinburgh:­CEUR.­http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1114/.

Lord,­Phillip,­Simon­Cockell,­and­Robert­Stevens.­2012.­“Three­Steps­to­Heaven:­Semantic­Publishing­in­a­Real­World­Workflow.”­Future Internet­4­(4):­1004–15.­doi:10.3390/fi4041004.

Lourdi,­Irene,­Christos­Papatheodorou,­and­Mara­Nikolaidou.­2007.­“A­Multi-Layer­Metadata­Schema­for­Digital­Folklore­Collections.”­Journal of Information Science­33­(2):­197–213.­doi:10.1177/0165551506070711.

Ludovico,­Alessandro.­2013.­Post-Digital Print: The Mutation of Publishing Since 1894.­2nd­ed.­Onomatopee;­77.­Eindhoven:­Onomatopee.

———.­2015.­“Post-Digital­Publishing.”­Post-Digital Culture.­http://post-digital-culture.org/.Lyon,­Liz.­2009.­“Open­Science­at­Web-Scale:­Optimising­Participation­and­Predictive­

Potential.”­November.­JISC.Manghi,­Paolo,­Lukasz­Bolikowski,­Natalia­Manola,­Jochen­Schirrwagen,­and­Tim­Smith.­

2012.­“OpenAIREplus:­The­European­Scholarly­Communication­Data­Infrastructure.”­D-Lib Magazine­18­(9/10).­doi:10.1045/september2012-manghi.

Manghi,­Paolo,­Nikos­Houssos,­Marko­Mikulicic,­and­Brigitte­Jörg.­2012.­“The­Data­Model­of­the­OpenAIRE­Scientific­Communication­E-Infrastructure.”­In­Metadata and Semantics Research,­168–80.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35233-1_18.

Manghi,­Paolo,­Natalia­Manola,­Wolfram­Horstmann,­and­Dale­Peters.­2010.­“An­Infra-structure­for­Managing­EC­Funded­Research­Output.­The­OpenAIRE­Project.”­The Grey Journal­6­(1):­31–41.

Marcondes,­Carlos.­2005.­“From­Scientific­Communication­to­Public­Knowledge:­The­Scientific­Article­Web­Published­as­a­Knowledge­Base.”­In­Proceedings of the 9th ICCC Inter-national Conference on Electronic Publishing.­Leuven:­Peeters­Publishing.

Marcondes,­Carlos­H.,­Luciana­R.­Malheiros,­and­Leonardo­C.­da­Costa.­2014.­“A­Semantic­Model­for­Scholarly­Electronic­Publishing­in­Biomedical­Sciences.”­Semantic Web Journal­5­(4):­313–34.

Markowetz,­Florian.­2015.­“Five­Selfish­Reasons­to­Work­Reproducibly.”­Genome Biology­16­(December):­274.­doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0850-7.

Matthews,­Brian,­Vasily­Bunakov,­Catherine­Jones,­and­Shirley­Crompton.­2013.­“Inves-tigations­as­Research­Objects­Within­Facilities­Science.”­In­Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2013 Selected Workshops,­127–40.­Communications­in­Computer­and­Information­Science.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08425-1_12.

Mavers,­Diane,­and­Will­Gibson.­2012.­“Mode.”­Glossary of Multimodal Terms.­https://multi-modalityglossary.wordpress.com/mode-2/.

Mazanek,­Steffen.­2011.­“Executable­Papers­with­SHARE.”­https://sites.google.com/site/executablepaper/.

McAdams,­Mindy,­and­Stephanie­Berger.­2001.­“Hypertext.”­The Journal of Electronic Pub-lishing­6­(3).­doi:10.3998/3336451.0006.301.

McDonald,­Fran,­and­Whitney­Trettien.­2016.­“Thresholds.”­http://openthresholds.tumblr.com.

McGann,­Jerome.­1994.­“The­Complete­Writings­and­Pictures­of­Dante­Gabriel­Rossetti:­A­Hypermedia­Research­Archive.”­Text­7:­95–105.

McGarry,­Glenn,­Peter­Tolmie,­Steve­Benford,­Chris­Greenhalgh,­and­Alan­Chamberlain.­2017.­““They’re­All­Going­Out­to­Something­Weird”:­Workflow,­Legacy­and­Metadata­in­the­Music­Production­Process.”­In­Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer

368 Beyond the Flow

Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing,­995–1008.­CSCW­“17.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2998181.2998325.

McIlroy,­Malcom­Douglas,­Elliot­Pinson,­and­Berk­Tague.­1978.­“Unix­Time-Sharing­System­Forward.”­The Bell System Technical Journal­57­(6).

McLuhan,­Marshall.­2002.­The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man.­Edited­by­Elena­Lamberti­and­Dominique­Scheffel-Dunand.­Toronto:­University­of­Toronto­Press.

McPherson,­Tara.­2008.­“Introduction:­Media­Studies­and­the­Digital­Humanities.”­Cinema Journal­48­(2):­119–23.­doi:10.1353/cj.0.0077.

———.­2010.­“Scaling­Vectors:­Thoughts­on­the­Future­of­Scholarly­Communication.”­Journal of Electronic Publishing­13­(2).­doi:10.3998/3336451.0013.208.

———.­2014.­“Designing­for­Difference.”­Differences­25­(1):­177–88.­doi:10.1215/10407391-2420039.

McWhirter,­Andrew.­2015.­“Film­Criticism,­Film­Scholarship­and­the­Video­Essay.”­Screen­56­(3):­369–77.­doi:10.1093/screen/hjv044.

Meade,­Chris.­2013.­“IF:BOOK­–­Future­of­the­Book­UK.”­http://www.ifbook.co.uk/.Meadows,­Jack.­2006.­“The­Users­of­E-Publishing­and­Their­Communication­Behaviour.”­In­

Proceedings of the ELPUB2006 Conference on Electronic Publishing.­Sofia:­IMI-BAS.Meeks,­Elijah.­2012.­“Building­a­Scholarly­Digital­Object.”­Digital Humanities Specialist.­March­

19.­https://dhs.stanford.edu/spatial-humanities/building-a-scholarly-digital-object/.Meng,­Haiyan,­and­Douglas­Thain.­2017.­“Facilitating­the­Reproducibility­of­Scientific­

Workflows­with­Execution­Environment­Specifications.”­Procedia Computer Science,­International­Conference­on­Computational­Science,­ICCS­2017,­12-14­June­2017,­Zurich,­Switzerland,­108­( January):­705–14.­doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.116.

Meng,­Haiyan,­Rupa­Kommineni,­Quan­Pham,­Robert­Gardner,­Tanu­Malik,­and­Douglas­Thain.­2015.­“An­Invariant­Framework­for­Conducting­Reproducible­Computational­Science.”­Journal of Computational Science­9­( July):­137–42.­doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2015.04.012.

Mersch,­Dieter.­2004.­“Kunst­und­Sprache.­Hermeneutik,­Dekonstruktion­und­die­Ästhetik­des­Ereignens.”­In­Ästhetik Erfahrung,­edited­by­Jörg­Huber,­41–59.­Wien:­Ambra.

Meyer,­Eric­T.,­Monica­E.­Bulger,­Avgousta­Kyriakidou-Zacharoudiou,­Lucy­Power,­Peter­Williams,­Will­Venters,­Melissa­Terras,­and­Sally­Wyatt.­2011.­“Collaborative­yet­Indepen-dent:­Information­Practices­in­the­Physical­Sciences.”­1991753.­Rochester:­Social­Science­Research­Network.­https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1991753.

Milloy,­Caren,­and­Ellen­Collins.­2016.­“OAPEN-UK­Final­Report:­A­Five-Year­Study­into­Open­Access­Monograph­Publishing­in­the­Humanities­and­Social­Sciences.”­Final­Report.­JISC.­https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2016/01/28/oapenukreport/.

MODE.­2012.­“Glossary­of­Multimodal­Terms.”­http://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/.Mons,­Barend.­2005.­“Which­Gene­Did­You­Mean?”­BMC Bioinformatics­6­(1):­142.­

doi:10.1186/1471-2105-6-142.Mons,­Barend,­and­Jan­Velterop.­2009.­“Nano-Publication­in­the­E-Science­Era.”­In­Workshop

on Semantic Web Applications in Scientific Discourse (SWASD 2009).­Vol.­523.­Washington,­DC:­CEUR.­http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-523/Mons.pdf.

Mons,­Barend,­Herman­van­Haagen,­Christine­Chichester,­Johan­T.­den­Dunnen,­Gertjan­van­Ommen,­Erik­van­Mulligen,­Bharat­Singh,­et­al.­2011.­“The­Value­of­Data.”­Nature Genetics 43­(4):­281–83.­doi:10.1038/ng0411-281.

Moyle,­Martin,­and­Panayiota­Polydoratou.­2007.­“Investigating­Overlay­Journals:­Introducing­the­RIOJA­Project.”­D-Lib Magazine­13­(9/13).

Mozilla­Science­Lab.­2013a.­“Code­as­a­Research­Object.”­https://mozillascience.github.io/code-research-object/.

———.­2013b.­“Code­as­a­Research­Object:­A­New­Project.”­https://mozillascience.org/code-as-a-research-object-a-new-project.

References 369

Nentwich,­Michael.­2003.­“Cyberscience­and­Knowledge­Representation.”­In­Cyberscience. Research in the Age of the Internet,­edited­by­Michael­Nentwich,­253–315.­Vienna:­Austrian­Academy­of­Sciences­Press.­http://www.austriaca.at/3188-7toc.

Newfield,­Denise.­2013.­“Transformation,­Transduction­and­the­Transmodal­Moment.”­In­The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis,­edited­by­Carey­Jewitt,­2nd­ed.,­100–114.­London,­New­York:­Routledge.

Newman,­Paul,­and­Peter­Corke.­2009.­“Editorial­Data­Papers­of­High­Quality­Data­Sets.”­The International Journal of Robotics Research­28­(5):­587–87.­doi:10.1177/0278364909104283.

Neylon,­Cameron.­2009.­“Head­in­the­Clouds:­Re-Imagining­the­Experimental­Laboratory­Record­for­the­Web-Based­Networked­World.”­Automated Experimentation­1­( January):­3.­doi:10.1186/1759-4499-1-3.

———.­2012.­“OA­and­the­UK­Humanities­&­Social­Sciences:­Wrong­Risks­and­Missed­Opportunities.”­Science in the Open.­December­12.­http://cameronneylon.net/blog/oa-and-the-uk-humanities-social-sciences-wrong-risks-and-missed-opportunities/.

van­Noorden,­Richard.­2014.­“Publishers­Withdraw­More­Than­120­Gibberish­Papers.”­Nature News,­February.­doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14763.

Norris,­Sigrid.­2009.­“Modal­Density­and­Modal­Configurations.”­In­The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis,­edited­by­Carey­Jewitt,­78–91.­New­York:­Routledge.

———.­2011.­Identity in (Inter)Action, Introducing Multimodal (Inter)Action Analysis.­Berlin,­Boston:­De­Gruyter­Mouton.

Nowviskie,­Bethany.­2015.­“Digital­Humanities­in­the­Anthropocene.”­Digital Scholarship in the Humanities­30­(suppl_1):­i4–i15.­doi:10.1093/llc/fqv015.

Nüst,­Daniel,­Markus­Konkol,­Edzer­Pebesma,­Christian­Kray,­Stephanie­Klötgen,­Marc­Schutzeichel,­Jörg­Lorenz,­Holger­Przibytzin,­and­Dirk­Kussmann.­2016.­“Opening­Reproducible­Research.”­In­EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts,­18:EPSC2016–7396.­Vienna:­SAO/NASA­Astrophysics­Data­System.­http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..18.7396N.

Nüst,­Daniel,­Markus­Konkol,­Edzer­Pebesma,­Christian­Kray,­Marc­Schutzeichel,­Holger­Przibytzin,­and­Jörg­Lorenz.­2017.­“Opening­the­Publication­Process­with­Executable­Research­Compendia.”­D-Lib Magazine­23­(1/2).­doi:10.1045/january2017-nuest.

O’Halloran,­Kay.­2004.­Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives.­London;­New­York:­Continuum.

———.­2008.­Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images.­London,­New­York:­Continuum.

———.­2011.­“Multimodal­Discourse­Analysis.”­In­The Bloomsbury Companion to Discourse Analysis,­edited­by­Ken­Hyland­and­Brian­Paltridge,­120–37.­Continuum­Companions.­London;­New­York:­Bloomsbury­Academic.

O’Halloran,­Kay,­and­Victor­Lim­Fei.­2014.­“Systemic­Functional­Multimodal­Discourse­Analysis.”­In­Interactions, Images and Texts: A Reader in Multimodality,­edited­by­Sigrid­Norris­and­Carmen­Daniela­Maier,­11:135–50.­Boston:­de­Gruyter­Mouton.

O’Halloran,­Kay,­and­Bradley­A.­Smith.­2011.­“Multimodal­Studies.”­In­Multimodal Studies: Exploring Issues and Domains,­edited­by­Kay­O’Halloran­and­Bradley­A.­Smith,­1–15.­Chi-chester:­Routledge.

O’Hearn,­JoLynn,­May­Chau,­Laurie­Bridges,­Bonnie­E.­Avery,­Jane­Nichols,­Ruth­Vondracek,­and­Margaret­Mellinger.­2017.­“Future­of­the­Journal.”

O’Toole,­Michael.­2006.­“Opera­Ludentes:­The­Sydney­Opera­House­at­Work­and­Play.”­In­Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic-Functional Perspectives,­edited­by­Kay­O’Halloran,­11–28.­London:­Continuum.

Odewahn,­Andrew.­2015.­“Embracing­Jupyter­Notebooks­at­O’Reilly.”­O’Reilly Media.­May­7.­https://beta.oreilly.com/ideas/jupyter-at-oreilly.

370 Beyond the Flow

Odewahn,­Andrew,­Kyle­Kelley,­and­Rune­Madsen.­2014.­“Publishing­Workflows­for­Jupyter.”­http://odewahn.github.io/publishing-workflows-for-jupyter.

Open­Humanities­Press.­2015.­“Open­Humanities­Press.”­http://openhumanitiespress.org/.Open­Knowledge­Foundation.­2015.­“The­Open­Definition­–­Open­Definition­–­Defining­Open­

in­Open­Data,­Open­Content­and­Open­Knowledge.”­http://opendefinition.org/.Open­Phacts.­2012.­“The­Open­PHACTS­Nanopublication­Guidelines.”­http://www.nanopub.

org/guidelines/1.8/.OpenAIRE­plus,­ed.­2013.­“OpenAIRE­Guidelines­3.0­Documentation.”­https://guidelines.

openaire.eu/en/latest/.Ossenbruggen,­Jacco,­Lynda­Hardman,­and­Lloyd­Rutledge.­2006.­“Hypermedia­and­the­

Semantic­Web:­A­Research­Agenda.”­Journal of Digital Information­3­(1).­http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/78/77.

Owen,­John­Mackenzie.­2002.­“The­New­Dissemination­of­Knowledge:­Digital­Libraries­and­Institutional­Roles­in­Scholarly­Publishing.”­Journal of Economic Methodology­9­(3):­275–88.­doi:10.1080/1350178022000015113.

———.­2006.­The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization.­Dordrecht:­Springer.Palmer,­Carole­L.,­Lauren­C.­Teffeau,­Carrie­M.­Pirmann,­and­OCLC­Research.­2009.­

“Scholarly­Information­Practices­in­the­Online­Environment­Themes­from­the­Literature­and­Implications­for­Library­Service­Development.”­Dublin,­Ohio:­OCLC­Research.­http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2009/2009-02.pdf.

Pampel,­Heinz,­and­Sünje­Dallmeier-Tiessen.­2014.­“Open­Research­Data:­From­Vision­to­Practice.”­In­Opening Science,­edited­by­Sönke­Bartling­and­Sascha­Friesike,­213–24.­Berlin:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_14.

Pan,­Ding.­2010.­“An­Integrative­Framework­for­Continuous­Knowledge­Discovery.”­Journal of Convergence Information Technology­5­(3).­doi:10.1.1.306.9546.

Parsons,­Mark­A.,­and­Peter­A.­Fox.­2013.­“Is­Data­Publication­the­Right­Metaphor?”­Data Science Journal­12:­WDS32–WDS46.

Pavlopoulos,­Georgios­A.,­Evangelos­Pafilis,­Michael­Kuhn,­Sean­D.­Hooper,­and­Reinhard­Schneider.­2009.­“OnTheFly:­A­Tool­for­Automated­Document-Based­Text­Annotation,­Data­Linking­and­Network­Generation.”­Bioinformatics­25­(7):­977–78.­doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp081.

Pebesma,­Edzer,­Daniel­Nüst,­and­Roger­Bivand.­2012.­“The­R­Software­Environment­in­Reproducible­Geoscientific­Research.”­Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union­93­(16):­163–63.­doi:10.1029/2012EO160003.

Peek,­Robin­P.,­and­Jeffrey­P.­Pomerantz.­1998.­“Electronic­Scholarly­Journal­Publishing.”­Annual Review of Information Science and Technology­33.

Pellegrini,­Tassilo.­2017.­“Semantic­Metadata­in­the­Publishing­Industry­–­Technological­Achievements­and­Economic­Implications.”­Electronic Markets; Heidelberg­27­(1):­9–20.­doi:10.1007/s12525-016-0238-x.

Penev,­Lyubomir,­Donat­Agosti,­Teodor­Georgiev,­Terry­Catapano,­Jeremy­Miller,­Vladimir­Blagoderov,­David­Roberts,­Vincent­Smith,­Irina­Brake,­and­Simon­Ryrcroft.­2010.­“Semantic­Tagging­of­and­Semantic­Enhancements­to­Systematics­Papers:­ZooKeys­Working­Examples.”­ZooKeys­50­(1).­doi:10.3897/zookeys.50.538.

Perez,­Fernando,­and­Brian­Granger.­2013.­“An­Open­Source­Framework­for­Interactive,­Collaborative­and­Reproducible­Scientific­Computing­and­Education.”­https://ipython.org/_static/sloangrant/sloan-grant.html.

Perkel,­Jeffrey­M.­2018.­“Data­visualization­tools­drive­interactivity­and­reproducibility­in­online­publishing.”­Nature­554­(7690):­133–34.­doi:10.1038/d41586-018-01322-9.

Peroni,­Silvio.­2014a.­“The­Digital­Publishing­Revolution.”­In­Semantic Web Technologies and Legal Scholarly Publishing,­edited­by­Silvio­Peroni,­7–43.­Law,­Governance­and­Technology­Series­15.­Berlin:­Springer.

References 371

———.­2014b.­“The­Semantic­Publishing­and­Referencing­Ontologies.”­In­Semantic Web Technologies and Legal Scholarly Publishing,­121–93.­Law,­Governance­and­Technology­Series­15.­Berlin:­Springer.

Peters,­Dale,­and­Norbert­Lossau.­2009.­“DRIVER:­Building­a­Sustainable­Infrastructure­for­Global­Repositories.”­The Electronic Library­29­(2):­249–60.

Pettifer,­Steve,­Philip­McDermott,­James­Marsh,­David­Thorne,­A.­Villeger,­and­Teresa­K.­Attwood.­2011.­“Ceci­n’est­pas­un­hamburger:­Modelling­and­Representing­the­Scholarly­Article.”­Learned Publishing­24­(3):­207–20.

Pfaff,­Claas-Thido,­Birgitta­König-Ries,­Anne­C.­Lang,­Sophia­Ratcliffe,­Christian­Wirth,­Xingxing­Man,­and­Karin­Nadrowski.­2015.­“RBEFdata:­Documenting­Data­Exchange­and­Analysis­for­a­Collaborative­Data­Management­Platform.”­Ecology and Evolution­5­(14):­2890–7.­doi:10.1002/ece3.1547.

Pham,­Quan,­Severin­Thaler,­Tanu­Malik,­Ian­Foster,­and­Boris­Glavic.­2015.­“Sharing­and­Reproducing­Database­Applications.”­Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment­8­(12):­1988–91.­doi:10.14778/2824032.2824118.

Phelps,­Thomas­A.,­and­Robert­Wilensky.­1996.­“Toward­Active,­Extensible,­Net-worked­Documents:­Multivalent­Architecture­and­Applications.”­In­Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries,­9:100–108.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/226931.226951.

van­der­Poel,­K.­G.­2007.­“Verkenning­van­de­interesse­van­wetenschappelijke­onderzoekers.”­Utrecht:­Surf­Foundation.

Poo,­Mu-ming,­and­Chung-I.­Wu.­2017.­“New­Approaches­to­Publishing­Scientific­Reports­at­NSR.”­National Science Review­4­(4):­511–11.­doi:10.1093/nsr/nwx073.

Poole,­Alex­H.­2015.­“How­Has­Your­Science­Data­Grown?­Digital­Curation­and­the­Human­Factor:­A­Critical­Literature­Review.”­Archival Science­15­(2):­101–39.­doi:10.1007/s10502-014-9236-y.

Príncipe,­Pedro,­Najla­Rettberg,­Eloy­Rodrigues,­Mikael­K.­Elbæk,­Jochen­Schirrwagen,­Nikos­Houssos,­Lars­Holm­Nielsen,­and­Brigitte­Jörg.­2014.­“OpenAIRE­Guidelines:­Supporting­Interoperability­for­Literature­Repositories,­Data­Archives­and­CRIS.”­Procedia Computer Science,­12th­International­Conference­on­Current­Research­Information­Systems,­33:­92–94.­doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.06.015.

Puschmann,­Cornelius,­and­Marco­Bastos.­2015.­“How­Digital­Are­the­Digital­Humanities?­An­Analysis­of­Two­Scholarly­Blogging­Platforms.”­PLOS ONE­10­(2):­e0115035.­doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115035.

Puschmann,­Cornelius,­and­Merja­Mahrt.­2013.­“Scholarly­Blogging:­A­New­Form­of­Pub-lishing­or­Science­Journalism­2.0.”­In­Science and the Internet,­edited­by­Alexander­Tokar,­Michael­Beurskens,­Susanne­Keuneke,­Merja­Mahrt,­Isabella­Peters,­Timo­van­Treeck,­Katrin­Weller,­and­Cornelius­Puschmann,­1st­ed.,­171–182.­Düsseldorf:­Düsseldorf­Uni-versity­Press.

Raatikainen,­Panu.­2001.­“Exploring­Randomness­and­The­Unknowable.”­Notes of the AMS­48­(9).

Ramsay,­Stephen,­and­Geoffrey­Rockwell.­2012.­“Developing­Things:­Notes­Toward­an­Epistemology­of­Building­in­the­Digital­Humanities.”­In­Debates in the Digital Humanities,­edited­by­Matthew­K.­Gold,­75–84.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press.

Rasch,­Miriam.­2017.­“State­of­the­Art.”­Institute­of­Network­Cultures.­http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11884/9c673d83-b009-4f5d-b43e-ea7b33c9ba8a.

Rees,­Jonathan.­2010.­“Recommendations­for­Independent­Scholarly­Publication­of­Data­Sets.”­Creative­Commons­Workingpaper.­San­Francisco.­http://neurocommons.org/report/data-publication.pdf.

Reilly,­Susan,­Wouter­Schallier,­Sabine­Schrimpf,­Eefke­Smit,­and­Max­Wilkinson.­2011.­“Report­on­Integration­of­Data­and­Publications.”­http://epic.awi.de/31397/.

372 Beyond the Flow

Renear,­Allen,­and­Carole­L.­Palmer.­2009.­“Strategic­Reading,­Ontologies,­and­the­Future­of­Scientific­Publishing.”­Science­325­(5942):­828–32.­doi:10.1126/science.1157784.

Research­Councils­UK.­2015.­“Big­Data­-­Research­Councils­UK.”­http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/infrastructure/big-data/.

Rettberg,­Najla,­and­Birgit­Schmidt.­2012.­“Repository­Communities­in­OpenAIRE:­Expe-riences­in­Building­up­an­Open­Access­Infrastructure­for­European­Research.”­In­Con-ference Papers of the 7th Open Repositories.­Edinburgh:­University­George­Square.

de­Ribaupierre,­Hélène,­and­Gilles­Falquet.­2014.­“User-Centric­Design­and­Evaluation­of­a­Semantic­Annotation­Model­for­Scientific­Documents.”­In­Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-Driven Business,­40:1–40:6.­I-KNOW­“14.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2637748.2638446.

Richards,­Julian­D.­2018.­“Internet­Archaeology­and­Digital­Scholarly­Communication.”­In­Cultural Heritage Infrastructures in Digital Humanities,­edited­by­Julian­D.­Richards,­Agiatis­Benardou,­Erik­Champion,­Costis­Dallas,­and­Lorna­Hughes,­36–47.­London:­Routledge.

Robertson,­Benjamin­J.­2013.­“The­Grammatization­of­Scholarship.”­Amodern,­no.­1­(February).­http://amodern.net/article/the-grammatization-of-scholarship/.

Robertson,­Tim,­Markus­Döring,­Robert­Guralnick,­David­Bloom,­John­Wieczorek,­Kyle­Braak,­Javier­Otegui,­Laura­Russell,­and­Peter­Desmet.­2014.­“The­GBIF­Integrated­Publishing­Toolkit:­Facilitating­the­Efficient­Publishing­of­Biodiversity­Data­on­the­Internet.”­PLOS ONE 9­(8).­doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102623.

Rodriguez-Gonzalez,­Alejandro,­Marcos­Martinez-Romero,­Mikel­Egana­Aranguren,­and­Mark­D.­Wilkinson.­2014.­“Nanopublishing­Clinical­Diagnoses:­Tracking­Diagnostic­Knowledge­Base­Content­and­Utilization.”­In­2014 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems,­335–40.­Piscataway:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/CBMS.2014.82.

Roos,­Marco,­Sean­Bechhofer,­Jun­Zhao,­Paolo­Missier,­David­Newman,­David­De­Roure,­and­M.­Scott­Marshall.­2010.­“A­Linked­Data­Approach­to­Sharing­Workflows­and­Workflow­Results.”­In­Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification, and Val-idation,­340–54.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16558-0_29.

Rowsell,­Jennifer.­2013.­Working with Multimodality: Rethinking Literacy in a Digital Age.­London;­New­York:­Routledge.

Ruiz-Iñiesta,­Almudena,­and­Óscar­Corcho.­2014.­“A­Review­of­Ontologies­for­Describing­Scholarly­and­Scientific­Documents.”­In­Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Semantic Pub-lishing.­Vol.­1155.­Anissaras:­CEUR.

Sanchez,­Alfredo,­Yazmin­Morales,­and­Arturo­Flores.­2004.­“Collaborative­Environments­for­Digital­Publishing.”­In­Proceedings of the Fifth Mexican International Conference in Computer Science,­329–36.­Piscataway:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/ENC.2004.1342624.

Santana-Perez,­Idafen,­Rafael­Ferreira­da­Silva,­Mats­Rynge,­Ewa­Deelman,­María­S.­Pérez-Hernández,­and­Óscar­Corcho.­2017.­“Reproducibility­of­Execution­Environments­in­Computational­Science­Using­Semantics­and­Clouds.”­Future Generation Computer Systems 67:­354–67.­doi:10.1016/j.future.2015.12.017.

Santana-Perez,­Idafen,­Rafael­Ferreira­da­Silva,­Mats­Rynge,­Ewa­Deelman,­María­S.­Pérez-Hernández,­and­Óscar­Corcho.­2014.­“A­Semantic-Based­Approach­to­Attain­Reproduci-bility­of­Computational­Environments­in­Scientific­Workflows:­A­Case­Study.”­In­Euro-Par 2014: Parallel Processing Workshops,­edited­by­Luís­Lopes,­Julius­Žilinskas,­Alexandru­Costan,­Roberto­G.­Cascella,­Gabor­Kecskemeti,­Emmanuel­Jeannot,­Mario­Cannataro,­et­al.,­452–63.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14325-5_39.

Saussure,­Ferdinand­de.­1959.­Course in General Linguistics.­New­York:­Philosophical­Library.

References 373

Sayers,­Jentery,­and­Craig­Dietrich.­2013.­“After­the­Document­Model­for­Scholarly­Com-munication:­Some­Considerations­for­Authoring­with­Rich­Media.”­Digital Studies/Le Champ Numérique­3­(2).­doi:10.16995/dscn.237.

Sayers,­Jentery,­Devon­Elliott,­Kari­Kraus,­Bethany­Nowviskie,­and­William­J.­Turkel.­2015.­“Between­Bits­and­Atoms.”­In­A New Companion to Digital Humanities,­edited­by­Susan­Schreibman,­Ray­Siemens,­and­John­Unsworth,­1–21.­Chichester:­Wiley-Blackwell.­doi:10.1002/9781118680605.ch1.

Schmidt,­Nora.­2014.­“Semantisches­Publizieren­im­interdisziplinären­Wissenschafts-netzwerk.­Theoretische­Grundlagen­und­Anforderungen.”­Berlin:­Humboldt­University.­https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/2773.

Schneider,­Jodi,­Paolo­Ciccarese,­Tim­Clark,­and­Richard­D.­Boyce.­2014.­“Using­the­Micropub-lications­Ontology­and­the­Open­Annotation­Data­Model­to­Represent­Evidence­Within­a­Drug-Drug­Interaction­Knowledge­Base.”­In­Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Linked Science-Volume 1282,­60–70.­Aachen,­Germany,­Germany:­CEUR.

Schneider,­Jodi,­Carol­Collins,­Lisa­E.­Hines,­John­R.­Horn,­and­Richard­D.­Boyce.­2014.­“Mod-eling­Arguments­in­Scientific­Papers­to­Support­Pharmacists.”­In­ArgDiaP 2014: From Real Data to Argument Mining.­Warsaw:­HAL.­https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01076327/.

Schreibman,­Susan,­Ray­Siemens,­and­John­Unsworth,­eds.­2016.­A New Companion to Digital Humanities.­Chichester:­Wiley-Blackwell.

Sefton,­Peter.­2009.­“Towards­Scholarly­HTML.”­Serials Review­35­(3):­154–58.­doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2009.05.001.

Seringhaus,­Michael­R.,­and­Mark­B.­Gerstein.­2007.­“Publishing­Perishing?­Towards­Tomorrow’s­Information­Architecture.”­BMC Bioinformatics­8­( January):­17.­doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-17.

Sernadela,­Pedro,­Eelke­van­der­Horst,­Mark­Thompson,­Pedro­Lopes,­Marco­Roos,­and­José­Luís­Oliveira.­2014.­“A­Nanopublishing­Architecture­for­Biomedical­Data.”­In­8th International Conference on Practical Applications of Computational Biology & Bioinformatics (PACBB 2014),­277–84.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07581-5_33.

Sernadela,­Pedro,­Phil­Lopes,­and­José­Luís­Oliveira.­2013.­“Exploring­Nanopublications­Integration­in­Pharmacovigilance­Scenarios.”­In­2013 IEEE 15th International Conference on E-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom 2013),­728–30.­Piscataway:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/HealthCom.2013.6720773.

Shaw,­Ryan,­Michael­Buckland,­and­Patrick­Golden.­2013.­“Open­Notebook­Humanities:­Promise­and­Problems.”­In­Digital Humanities 2013 Book of Abstracts.­Lincoln:­University­of­Nebraska.­http://dh2013.unl.edu/abstracts/ab-297.html.

Shotton,­David.­2009.­“Semantic­Publishing:­The­Coming­Revolution­in­Scientific­Journal­Pub-lishing.”­Learned Publishing­22­(2):­85–94.­doi:10.1087/2009202.

———.­2012.­“The­Five­Stars­of­Online­Journal­Articles­-­a­Framework­for­Article­Evaluation.”­D-Lib Magazine­18­(1/2).­doi:10.1045/january2012-shotton.

Shotton,­David,­and­Silvio­Peroni.­2012.­“FaBiO­and­CiTO:­Ontologies­for­Describing­Biblio-graphic­Resources­and­Citations.”­Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web­17­(December):­33–43.­doi:10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001.

Shotton,­David,­Alexandru­Constantin,­Silvio­Peroni,­Steve­Pettifer,­and­Fabio­Vitali.­2015.­“The­Document­Components­Ontology­(DoCO).”­Semantic Web Journal,­no.­Submitted­Draft.­http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/document-\%0020components-ontology-doco-0.

Shotton,­David,­Angelo­Di­Iorio,­Silvio­Peroni,­Francesco­Poggi,­and­Fabio­Vitali.­2013.­“Rec-ognizing­Document­Components­in­XML-Based­Academic­Articles.”­In­Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering,­181–84.­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2494266.2494319.

Shotton,­David,­Silvio­Peroni,­and­Fabio­Vitali.­2012.­“Scholarly­Publishing­and­Linked­Data:­Describing­Roles,­Statuses,­Temporal­and­Contextual­Extents.”­In­Proceedings

374 Beyond the Flow

of the 8th International Conference on Semantic Systems,­9–16.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2362499.2362502.

Shotton,­David,­Katie­Portwin,­Graham­Klyne,­and­Alisair­Miles.­2009.­“Adventures­in­Semantic­Publishing:­Exemplar­Semantic­Enhancements­of­a­Research­Article.”­PLoS Comput Biology­5­(4):­1–17.­doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000361.

Siebler,­Kay.­2016.­Learning Queer Identity in the Digital Age, by Kay Siebler.­London:­Palgrave­Macmillan.

Sierman,­Barbara,­Birgit­Schmidt,­and­Jens­Ludwig.­2009.­Enhanced Publications. Linking Publications and Research Data in Digital Repositories.­Amsterdam:­Amsterdam­University­Press.­http://dare.uva.nl/document/150723.

Simukovic,­Elena.­2012.­“Enhanced­Publications.”­Berlin:­Humboldt­Universität.Singh,­Ripudaman,­Rostislav­Chudoba,­K.­Gopal,­and­Carsten­Koenke.­1998.­“IMMJ:­Inter-

active­Multi-Media­Journals­in­Science­and­Technology­Prospects­and­Issues.”­Ejournal­8­(2).

Smith,­Bradley­A.,­Sabine­Tan,­Alexey­Podlasov,­and­Kay­O’Halloran.­2011.­“Analyzing­Multi-modality­in­an­Interactive­Digital­Environment:­Software­as­a­Meta-Semiotic­Tool.”­Social Semiotics­21­(3):­359–80.­doi:10.1080/10350330.2011.564386.

Smith,­Vincent,­Teodor­Georgiev,­Pavel­Stoev,­Jordan­Biserkov,­Jeremy­Miller,­Laurence­Livermore,­Edward­Baker,­et­al.­2013.­“Beyond­Dead­Trees:­Integrating­the­Scientific­Process­in­the­Biodiversity­Data­Journal.”­Biodiversity Data Journal­1:­e995.­doi:10.3897/BDJ.1.e995.

Sofronijević,­Adam.­2012.­“Publishing­Against­the­Machine:­A­New­Format­of­Academic­Expression­for­the­New­Scientist.”­In­Science and the Internet,­edited­by­Alexander­Tokar,­Michael­Beurskens,­Susanne­Keuneke,­Merja­Mahrt,­Isabella­Peters,­Cornelius­Pusch-mann,­Timo­van­Treeck,­and­Katrin­Weller,­251–62.­Düsseldorf:­Düsseldorf­University­Press.

Sofronijević,­Adam,­and­Aleksandra­Pavlović.­2013.­“Applicability­of­the­Nano-Pub-lication­Concept­for­Fostering­Open­Access­in­Developing­and­Transition­Countries.”­In­Proceedings of the 5th Belgrade International Open Access Conference.­Belgrade:­National­Library­of­Serbia.

Sollaci,­Luciana­B.,­and­Mauricio­G.­Pereira.­2004.­“The­Introduction,­Methods,­Results,­and­Discussion­(IMRAD)­Structure:­A­Fifty-Year­Survey.”­Journal of the Medical Library Association­92­(3):­364–71.

Van­de­Sompel,­Herbert,­and­Carl­Lagoze.­2007.­“Interoperability­for­the­Discovery,­Use,­and­Re-Use­of­Units­of­Scholarly­Communication.”­CTWatch Quarterly­3­(3):­32–41.

Van­de­Sompel,­Herbert,­Patrick­Hochstenbach,­and­Tobias­De­Pessemier.­1997.­“The­Hybrid­Information­Environment­and­Our­Intranet­Solution­to­Access­It.”­In­Proceedings of the Fourth SA Online 1997.­South­Africe:­SAOUG­Archive.­http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1056689.

Van­de­Sompel,­Herbert,­Alberto­Pepe,­Matthew­S.­Mayernik,­and­Christine­L.­Borgman.­2010.­“From­Artifacts­to­Aggregations:­Modeling­Scientific­Life­Cycles­on­the­Semantic­Web.”­Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology­61­(3):­567–82.­doi:10.1002/asi.21263.

Sørgaard,­Pål,­and­Tone­Irene­Sandahl.­1997.­“Problems­with­Styles­in­Word­Processing:­A­Weak­Foundation­for­Electronic­Publishing­with­SGML.”­In­Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,­6:137–46.­Piscataway:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/HICSS.1997.665495.

Stäcker,­Thomas,­Constanze­Baum,­Timo­Steyer,­Michael­Kleineberg,­Anne­Baillot,­Ben­Kaden,­Esther­Chen,­Niels-Oliver­Walkowski,­Christian­Schwaderer,­and­Thomas­Ernst.­2016.­“Working­Paper­‘Digitales­Publizieren’.”­DHd Working Paper.­Wolfenbüttel:­Herzog­August­Bibliothek.­http://diglib.hab.de/ejournals/ed000008/startx.htm.

References 375

Star,­Susan­Leigh,­and­James­R.­Griesemer.­1989.­“Institutional­Ecology,­“Trans-lations”­and­Boundary­Objects:­Amateurs­and­Professionals­in­Berkeley’s­Museum­of­Vertebrate­Zoology,­1907–39.”­Social Studies of Science­19­(3):­387–420.­doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.

Steinkrüger,­Philipp,­ed.­2016.­“RIDE­|­A­Review­Journal­for­Scholarly­Digital­Editions­and­Resources.”­Accessed­October­25.­http://ride.i-d-e.de/.

Stiegler,­Bernard.­2006.­“Anamnesis­and­Hypomnesis.­Plato­as­the­First­Thinker­of­the­Proletarianisation.”­Ars Industrialis.­http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis.

———.­2010.­Hypermaterialität und Psychomacht.­Zürich:­Diaphanes.———.­2011.­“Digital­as­Bearer­of­Another­Society.”­Digital Transformation Review­1­( July):­

44–50.———.­2012.­“Die­Aufklärung­in­the­Age­of­Philosophical­Engeneering.”­Computational

Culture,­no.­2­(September).Stirling,­Allan,­and­James­Birt.­2014.­“An­Enriched­Multimedia­EBook­Application­to­Facilitate­

Learning­of­Anatomy.”­Anatomical Sciences Education­7­(1):­19–27.­doi:10.1002/ase.1373.Stöckl,­Hartmut.­2013.­“Semiotic­Paradigms­and­Multimodality.”­In­The Routledge Hand-

book of Multimodal Analysis,­edited­by­Carey­Jewitt,­2nd­ed.,­275–86.­London,­New­York:­Routledge.

Stolley,­Karl.­2016.­“The­Lo-Fi­Manifesto,­V.­2.0.”­Kairos­20­(2).­http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/20.2/inventio/stolley/index.html.

Stribling,­Jeremy,­Max­Krohn,­and­Dan­Aguayo.­2005.­“SCIgen­-­An­Automatic­CS­Paper­Generator.”­https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/.

Suber,­Peter.­2004.­“Open­Access­Overview.”­June­21.­http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm.

Svensson,­Patrik.­2010.­“The­Landscape­of­Digital­Humanities.”­Digital Humanities Quarterly 4­(1).

Takeda,­Kenji,­Graeme­Earl,­Jeremy­Frey,­Simon­Keay,­and­Alex­Wade.­2013.­“Enhancing­Research­Publications­Using­Rich­Interactive­Narratives.”­Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences­371­(1983):­20120090.­doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0090.

Thatcher,­Sanford­G.­1996.­“Re-Engineering­Scholarly­Communication:­A­Role­for­University­Presses?”­Journal of Scholarly Publishing­27­(3):­197–207.­doi:10.3138/JSP-027-04-197.

The­White­House.­2013.­“Open­Government­Initiative.”­The White House.­https://obamawhite-house.archives.gov/open.

Thomas,­Kluyver,­Ragan-Kelley­Benjamin,­Pérez­Fernando,­Granger­Brian,­Bussonnier­Matthias,­Frederic­Jonathan,­Kelley­Kyle,­et­al.­2016.­“Jupyter­Notebooks­a­Publishing­Format­for­Reproducible­Computational­Workflows.”­In­Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas,­edited­by­F.­Loizides­and­B.­Schmidt,­87–90.­Amsterdam:­IOS­Press.­doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87.

Thomas,­William.­2007.­“Writing­A­Digital­History­Journal­Article­from­Scratch:­An­Account.”­Digital History Project.­http://digitalhistory.unl.edu/essays/thomasessay.php.

Thompson,­Emily.­2013.­“Vectors­Journal:­The­Roaring­“Twenties­-­Editor’s­Introduction.”­Vectors,­no.­7.­http://vectorsjournal.org/projects/index.php?project=98.

Thompson,­Mark,­and­Erik­Schultes.­2012.­“Using­Nanopublications­to­Incentivize­the­Semantic­Exposure­of­Life­Science­Information.”­In­Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and Tools for Life Sciences.­Paris:­CEUR.

Tinnell,­John.­2015.­“Grammatization:­Bernard­Stiegler’s­Theory­of­Writing­and­Technology.”­Computers and Composition­37­(Supplement­C):­132–46.­doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2015.06.011.

van­der­Tol,­Maarten.­2001.­“The­Abstract­as­an­Orientation­Tool­in­Modular­Electronic­Articles.”­Document Design­2­(1):­76–88.

376 Beyond the Flow

Treloar,­Andrew­E.­1999.­“Rethinking­the­Library’s­Role­in­Publishing.”­Learned Publishing­12­(1):­25–31.­doi:10.1087/09531519950146066.

Treusch-Dieter,­Gerburg.­2001.­“Das­Ende­einer­Himmelfahrt.­Vom­Feuer­der­Vergöttlichung­zur­Vereisung­des­DNS.­Eine­Kult-­und­Kulturgeschichte­des­Autos.”­In­Technologien als Diskurse. Konstruktionen von Wissen, Medien und Körpern,­edited­by­Andreas­Lösch,­Dominik­Schrage,­Dierk­Spreen,­and­Markus­Stauff,­239–54.­Diskursivitäten­5.­Heidelberg:­Synchron.

Vectors­Journal,­dir.­2008.­Vectors Journal Dynamic Backend Generator.­YouTube.­https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkxSSBMPFtA.

“Vectors­Journal.”­2013.­http://vectorsjournal.org/issues/index.php?issue=7.Velterop,­Jan.­2010.­“Nanopublications­The­Future­of­Coping­with­Information­Overload.”­

Logos­21­(3):­119–22.­doi:10.1163/095796511X560006.Verhaar,­Peter.­2009.­“Report­on­Object­Models­and­Functionalities.”­In­Enhanced Pub-

lications. Linking Publications and Research Data in Digital Repositories,­40.­Amsterdam:­Amsterdam­University­Press.

Vernadskij,­Vladimir­Ivanovich.­1997.­Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon.­Moscow:­Nongovernmental­Ecological­V.­I.­Vernadsky­Foundation.

Visosevica,­Tanja,­and­Amanda­Myersb.­2017.­“Video­Essay:­The­Multimodal­Assignment­of­Now.”­In­Proceedings of the 2nd Association for Visual Pedagogy Conference,­167–171.­Denmark:­Aalborg­University.

Voutsinos,­Lavrentios.­2010.­“A­Web­2.0­Oriented­Reference­Design­Pattern­for­Structuring­and­Standardizing­Rich­Internet­Publications.”

W3C­Library­Linked­Data­Incubator­Group.­2011.­“Use­Case­Enhanced­Publications­-­Library­Linked­Data.”­February.­http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Enhanced_Publications.

W3C­Research­Object­for­Scholarly­Communication­Community­Group.­2013.­“Research­Object­for­Scholarly­Communication­Community­Group.”­https://www.w3.org/community/rosc/.

de­Waard,­Anita,­and­Joost­G.­Kircz.­2008.­“Modeling­Scientific­Research­Articles­–­Shifting­Perspectives­and­Persistent­Issues.”­In­Open Scholarship: Authority, Community, and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Elec-tronic Publishing,­234–45.­Toronto.­doi:10.1.1.578.6751.

de­Waard,­Anita,­and­Gerard­Tel.­2006.­“The­ABCDE­Format.­Enabling­Semantic­Conference­Proceeding.”­In­SemWiki2006, First Workshop on Semantic Wikis - From Wiki to Semantics, Proceedings,­edited­by­Max­Völkel­and­Sebastian­Schaffert.­Budva:­CEUR.

Wark,­Mckenzie.­2013.­“Totality­for­Kids.”­Vectors,­no.­7.­http://vectorsjournal.org/issues/7/totality.

Waters,­Colin­N.,­Jan­Zalasiewicz,­Colin­Summerhayes,­Anthony­D.­Barnosky,­Clément­Poirier,­Agnieszka­Gałuszka,­Alejandro­Cearreta,­et­al.­2016.­“The­Anthropocene­Is­Functionally­and­Stratigraphically­Distinct­from­the­Holocene.”­Science­351­(6269).­doi:10.1126/science.aad2622.

Weilenmann,­Anne-Katharina.­2014.­“A­New­Paradigm­for­the­Scientific­Article.”­Information Services & Use­34­(3–4):­315–19.­doi:10.3233/ISU-140753.

Weiss,­Rick,­and­Joy­Zgorski.­2012.­“Obama­Administration­Unveils­“Big­Data”­Initiative.”­The White House President Obama.­March­29.­https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/19/release-obama-administration-unveils-big-data-initiative-announces-200.

Weiten,­Moritz,­Günter­Wozny,­and­Bernd­Goers.­2002.­“Wege­zum­Informations-management­für­interdisziplinäre­Forschungsprojekte­und­die­Entwick-lung­eines­prototypischen­Systems.”­Chemie Ingenieur Technik­74­(11):­1545–53.­doi:10.1002/1522-2640(20021115)74:11<1545::AID-CITE1545>3.0.CO;2-X.

References 377

Welch,­Ian,­Niklas­Rehfeld,­Euan­Cochrane,­and­Dirk­von­Suchodoletz.­2012.­“A­Practical­Approach­to­System­Preservation­Workflows.”­Praxis der Informationsverarbeitung und Kommunikation­35­(4):­269–80.­doi:10.1515/pik-2012-0049.

Welt,­Haus­der­Kulturen­der.­2015.­“Future­Storytelling.”­HKW.­September­16.­http://hkw.de/en/programm/projekte/2014/future_storytelling/future_storytelling.php.

Wheary,­Jennifer,­Lee­Wild,­Christina­Weyher,­and­Bernard­Schutz.­1998.­“Thinking­in­Elec-tronic­Terms.”­In­Proceedings. Socioeconomic Dimensions of Electronic Publishing Workshop,­1998:83–87.­Piscataway:­IEEE.­doi:10.1109/SEDEP.1998.730714.

Whyte,­Angus,­and­Pryor.­2011.­“Open­Science­in­Practice:­Researcher­Perspectives­and­Par-ticipation.”­International Journal of Digital Curation­6­(1):­199–213.­doi:10.2218/ijdc.v6i1.182.

Whyte,­Angus,­Sarah­Callaghan,­Jonathan­Tedds,­and­Matthew­S.­Mayernik.­2013.­“Per-spectives­on­the­Role­of­Trustworthy­Repository­Standards­in­Data­Journal­Publication.”­In Abstracts of the International Association for Social Science Information Services and Technology Conference.­Cologne:­IASSIST.­http://www.iassistdata.org/conferences/2013/presentation/3657.

Willinsky,­John,­Alex­Garnett,­and­Angela­Pan­Wong.­2012.­“Refurbishing­the­Camelot­of­Scholarship:­How­to­Improve­the­Digital­Contribution­of­the­PDF­Research­Article.”­The Journal of Electronic Publishing­15­(1).­doi:10.3998/3336451.0015.102.

Wittek,­Peter.­2014.­“Reproducible­Research,­Literate­Programming,­IPython,­and­GitHub.”­May­16.­http://peterwittek.com/reproducible-research-literate-programming-ipython-and-github.html.

Wittgenstein,­Ludwig.­2006.­Philosophische Untersuchungen.­Frankfurt­am­Main:­Suhrkamp.Worthington,­Simon.­2015.­Hybrid Lecture Player­(version­1.1).­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab.­https://

github.com/consortium/hybrid-lecture-player.———.­2016.­“Hybrid­Publishing­Portfolio.”­Lüneburg:­Leuphana­Universität­Lüneburg.­

https://hpg.io/portfolio.pdf.Worthington,­Simon,­and­Loraine­Furter.­2014.­A Publication Taxonomy.­Lüneburg:­Hybrid­

Publishing­Consortium.­https://research.consortium.io/docs/a_publication_taxonomy/a-publication-taxonomy.html.

Woutersen-Windhouwer,­Saskia,­and­Renze­Brandsma.­2009.­“Report­on­Enhanced­Pub-lications­State-of-the-Art.”­Amsterdam:­Amsterdam­University­Press.­http://dare.uva.nl/record/340461.

Xu,­Hao.­2010.­“Managing­Ubiquitous­Scientific­Knowledge­on­Semantic­Web.”­In­Advances in Computer Science and Information Technology,­edited­by­Tai-hoon­Kim­and­Hojjat­Adeli,­421–30.­Lecture­Notes­in­Computer­Science­6059.­Berlin,­Heidelberg:­Springer.­doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13577-4_37.

———.­2011.­“Managing­Ubiquitous­Scientific­Knowledge­Objects.”­Dissertation,­Trento:­Uni-versity­of­Trento.

Xu,­Hao,­Jing­Yu,­Wei­Liu,­and­Lan­Huang.­2014.­“A­Review­of­Scientific­Discourse­Rep-resentation­Models.”­Koganai­17­(5):­1691.

Yuan,­Zhihao,­Dai­Hai­Ton­That,­Siddhant­Kothari,­Gabriel­Fils,­and­Tanu­Malik.­2018.­“Utilizing­Provenance­in­Reusable­Research­Objects.”­Informatics­5­(1).­doi:10.3390/informatics5010014.

Zhao,­Jun,­José-Manuel­Gómez-Pérez,­Khalid­Belhajjame,­Graham­Klyne,­Esteban­Garcia-Cuesta,­Aleix­Garrido,­Kristina­Hettne,­Marco­Roos,­David­De­Roure,­and­Carole­A.­Goble.­2012.­“Why­Workflows­Break­and­Combating­Decay­in­Taverna­Workflows.”­In­2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on E-Science,­1–9.­Los­Alamitos:­IEEE­Computer­Society.­doi:10.1109/eScience.2012.6404482.

Zheng,­Charles,­and­Douglas­Thain.­2015.­“Integrating­Containers­into­Workflows:­A­Case­Study­Using­Makeflow,­Work­Queue,­and­Docker.”­In­Proceedings of the 8th International

378 Beyond the Flow

Workshop on Virtualization Technologies in Distributed Computing,­31–38.­VTDC­“15.­New­York:­ACM.­doi:10.1145/2755979.2755984.

Zylinska,­Joanna.­2011.­“Project­Objectives.”­Living Books About Life.­May­11.­http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/blog/2011/05/project-objectives/.

———.­2015.­“Photomediations­Machine.”­http://photomediationsmachine.net/.Zylinska,­Joanna,­Kamila­Kuc,­Jonathan­Shaw,­Jonathan­Varney,­Michael­

Wamposzyc,­and­Gary­Hall.­2015.­“Photomediations:­An­Open­Book.”­http://www.photomediationsopenbook.net/.

Niels-Oliver WalkowskiBeyond the Flow: Scholarly Publications During and After the Digital

In the wake of the so-called digital revolution numerous attempts have been made to rethink and redesign what scholarly publications can or should be. Beyond the Flow examines the technologies as well as narratives driving this unfolding transformation. By unpacking the confusion, heterogeneity and uncertainty that is surrounding scholarly publishing today the book asks for how a sustainable post-digital publishing ecology can be imagined.

www.meson.press

ISBN 978-3-95796-160-0