On December 18th (Tuesday), Wikihub will be unavailable from 7-9am.


Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Communicate and Publish

This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Communicate and Publish


This theme has been merged into Share (from Informal to Publication) and is now closed for edits. Please make any further changes on that theme's page.

Sharing the results of research (datasets, notes, formal written synthesis)  via informal means (blog posts, conference presentations, workshop discussions, deposit in a repository or archive, etc) or formal means (peer reviewed journals, monographs, or other "authoritative" forums).  




Proposed/originated by:

Mike Furlough

Penn State University Libraries

Current facilitator(s)



Back to Identify Themes page...

What tools, standards, organizations, or efforts exist in this area of scholarly practice?


Description - what is it?

URL or other reference

Peer review

Formal discussion and vetting of research results.  Standards and practices vary by outlet and discipline.  Can and does take place prior to or after publication or dissemination.  Historically has not included a look at the technology used to develop the research.


What tools, standards, organizations, or efforts are missing from this area of scholarly practice?


Description - what is it?

URL or other reference

1) Standards of technical practice 2) Tools to manage the process of review for complex digital projects (rather than "simple" articles/manuscripts)

How can we evaluate the technical approaches or mechanisms that were used to enable the research? 


What part of this area of scholarly practice is within Project Bamboo scope, and why?


Description - what is it?

Why is it in scope?

Standards of practice/best practices 

In other words, bringing focus to the issue of evaluating technical practice and methods of evaluating the approach. 

Bamboo could help us focus on services, tools, or methods using standards and approaches that both enable novelty and innovation while also ensuring longevity and durability.    (Furlough)

What part of this area of scholarly practice is outside Project Bamboo scope, and why?


Description - what is it?

Why is it out of scope?

The substance of research. 

The quality, value, and impact of the substance of the output of scholarship will be determined by experts and/or other users of the resources. 

Bamboo cannot meddle in the issue of vetting quality of scholarship because domain experts carry that expertise. (Furlough)


References (e.g., material from Workshop 1 notes or flipcharts)


  • More transparent support for the scholarly process; e.g., embed data and methods inside papers to support replication and model the scholarly process as part of the work product. Increase campus awareness of new humanities; Increase competitiveness of humanities w/natural sciences in campus allocation decisions (Ex. 1 scribe notes, 1b-G)
  • Recreating past methodologies: i.e. rediscovering historical ways of looking at what is now primary material. (Ex. 3 scribe notes, 1b-F)
  • Does methodology documentation 'count' as research? (Ex. 4 & 5 flipcharts, 1c-C)
  • Tracing production and reception history. Find out how others have regarded object before you approach it. (Ex. 2 scribe notes, 1a-B)
  • Represent research.  Could be a written record, an animation or other visualization - some way to present it to others; not just sharing data, but sharing one's particular take on the data; Archives of conference papers, electronic working papers like the sciences do; Registry of research activities as part of this social networking activity - pre-print, awareness of area of work and particular argument, approach, methodology. (Ex. 2 scribe notes, 1a-C)

Steve Masover

Cathy Marshall's paper From Writing and Analysis to the Repository: Taking the Scholars' Perspective on Scholarly Archiving"focuses on the kinds of artifacts the researchers create in the process of writing a paper, how they exchange and store materials over the short term, how they handle references and bibliographic resources, and the strategies they use to guarantee the long term safety of their scholarly materials. The findings reveal: (1) the adoption of a new CIM infrastructure relies crucially on whether it compares favorably to email along six critical dimensions; (2) personal scholarly archives should be maintained as a side-effect of collaboration and the role of ancillary material such as datasets remains to be worked out; and (3) it is vital to consider agency when we talk about depositing new types of scholarly materials into disciplinary repositories."

Steve Masover

Back to Identify Themes page...