Project One: Cairn Vega, an academic publishing platform

Research questions for this unit

  • What is academic publishing? Who are the stakeholders & what roles, goals, and desires do they share?
  • What are the big issues that academic-publishing stakeholders face in the 21st century, and what can editors do about it?
  • How does digital technology help/hinder stakeholders?

Assignments we will do/complete over the next 4-5 weeks for this project:

  • Become research-certified at WVU & apply for IRB approval for our publishing  workflow study
  • Research, create and test questions for, and conduct interviews and surveys for author stakeholders, editor stakeholders, and librarian stakeholders
  • Write up our research results into stakeholder narratives to present design studio
  • Optional: Co-author results of study into a publishable article.


January 13: introductions: what have you published? edited?; review of syllabus, project overview; introduction to Cairn; IRB process at WVU; invitations to GoogleDocs & DropBox


(1) Read John Willinsky’s The Access Principle Chapters 13 (“History”), 1 (“Opening”) and 2 (“Access”).
(2) Read Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s Planned Obsolescence Chapter 5 (“The University”)
(3) Read Borgman’s Scholarship in a Digital Age Chapter 4 (“The Continuity of Scholarly Communication”)
(4) Read Cairn grant proposal (in DropBox/readings)
(5) Take WVU CITI test

January 20: discuss readings; brainstorm survey & interview questions on Gdocs


(1) do your two journal write-ups in the Gdocs spreadsheet
(2) read the article on creating interview questions (in DropBox)
(3) review the interview questions we’ve drafted for editors & revise them (date and initial your changes) according to the survey/interview reading (but not according to those specific journals)
(4) draft your section of the IRB proposal
(5) Add-on: Skim this piece on OJS journals

January 27:

in-class discussion:

(1) Sandy’s discussion of Porto trip
(2) name game (refresher)
(3) project description discussion• What are we researching?
• Why are we researching it?
•  How do we research it best?
•  What does this have to do with editing? (e.g., how do we move from editorial practice to theorized praxis?)
• What are the big picture issues related to editing/publishing that this project brings up?
(4) review of journal review assignment

Things we didn’t get to because the discussion on big issues was too good:
(5) reviewing the survey and interview questions & discussing how/why editors conduct research?
(6) going over the IRB proposal and overview of the WVU+kc system


(1) Find one scholarly article or chapter that follows up from our in-class conversation re open source, open access, peer review, or copyright; read it; add the citation to the Editorial Bibliography in Gdocs (I’ve made some recs; you can choose others); and annotate the citation with a short paragraph for your fellow co-editors. Extra recommendation points for whoever figures out groups in Zotero and convinces everyone else to migrate the bib there. 😉

(2) Complete the literature review assignment.

(3) Cheryl will review the IRB materials and survey questions and see whether they can be sent/submitted to IRB office as-is or whether we need to revisit anything in class next week.

February 3: review literature reviews; revise author and editor questions; recruit participants

In-class discussion:

(1) trends in publishing (lit review discussions); publishing processes?
(2) review the survey and interview questions & discussing how/why editors conduct research? How is this developmental editing? What is the relationship between dev-editing and the writing process?
(3) go over the IRB proposal and overview of the WVU+kc system


(1) Recruit authors & schedule interviews
(2) Cheryl sends out editor survey
(3) Read the Peer Review Symposium document (in DropBox>readings)

February 10: continue interviews?, gather research into reports & discuss major issues/key features that arose

in class discussion:

(1) review consent forms & interview procedures & transcription services.
(2) practice Cairn study presentations
(3) review Lit Reviews again to form must-reads list
(4) What it means to be an editor: Today’s edition!
(5) Editorial Values statements


(1) finish interviews & transcriptions by next Tuesday. Upload transcripts to the IRB-data-transcripts folder in DropBox
(2) read and annotate one article that you think everyone should read from your Volumes/Issues in the Literature Review assignment.
(3) review/read my professional philosophy (as an example of a Values Statement)
(4) complete a version of your Editorial Values statement
(5) Figure out how to access Zotero Group that Celeste emailed you about and add your #2 reading citation to it. (Add it to the Ed Biblio as well.)

February 17: data collation & summation

in class work:

(1) status update on author interviews; update from Bengler on delivery formats
(2) key concepts/take-aways from author interviews (create glossary)
(3) review “First Stabs at Design System” document (developmental editing process vs. copy-editing process) – Use Commenting feature in Drive


(1) Upload author transcript and key concepts document by Friday of this week.
(2) Read Eyman & Ball. (2015). Digital humanities scholarship and electronic publication.
(3) Read
(4) Read Eyman & Ball. (forthcoming). History of a Broken Thing.
(5) SKIM “Building a Better Back End” white paper:
(6) Work on your Editorial Process sections in Design System document linked above.

Project Two: Developmental Editing at the CMS and Content Levels

We start this unit with the OJS migration project. Briefly, we will (in groups) set up five installations for five journals that currently do not use a Content Management System (CMS) for their editorial workflow. The CMS we will use is OJS, although we will study other editorial CMSes. In order to talk closely about how OJS (and other CMSes) impact editorial workflows, we will introduce the concept of developmental editing through discussions of peer review.

Research questions for this unit

  • What kinds of infrastructure are available for editing and publishing? How does infrastructure support the work of editors?
  • What decisions does an editor have to make when considering/using a CMS? Who are the other players involved? How does an editor work across content and role boundaries to accomplish publication?
  • What editorial ideologies are built into available publishing workflows (such as CMSes)? What new ideological approaches to editing and publishing are incorporated or left out of current CMSes?
  • How can editors work with and around the tech? What relationships between editors and authors are build inside and outside of CMSes?

Assignments we will do/complete over the next 4-5 weeks for this project:

  • CMS review
  • building out one installation (per editorial team) for a scholarly or creative journal
  • a tutorial/overview of your team’s journal-OJS installation for the editors
  • one developmental peer review of a scholarly artifact

February 24: OJS and CMS introduction

in-class work:

(1) overview OJS migration project
(2) discuss “First Stab” assignment from last week
(3) review other editorial CMSes: spreadsheet
(4) assign journals/teams
(5) preview next week with Editors


(1) get copies of your journal and read 1-2 issues
(2) skim through “OJS in an Hour” to familiarize yourself with the basic workings of OJS.
(3) Based on the above skim-read, prepare a list of needs (with your team, in Google Drive) with what you need to complete for this OJS implementation.
(4) Create a list of questions for your editors based on the OJS project: What do you need to know from THEM to help you complete this project?
(5) Reread the Peer Review Symposium document in Dropbox>Readings.
(6) Read Open Review: A Study of Contexts and Practices
(7) Read “The kairotic nature of online community building

March 3: meet with editors

in-class discussion:

(1) brief presentations of your journals
(2) preview your questions for editors
(3) IN-CLASS VISITS (5-6pm): Editor’s Roundtable
(4) review your list of needs
(5) gaining access to OJS


(1) buy and read Intro and Part One of Carol Fisher Saller’s The Subversive Copy-editor
(2) Complete major informational (public-facing) sections of journal in OJS (in teams): About, Editors, Editorial Board, Submission guidelines, etc.
(3) Continue with your list of questions for your editors
(4) Add to your needs list regarding production questions
(5) Begin editorial CMS literature review assignment

March 10: meet with Press

in-class discussion:

(1) CMS assignment check-in
(2) Editorial survey review
(3) pre-review Press/production questions
(4) IN-CLASS VISITS: WVU Press editors
(5) Review readings regarding developmental editing & peer review processes
(6) Prepare for editorial contact re OJS needs

(1) Read Part Two of The Subversive Copy-editor
(2) Contact editors (as a team) to complete information sections of OJS, as needed
(3) Fill out informational (internal) sections of journal in OJS (in teams): peer-review, copy-editing, and layout instructions, etc.
(4) Complete Part Two of the CMS article assignment
(5) buy/rent APA manual 6th edition (you will use it through the end of the semester, starting March 31)
(6) By SATURDAY: Peer-review a partner’s Annotated Bib entry with developmental feedback for an academic audience. By TUESDAY: Revise your Annotated Bib (in the new Revised Annotated Bib document) using your partner’s feedback.

March 17: fine-tuning OJS installations

in-class discussion:

(1) Vega design process check-in
(2) CMS article update
(3) OJS check-in & email assignment
(4) developmental editing of Annotated Bib
(5) peer reviewing webtexts (in Dropbox>readings)


(1) Complete webtext peer review
(2) Draft email templates in OJS
(3) Complete CMS article, Part Three (in small groups)

March 24 — Spring Break

March 31: OJS wrap-up

in-class work:

(1) discussion of OJS assignment & learning outcomes
(2) creating training documentation for your editors
(3) peer reviews of webtexts & editors letters (see sample in DropBox>readings)
(4) RQs for CMS article


(1) create a draft of the training documents for your editors [grouped by document?] (upload to Dropbox>OJS-training-docs)
(2) write draft of editor’s letter for webtext peer reviews (upload to Google Drive>dev-editing>yourfirstname-reviewletter)
(3) Complete Part Four of the CMS Article assignment
(4) Complete at least three of the unfinished entries on the Vega Glossary using the Suggested editing feature BY SATURDAY.
(5) Read two REx articles in Dropbox>readings folder.

Project Three: Editing at the Micro-Level

Research questions for this section:

April 7: copy-editing

in-class discussion:

(1) review OJS training docs
(2) Moving from developmental editing to copy-editing
(3) Skyping with editors of REx
(4) introduction to the copy-editing assignment


(1) Read/skim APA Manual
(2) Read Style Sheet hand-out (in Dropbox>readings)
(3) Complete Stages 1, 2, and 3 of copy-editing REx
(4) Complete Part Five of CMS article assignment


April 21: Reviewing copy-editing and queries


(1) Discuss style sheet progress & editor queries
(2) Workshop CMS article drafts


(1) Finish Stage 3 editing and exchange with your partner on your timeline.
(2) Complete Stage 4 & 5 of copy-editing REx by May 5, including peer-reviewing your partner’s author query and revising your own
(2) Complete Part Six of the CMS article assignment BY FRIDAY
(3) Read & be ready to respond to your partners’ article drafts in class Tuesday.

April 28: Finalizing copy-editing


(1) Workshop author query letters
(2) Conclude discussion of copy-editing assignment: including style sheet!
(3) Evaluations
(4) Beverages

homework (due May 5, anytime):

(1) Finish Stage 5 of REx assignment
(2) Revise editorial values statement to turn in to DropBox>editorial-values-REVISED folder
(3) Finish OJS tutorials and upload to DropBox

One thought on “Schedule”

  1. I’m excited that there are no required papers for this course. And I’m looking forward to Unit 3 when we will discuss editing techniques on the micro level.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *