Annotation Guidelines

by Remi Kalir, Antero Garcia, Remi Kalir, and Antero Garcia
Annotation Guidelines
Contributors (4)
R
A
Published
Jun 05, 2019

As we discuss throughout Annotation, annotation serves many purposes - it can provide information, share commentary, spark conversation, express power, and also aid learning. This is why annotation matters. And it is also how annotation may be used throughout this open peer review process. By participating in an open review of Annotation, we hope that your annotation here, via PubPub, provides us with new information, shares useful commentary, sparks conversation among reviewers and with us, expresses alternative narratives and exposes our blind spots, and - ultimately - helps us learn something new so as to improve this manuscript.

We anticipate that your annotation contributions to this open peer review will be productive. More specifically, we welcome annotation that is:

  • Civil. We can disagree. And when we do so, let’s also respect one another.

  • Constructive. Share what you know. And build upon ideas that are relevant and informative.

  • Curious. Ask honest questions and listen openly to responses.

  • Creative. Model generative dialogue. Have fun. Contribute to and learn from the process.

Because Annotation is written for an interdisciplinary audience and a general readership, we discuss a lot of topics relevant to annotation - from history and politics, to art and science. There may be some content you find surprising or provocative. We may make an argument, or present an example, that challenges you in some way. We want to ensure that this open peer review is a comfortable, welcoming, and productive process for everyone who chooses to participate - whether you’re a bookworm or a journalist, a student or a scholar.

As such, we do not welcome annotation that is:

  • Hurtful, that personally attacks a participant, or is read as harassment.

  • Explicit in nature or illegal in content.

  • Spam and an intentional distraction from the scholarly goals of peer review.

These Annotation Guidelines are not meant to stifle commentary. Rather, we believe it is useful to articulate such standards in order to help curate a productive and open peer review process. You’re very welcome to email either Remi or Antero if you have questions about either these guidelines or a specific comment. And finally, PubPub administrators will remove any annotation that does not align with these guidelines.

We are grateful for both Data Feminism’s Code of Conduct and the Hypothesis Community Guidelines for inspiring these Annotation Guidelines - thank you!

Comments
0
comment

No comments here