In Media Res, a project by ‘The Institute for the Future of the Book‘ put out a call for curators (here: academics, journalists, critics, media professionals and fans) to contribute to Everyday Archives. It’s due 2nd of September.

About In Media Res:
“In Media Res is dedicated to experimenting with collaborative, multi-modal forms of online scholarship. Our goal is to promote an online dialogue amongst scholars and the public about contemporary approaches to studying media. In Media Res provides a forum for more immediate critical engagement with media at a pace closer to how we experience mediated texts.

Each weekday, a different scholar curates a 30-second to 3-minute video clip/visual image slideshow accompanied by a 300-350-word impressionistic response. We use the title “curator” because, like a curator in a museum, you are repurposing a media object that already exists and providing context through your commentary, which frames the object in a particular way. The clip/comment combination are intended both to introduce the curator’s work to the larger community of scholars (as well as non-academics who frequent the site) and, hopefully, encourage feedback/discussion from that community.”

This project re-imagines established roles in creative production such as ‘the curator’ which allows to appropriate these roles and apply them to other disciplines (see Joseph Vogel on Rhizomes). And in a more applied sense it reminds me of projects such as clipkino.

For you to check out:

HyperKultXXIIWe’re happy to announce that the videos from the conference talks of this year’s HyperKult are now available. More than a dozen talks are now online for free at
This year HyperKult focused on “Norms, Standards and Protocols” and the talks were especially interesting, engaging, and enlightening. The video archive also goes back several years and is a great way to comfort yourself if you couldn’t make it to the conference this year and to catch up on past conferences.

We hope to see you again next year for HyperKult XXIII.

how to read this magazine

how to read this magazine

intro spread to the culinary section

intro spread to the culinary section

ipad format works very nicely for short, crisp instructions just like recipes that fit on one 'slide'

ipad format works very nicely for short, crisp instructions just like recipes that fit on one ‘slide’

Open source software is an important paradigm to keep ideas open to the public. But there are several dozens of licensing models that might be used. So first of all developers have to know all possible models, interpret and compare them and finally choose one. Software developers who want to publish their code under an open source license are confronted with a task that usually lawyers are in charge of. However, good advice is expensive.

As a result, only a minority of projects are licensed under an open source license according to a study which was conducted earlier this year by the lawyer Aaron Williamson. Williamson analysed GitHub repositories and found out that out of 1,692,135 code repositories 219,326 of them (14.9 %) were under any open source license. GitHub now addresses this problem. Users — when creating a new repository — are asked to choose a license model. To facilitate the choice of an open source license, there is also a website that gives guidence and examples.

HyperImage — a project of the hybrid publishing lab — which facilitates the linking of (audio)-visual objects, texts and mixed-media documents, is licensed under the open source Apache-2-License (earlier versions use SUN’s CDDL open source license).

Read the whole article on Open Source License Guide For Coders on GitHub

As part of our research into new business models in Open Access publishing we are interviewing managers at various scholarly publishers about the answers they find to the challenges posed by the current reconfiguration of the academic publishing market. While there seems to be an emerging consensus that APC-funded Open Access publishing in journals is the way to go for STEM fields, an issue that frequently comes up is the sustainability of that very model for the humanities and social sciences.

The monograph is still perceived as the gold standard of humanistic inquiry, yet research grants in the humanities are much less generous than in STEM fields. This makes coughing up the roughly 10-15.000 EUR it costs to produce a book a rather nontrivial task. And with this figure we are not even speaking about profits for the publisher. Consequently, most publishers are currently viewing their activities in OA monograph publishing as experimental and are not expecting any profits from those initiatives in the foreseeable future.

However, Knowledge Unlatched, a new initiative by ex-Bloomsbury Academic executive Frances Pinter, seeks to tackle this problem.

Continue Reading…

It’s been more than three years, since the first European Manifesto to the Digital Humanities was written at THATCamp in Paris in May 2010. In the meantime, Digital Humanities journals, networks, research labs, and centres have been established, new methods and software have been developed, and lots of blog posts, articles, and even several books have been written on the topic. As a result, it seems to be impossible to think of academia withYesWeDigitalout having the term on the back of one’s mind these days.

However, the situation of the Digital Humanities is still precarious in at least two ways. One was recently addressed by a manifesto that emerged in the context of the conference Research Conditions and the Digital Humanities: What are the Prospects for the Next Generation? which took place at Paris on June 10-11: The precarious situation of young researchers working in the field of the Digital Humanities due to a lack of institutional acknowledgment of their working methods and publishing practices by, amongst others, senior researchers and funding agencies.

Besides the 31 participants of the conference, some 50 researchers have signed the manifesto confessing “Yes we digital” up to now. Will you be the next? You digital?

The other precariousness is related to the concept itself. All these brave efforts made so far haven’t clarified the meaning of “Digital Humanities”: Is it a new discipline? A new approach? The salvation of the humanities? Just a buzzword to obtain subsidies? Or a project waiting openly for critical researchers to be adopted?

If you want to support “Yes we digital”, please click and sign here.

He is one of the ancestors and masterminds of today’s digital media culture. Yesterday, Douglas Engelbart died at age 88. In 1968 Engelbart gave a presentation which is since widely regarded as the mother of all demos. To catch a glimpse of the history of computer culture the video of the event is still worth watching – even more so today. Continue Reading…


Even the last seat of the conference room was taken. That was something the organisers of “Open Access Monographs in the Humanities and Social Sciences Conference” hadn’t expected. JISC Collections in partnership with OAPEN Foundation have obviously hit a nerve with their two days event in the British Library, and their excellent choice of experts discussing the current state of OA monograph publishing may have helped. (Lovely keynote by Jean-Claude Guédon!)

In a nutshell: there is a lot going on in academic publishing at the moment that is of interest for our Hybrid Publishing Consortium researching and developing Open Source publishing software. This blogpost can not do the conference justice but only mentions a few points. Continue Reading…

Yesterday the German parliament passed a law granting scientists the right to make their research available online after a period of twelve month independent of former agreements with publishers. On first glance this appears to be a good thing. Yet as always the devil lies in the detail. The law excludes the regular everyday research done in universities. This limitation has been justly criticized. Moreover the legislation falls short in another respect which is especially important to the humanities: The legal right is limited to publications in periodicals. Scholarly monographs and papers in edited volumes therefore cannot be made legally available online after the embargo period. So it comes back to the question under which conditions book publishers allow authors to make their books Open Access.

Heinz Pampel put together a great overview (in German) of the debates around the so-called ‘Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht’ on his blog