Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Arthur, P.L.; Hearn, L.;
Ryan, J.C.; Menon, N.; Khumalo, L.
Making Open Scholarship More
Equitable and Inclusive. Publications
2023,11, 41. https://doi.org/
10.3390/publications11030041
Academic Editors: Katie Wilson,
Lucy Montgomery and Chun-Kai
(Karl) Huang
Received: 29 April 2023
Revised: 12 June 2023
Accepted: 5 July 2023
Published: 7 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
publications
Article
Making Open Scholarship More Equitable and Inclusive
Paul Longley Arthur 1, * , Lydia Hearn 1, John C. Ryan 2, Nirmala Menon 3and Langa Khumalo 4
1School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Mt Lawley, Perth, WA 6050, Australia;
l.hearn@ecu.edu.au
2School of Arts and Social Sciences, Southern Cross University, East Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia;
john.c.ryan@scu.edu.au
3School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore 453552, India;
nmenon@iiti.ac.in
4South African Centre for Digital Language Resources (SADiLaR), North-West University,
Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa; langa.khumalo@nwu.ac.za
*Correspondence: paul.arthur@ecu.edu.au
Abstract:
Democratizing access to information is an enabler for our digital future. It can transform
how knowledge is created, preserved, and shared, and strengthen the connection between academics
and the communities they serve. Yet, open scholarship is influenced by history and politics. This
article explores the foundations underlying open scholarship as a quest for more just, equitable,
and inclusive societies. It analyzes the origins of the open scholarship movement and explores how
systemic factors have impacted equality and equity of knowledge access and production according
to location, nationality, race, age, gender, and socio-economic circumstances. It highlights how the
privileges of the global North permeate academic and technical standards, norms, and infrastructures.
It also reviews how the collective design of more open and collaborative networks can engage a
richer diversity of communities, enabling greater social inclusion, and presents key examples. By
fostering dialogue with multiple stakeholders, more effective avenues for knowledge production and
representation can be built based on approaches that are accessible, participatory, interactive, ethical,
and transparent, and that reach a far broader public. This expansive vision of open science will lead
to a more unified knowledge economy.
Keywords:
open access; open science; open scholarship; gender; equity; equality; language; justice;
environment
1. Introduction
A fundamental feature driving open science—or open scholarship—has been the
moral call for more just, equitable, and inclusive societies. As enshrined in Article 27 of
the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to
freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in
scientific advancement and its benefits” [
1
]. By enhancing visibility and increasing access
to scholarly outputs, openness has the potential to foster a wider culture of education and
literacy, directly influencing public policy through greater public engagement in new ideas
and technology that can enrich the lives and livelihoods of people everywhere [
2
]. Yet, as
declared in the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, “a global understanding
of the meaning, opportunities, and challenges of Open Science is still missing” [
3
]. While
the UNESCO statement recognizes the collaborative and inclusive characteristics of open
science for knowledge democratization, achieving this requires not only access to open
knowledge, open infrastructures, and open communication, but also the open engagement
of all societal actors, including those beyond the traditional scientific society, through open
dialogue with other knowledge systems to address existing systemic inequalities and to
guide scientific work toward solving the most significant human challenges [3].
Publications 2023,11, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11030041 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications
Publications 2023,11, 41 2 of 17
Despite the opportunities provided by new digital technologies, they are unequally
distributed and give rise to a knowledge divide for much of the world. Questions emerge
around whether the benefits of open scholarship can be truly democratic, unrestricted, and
fully inclusive. How can we unlock access to data, information, and knowledge to yield
positive outcomes for all, regardless of socio-economic, gender, geographical, and cultural
factors? How is it possible to prevent further inequality between and within communities
and the global North–South divide? While open scholarship is an international movement
with the potential to provide substantial benefits for universities, businesses, governments,
and non-governmental organizations across the world, it also involves a complex array
of power relations that may not always be consistent with the goal of inclusive, equitable
development [
2
]. Open scholarship policies, technologies, standards, and models have
stemmed primarily from the global North and been applied to the global South, creating
new categories of exclusion, with the risk of exacerbating the legacies of colonialist systems
of scholarly communication and further disadvantaging the needs or aspirations of diverse,
marginalized groups [
4
]. Initiatives are underway to scale up international collaboration
for more transparent, equitable cooperation toward openness to address persistent ten-
sions between those managing scholarly outputs and developing data, tools, software,
publications, and workflows, and those promoting an open knowledge environment. Only
through greater inclusivity can we reconfigure power relations and involve diverse peoples
and populations in knowledge creation, use, and re-use processes [
5
]. Open scholarship in
the humanities can play a central role in this progression.
This article examines the historical and cultural roots of the open scholarship move-
ment to explore the socio-political and technological environment in which it operates and
to illustrate how over-representation by the global North has replicated some of the very
power imbalances that the movement sought to overcome. Through a narrative review, it
analyzes how the foundational values of equality and inclusion have become diluted by
an emphasis on the pragmatics of open access to research outputs, data, and educational
resources and their transparency, accountability, and excellence rather than on their under-
lying philosophies and implicit values and ethics. It considers the main barriers and issues
restricting equity in open scholarship, focusing locally, nationally, and internationally. It
then explores how these problems have been shaped by colonialist and capitalist interests
and how, by acknowledging these barriers, we can begin to address the key features of
openness: common understanding, common values, common directions, and common
goals. Finally, the article delves into possible solutions aimed at encouraging cultural
diversity, equity, and inclusion through fostering dialogue with multiple stakeholders to
build promising pathways for open scholarship focused on the principles of openness
and justice.
Referring to a series of case studies, this article’s methodology introduces the reader
to and investigates ways in which the humanities have focused on addressing struggles
for openness in the global South, including data sovereignty among Indigenous groups.
By centering open scholarship socially and culturally, through developing collaborative
North–South and South–South networks, and by retaining community ownership of local
and Indigenous knowledges, barriers can be removed and learning shared to enrich educa-
tion more openly and equitably [
6
]. Examples include (1) the creation of new infrastruc-
ture providing language resources for the multiple recognized languages of South Africa,
thereby opening access to communities that have been under-resourced and marginalized;
(2) the digitization of minority literature to reach the numerous socio-cultural and language
communities within India; and (3) aural-digital storytelling—audio-recorded soundwalks,
multi-modal sound maps, and crowdsourcing techniques—to engage Indigenous audi-
ences together with academics as well as community groups to grapple with the direct
human impacts of climate change, ecosystem degradation, and related urgencies, from the
perspective of the humanities.
Publications 2023,11, 41 3 of 17
2. The Historical, Political, and Socio-Economic Roots of Open Scholarship
The open scholarship movement is intrinsically linked with the development of the
Internet, which brought with it a future of global connectivity and practically unlimited
access to and sharing of information and knowledge [
2
,
7
]. Open scholarship had its origins
prior to the advent of the Internet. Yet, in the 1990s, at the time digital technologies were
signaling the prospect that online access to research and publications would be cheaper and
faster than ever before, with printed articles becoming increasingly redundant, lucrative
publishers were gaining power and control over the purchase costs and dissemination of these
outputs [
8
]. To align with this changing world, a consortia of commercial for-profit publishing
companies developed collective “Big Deals”, offering university libraries multi-year digital
packages including subscriptions to a large market share of their serial journals and instant
virtual access to a much greater range of literature, while also making this information more
discoverable [
9
,
10
]. However, these modifications came at a high cost for academic libraries
and research institutions, leading to widespread dissatisfaction with the expensive traditional
publishing model [
11
,
12
]. To address this, in 1998, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic
Resources Coalition (SPARC), an alliance of academic libraries and other organizations, was
established to seek alternatives, arguing that if society funds science through paying taxes
that support academic salaries and research, then the general public must have access to its
findings. This led to a range of key initiatives, including the launch of the open-source Open
Journal Systems (OJS) platform, the creation of institutional repositories, and the establishment
of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI), all of which were followed from 2002 by a series of major
international statements calling for unrestricted online access to research outputs (Budapest
Open Access Initiative 2002, Berlin Declaration 2003).
The open scholarship movement has sought to make scholarly communication and
research results freely available through the support of a nonprofit ecosystem whose co-
operative work promotes a more sustainable, inclusive, and participatory “knowledge
commons” [
13
–
17
]. Accordingly, since its emergence at the start of the 21st century, many
statements have advocated for greater equity in access to publications, open data, copyright
revision, open educational resources, open government data, alternative metrics and assess-
ment, and responsive research and development, with some calling for the implementation
of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) practices to facilitate greater
public access, collaboration, and multi-stakeholder and citizen engagement [
18
–
22
]. For
example, the 2005 Salvador Declaration on Open Access highlighted the importance of
open access in promoting equity, envisaging outcomes commensurate with the United
Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, including large-scale collaborative partnerships
for more equitable access to information, especially among developing countries.
Yet, two decades after the foundational Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) was
first drafted and optimism that the Internet would assist in developing and support-
ing sustainable “knowledge societies,” the opportunities are unequally distributed [
23
].
Despite drives for greater equity of access to and engagement with education through
networked platforms and repositories to bridge social divides [
24
], restricted Internet ac-
cess, limited digital literacy, the primacy of English language publishing, and crucially,
the cost of making research openly available, have become barriers reinforcing the global
North–South imbalance and inequities within and across borders [
25
]. This further high-
lights the digital divide in ways that impact not just access to technology but also the
growth of knowledge and literacy.
Inclusion, diversity, and justice need to be principle guiding factors in the development
of the global open scholarship ecosystem. Yet, the links between openness and inclusion are
not straightforward. Often, openness and inclusion have been enabled along gender, class,
age, religion, ethnicity, education, ability, and geographic lines—and with them a set of
material and symbolic barriers that intersect with colonialist and racialist frameworks that
still underpin histories and cultural heritage, and limit participation or even representation
in the design and implementation of open practices [
10
,
26
,
27
]. Historically marginalized
Indigenous and minority populations in both urban areas and regions tend to have lower
Publications 2023,11, 41 4 of 17
levels of digital inclusion. Therefore, openness should not just be about addressing technical
problems to make information more findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable, but
also about solving the social, cultural, and moral issues that currently limit participation
and representation, and prioritize knowledge produced in the global North [
6
,
26
,
28
]. To
date, the legacies of colonialism continue to shape debates and practices around open
scholarship [
29
,
30
]. To address these inequities, open scholarship needs to be understood
in relation to the histories, socio-cultural contexts, and political powers that have shaped
and continue to constrain the philosophical and ethical impulses of openness [26,31–34].
A growing body of literature is calling for the open scholarship movement to focus
more on the cumulative advantage of open science for the global North [
5
,
28
,
35
], framed
around solutions to the politics of whiteness, and the dismantling of processes and materials
supporting knowledge production that are intertwined with the legacies of colonization [
6
].
Open science holds the promise to make scientific endeavors more inclusive, participatory,
understandable, accessible, and re-usable, engaging those from more marginalized geogra-
phies and identities to reach a more holistic understanding of the world and the issues
affecting a broader range of audiences [
28
]. Yet, achieving this will require focusing on
the four pillars outlined in UNESCO’s Recommendation on Open Science: open scientific
knowledge, open science infrastructures, and science communication, with special empha-
sis on its fourth pillar, that of “open engagement of societal actors and open dialogue with
other knowledge systems” [
3
]. Only through acknowledging knowledge pluralities and
encouraging researchers to “situate” their understanding of science within highly nuanced,
socio-cultural terrains that shape power structures around open scholarship practices can
we begin to acknowledge and construct more equitable opportunities for collaboration,
intentionally seeking to create “inclusive infrastructures” to avoid reproducing the status
quo of research inequalities [35].
3. Power Imbalances Influencing Equity and Inclusion
While digitalization has undoubtedly increased the volume of cultural content avail-
able online and facilitated broader community uptake, limited attention has been given
to the design of digital platforms and tools to redress the power relations and restruc-
ture the systems that reinforce over-representation of knowledge produced by dominant
groups [
5
,
6
,
28
,
36
]. Scholars, designers, and promoters of technical tools and platforms,
including those working in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, choose what to
accept, describe, catalog, and document [
37
]. They decide what to include in their insti-
tutions’ collections, how to categorize and catalog data, how to annotate, adapt, correct,
and modify content, which data to record, tag, and link, and what to include and leave
out [
34
,
38
]. Defining and developing collections, describing and annotating items, and
providing infrastructure are all decisions made in view of aims and interests and in terms
of history and politics. And while those choices may not be made through a conscious bias,
they can support the very oppressive and restrictive systems they seek to overcome [39].
Christen [
40
], in her analysis of the connections between information, freedom, and
openness, suggested that models of digital curation typically involve three processes:
(1) getting/finding, (2) arranging, and (3) sharing content. By simply using a major search
engine, we can discover information and images, and download content. Yet, while this
digital content may be viewed as open and reusable, it may contain deep ties with the
communities, individuals, or groups these materials represent. As such, Christen argues
that, in practice, any online search, as well as “data mining”, risks being influenced by the
colonialist legacies relating to physical materials collected from local places and peoples and
grafted onto now-digitized content. Moreover, she argues that metadata—or information
about data—can be mired in social, cultural, and political values and norms. For example,
in Western settings, authors are legally seen as the sole creator of a work, yet in many
Indigenous communities, the notion of a single creator is a difficult concept and is in
contrast to the value they place on community production, ancestral creation of stories, or
other forms of cultural and artistic content [40].
Publications 2023,11, 41 5 of 17
Similarly, de Oliveira et al., in their study of the inclusion of open science in Latin Amer-
ica [
41
], outlined two different approaches to the open science movement. The first approach
focuses on the principles of “acceleration, efficiency and reproducibility” and advocates for
the “standardization” or “homogenization” of scientific practices. This approach, which they
argue dominates academia, gives limited attention to the uneven production, distribution,
and access to scientific knowledge worldwide as a result of languages, cultures, and power.
As such, de Oliveira et al. discuss “publication bias” and “structural bias” faced by global
South researchers, and highlight the fees charged to publish in open access (OA), the massive
concentration of researchers from the global North on editorial boards [
42
], predominance of
English as an academic lingua franca [
43
], adoption of policies legitimizing only top-ranked
universities and publisher oligopolies [
20
], and the colonialist legacies permeating scholarly
discussions [
29
,
44
], all of which make the scientific production and circulation of knowledge
from non-Western regions less visible [
45
]. Ultimately, they caution against open science
practices focused on “acceleration, efficiency and reproducibility” of knowledge, arguing that
they may result in platform capitalism reinforcing the existing global inequalities in academia.
Rather, they propose the need for greater emphasis on the second approach grounded in
“participation, social justice, and democratization of knowledge” and provide the example of
how Latin America has been enacting its own form of open scholarship for decades [41]. In
doing so, they challenge the current open access agenda, suggesting that if it is to become
truly inclusive, it will need to address current language, cultural, economic, political, and
epistemological differences.
The example of Latin America highlights the importance of regional rather than global
initiatives. Here, collaborative efforts have resulted in the distribution and sharing of
research through a variety of open repositories, including SciELO, Redalyc, and Latindex,
among others. SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) is a bibliographic database,
digital library, and cooperative electronic publishing model for open access journals aimed
at increasing visibility and access for developing countries. Established in Brazil in 1997,
it now provides a portal for accessing journals and publications from 15 Latin American
countries, as well as South Africa. Redalyc (Red de Revistas Científicas de América
Latina, y El Caribe, España y Portugal) is a similar service aimed at building a scientific
information system made up of leading journals of all disciplines edited in Latin America
and Iberia. LA Referencia (the Federated Network of Institutional Repositories of Scientific
Publications) is supported by countries whose open repositories follow interoperability
standards. Importantly, Latin American universities encourage staff to use these networks
and institutional repositories rather than paying APCs or BPCs [
9
]. Yet, despite Latin
America having strong research traditions and SciELO being searchable via the Web of
Science (WoS), in 2019 less than 5% of these outputs were included in the WoS Journal
Citation Reports [46].
Similarly, a recent study by Kanna et al. demonstrates how the open-source publishing
platform Open Journal Systems has published over 25,000 journal issues with 5.8 million
items from 136 countries, with 79.9% from the global South [
47
]. Yet, this example also
illustrates that, despite wide-ranging geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, only
1.2% are indexed in the Web of Science and 5.7% in Scopus. Therefore, global South scholars
are not well ranked according to privileged Western academic reputation and reward
systems, placing a further burden on an already unequal hierarchy of knowledge [
41
]. If
open platforms are to drive greater equity of access to assist humankind in taking full
advantage of our digital world, then, as outlined by Kanna et al., there is a need to expand
and recalibrate the scale, diversity, and recognition of scholarly knowledge by mapping and
indexing information and data across countries, regions, languages, and disciplines [47].
These identified priorities require reviewing not just the publishing environment,
but also the inequalities present in open data sharing, open methods, open infrastructure,
and open evaluation processes. As Ross-Hellauer et al. point out, data sharing aims
for increased citation, transparency, reproducibility, and research quality, reuse, and effi-
ciency [
28
]. But as they illustrate, the blanket appreciation of open access to data ignores
Publications 2023,11, 41 6 of 17
the inequalities in relation to those less able to participate and access data. The authors
highlight that open access to data alone is not enough to guarantee effective re-use of data,
as this requires skills, money, and computing power. Open methods and open infrastruc-
ture, which include the sharing of code, laboratory notebooks, or preregistering of analyses,
are also credited with addressing concerns around the integrity, quality, standardization,
transparency, and reproducibility of research [
41
]. Yet, with major commercial publishing
corporations like Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer capturing usage through a host of tools
skewed toward interoperability of their own products dominated by academia in the global
North, there is a growing call for open science and open scholarship infrastructures to be
open-source and community-governed, ensuring data availability remains responsive to
community needs [
28
]. Moreover, while new evaluation processes and alternative biblio-
metrics, or altmetrics, are providing more open, congruent ways for universities to reshape
their assessment of research for societal benefit, many assessment systems still favor the
global North [
24
,
48
]. The rationalization of open scholarship remains routinely located
in the discursive debates of Western academia, rationalized around evolving models for
scholarly publishing and unfettered access to the sharing of information and data, rather
than the diverse systems of meaning produced by people over time and location in diverse
settings. Open scholarship does not operate in a vacuum; it is influenced by social, cultural,
and political values and norms [26].
4. Framing Open Scholarship for Greater Inclusiveness
The Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet), a research
network involving scientists, development practitioners, and community activists from
26 countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, was established in 2014
with the aim of investigating how networked collaboration could address local and global
challenges to facilitate a fairer and more open environment for sustainable development.
The network centered on challenging ‘homogeneous, decontextualized, and dehistoricized
definitions’ of open science, instead calling for more ‘situated’ knowledge focused on well-
being, development, and collective prosperity [
35
]. That is, making openness to knowledge
understood within its particular history and environment and, as such, identifying who is
likely to benefit from the production and circulation of knowledge and who is at risk. To
whom does knowledge belong, and who gets to participate in knowledge production pro-
cesses? The OCSDNet Manifesto outlining the seven principles for open and collaborative
science was the outcome of many years of discussion, reflection, research, and negotiation
about the core values of a vision for the development of a more inclusive open science [
49
].
Table 1summarizes the seven principles for Open and Collaborative Science.
Table 1. OCSDNet Principles for Open and Collaborative Science (OCSDNet, 2017).
Principles Values
Principle 1 Enables a knowledge commons where every individual has the means to decide how
their knowledge is governed and managed to address their needs.
Principle 2 It recognizes cognitive justice, the need for diverse understandings of knowledge
making to co-exist in scientific production.
Principle 3 It practices situated openness by addressing the ways in which context,power and
inequality condition scientific research.
Principle 4 It advocates for every individual’s right to research and enables different forms of
participation at all stages of the research process.
Principle 5 It fosters equitable collaboration between scientists and social actors and cultivates
co-creation and social innovation in society.
Principle 6
It incentivizes
inclusive infrastructures
that empower people of all abilities to make, and
use accessible open-source technologies.
Principle 7 Strives to use knowledge as a pathway to sustainable development, equipping every
individual to improve the well-being of our society and planet.
Publications 2023,11, 41 7 of 17
In summary, OCSDNet’s principles challenge mainstream narratives of openness
focused on acceleration, efficiency, transparency, and productivity—highlighting instead
the concept of the knowledge commons, social justice, and inclusion through diversity of
participation and the integration of community actors to form collaborative connections
across traditional and institutional boundaries in an effort to address regional, context-
specific issues in the global South [
35
]. These principles, moreover, emphasize how existing
power structures, hierarchies, and even the cultures of collaboration may unintentionally
influence norms and standards around knowledge creation and legitimacy, and suggest the
need to foster network-building and information-sharing aimed at the creation of locally
relevant, freely accessible, and reusable knowledge, including, for example, the use of local
rather than Western norms, such as oral traditions and storytelling. The contextualization
and situating of open scholarship are central to encouraging local participation regardless
of culture, gender, socioeconomic status, or language, facilitating local capabilities to use,
share, and create knowledge. This calls for the inclusion of diverse actors and epistemolo-
gies, with the goal of intentionally reconfiguring research methods and practices to address
the needs of those who are most often marginalized [35].
Importantly, by recognizing current barriers collaboratively with stakeholders, OCSD-
Net teams have acknowledged that, in changing their culture and policy through long-term
strategies and by scaling up openness for the benefit of those disadvantaged, excluded, or
otherwise overlooked, open scholarship has the potential to transform the foundational
structures of knowledge creation in new and important ways [
19
,
50
]. By exposing power
relations and inherent biases and by offering spaces, tools, opportunities, and principles
that facilitate opportunities for historically marginalized groups to participate in knowledge
production and validate new and existing forms of local knowledge, open scholarship can
give rise to the concepts of knowledge commons and social justice [41].
5. Fostering Collaborative Networks
Engaging in greater collaboration to reach solutions will require fostering dialogue
with multiple stakeholders. The following case studies outline South–South and North–
South examples of possible solutions aimed at raising cultural diversity, equity, and inclu-
sion through engendering dialogue to build promising alternatives for open scholarship
founded on the principles of openness and justice.
5.1. SADiLaR—Making Language Resources Open in the South African Context
The South African Centre for Digital Language Resources (SADiLaR) is a national
research infrastructure funded by the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) of the
government of South Africa, and forms part of the broader DSI South African Research
Infrastructure Roadmap (SARIR) program. SARIR is a strategic national initiative and
framework to facilitate medium-to-long-term planning, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation for the provision of research infrastructures (RIs) necessary for a competitive and
sustainable national system of innovation. SADiLaR has the function of creating, managing,
and distributing digital (and computational) resources as well as applicable software for
all of South Africa’s official languages. This is performed, inter alia, in order to stimulate
and support research and development in the humanities and social sciences. It is the first
and currently the only such center in Africa that is charged with creating and managing
digital resources and software to support all of the eleven official languages of South Africa:
English, Afrikaans, Sesotho, Setswana, Sesotho sa Leboa, Xitsonga, Tshivenda, Siswati,
isiNdebele, isiXhosa, and isiZulu.
SADiLaR has a mandate that is split into two main programs: the digitization program
and the digital humanities program. The digitization program involves the creation of
relevant text, speech, and multimodal resources for research and the re-intellectualization of
South Africa’s eleven official languages. This is a challenging task, as re-intellectualization
in the South African context means the radical transformation of the capacity and role of
Indigenous official African languages in carrying and conveying all forms of knowledge in
Publications 2023,11, 41 8 of 17
all spheres of life using all forms of media [
51
]. The digital humanities program focuses on
developing and cultivating research capacity. SADiLaR works with universities, various
linguistic communities, and publishing organizations to harness digital resources in all
eleven official languages. The specialization nodes of SADiLaR have harnessed, processed,
and curated these digital resources and made them available through an open-source online
repository. The SADiLaR repository is host to a corpus portal (of all the eleven official
languages) that can be queried online, a multilingual learner corpus of academic texts
(SAMuLCAT), a dictionary portal and application, and a grammar portal in development
that will be launched soon.
SADiLaR has located the Escalator Project at the center of its digital humanities
program. The Escalator is SADiLaR’s flagship project. There have been sparse and uncoor-
dinated digital humanities activities in the global South and particularly in South Africa
over the past decade or so. As a result, there has been a paucity of computational and
digital research skills within the disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. SADiLaR
has identified the imperative to initiate a national flagship project that coalesces researchers,
students, and practitioners from across these disciplines, as well as the broader academy,
and actively links them with computational research areas where learning, sharing of best
practices, and co-creation of resources can take place. The main aim is to support the devel-
opment of an active Community of Practice (CoP) in digital humanities and computational
social sciences in South Africa. The idea of a CoP derives from the understanding that
this is a platform that brings together hitherto disparate individuals to focus on a shared
interest with a view to deepen their knowledge and skills and foster collaboration, growth,
and collective advancement.
Within the Escalator project, there are two main activities. The first is a monthly Digital
Humanities Colloquium series covering a wide array of topics that are presented by digital
humanities (DH) experts from across the globe. The topics discussed mostly pertain to DH
techniques or methodologies. Topics on Natural Language Processing and applications
are also covered. This monthly online event has created a growing academic community
that comes together to share ideas and best practices and problem-solve. SADiLaR has
hosted these colloquia since October 2020. The second main activity is the DH-IGNITE
events. These are regional events that are hosted by SADiLaR in each of South Africa’s
nine regions (or provinces) in order to bring together varied disciplines, connect people of
different academic backgrounds, and proactively create a CoP in DH and Computational
Social Sciences (CSS). There are a variety of activities at these events, and they include
presentations, lightning talks, panel discussions, and exhibitions. These events attract
students and researchers from across the twenty-six public universities in South Africa, as
well as freelance media practitioners, archivists, and librarians.
SADiLaR has initiated a responsive and impactful program that has empowered the
under-resourced Indigenous African languages through its digitization program, which
has seen the harnessing and creation of datasets in these languages, and has led to the
creation of multilingual general and academic corpora. The novel Escalator project has, in
the first instance, created a link between DH activities and practices in the global North and
global South, through the DH Colloquium series. The second effect of the Escalator project
is the skilling (re-skilling and up-skilling) of the humanities and social sciences academic
community in the areas of computer science and digital methodologies through the DH-
IGNITE events. The creation of such an engaged CoP with experts from varied academic
backgrounds is a step towards achieving an “engaged inclusive knowledge society.” The
focus on creating digital resources for the eleven official languages brings to the fore access
to communities that have hitherto been neglected, marginalized, and under-resourced.
5.2. KSHIP—Digitalization of Minority Literature in India
India is a multilingual country with twenty-two official languages and eleven written
scripts, according to the eighth schedule to the Constitution of India. Each language has
its own literature and scholarship. Yet, the state of scholarly publishing infrastructure
Publications 2023,11, 41 9 of 17
in India is precarious, and access to scholarly articles in Indian languages is difficult
and challenging [
52
]. KSHIP—or Knowledge Sharing in Publishing—is an independent
publishing center aimed at offering access to scholarly publications in languages other
than English. Born from a collaborative commitment toward the development of an open
access environment, KSHIP has involved the development of a multilingual Open Access
Scholarly Publishing platform focused primarily on areas of the humanities and social
sciences with an emphasis on Indian languages. Established and managed by the Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT) Indore, KSHIP initially comprised the Multilingual Literature
Research Database (MLRD), which focused on three languages with the aim of adding
more later. The main objectives of the MLRD project have been to create a relational
database that includes citations for Indian research articles in English, Hindi (Devnagari),
and Hindi (transliteration); ensure that the meta tags recognize each of these citations in
relation to the English meta tags as well as to each other; and collect and collate research
data initially in Hindi, Malayalam, Tamil, and Bengali and to extend these to other Indian
languages. As a multilingual publishing house, KSHIP has specifically targeted scholarly
monographs and translations in Indian languages, inviting scholars to host journals in
multiple languages. The database serves as a collaborative and comprehensive hub for
Indian literature scholarship, with efforts made for it to be a cooperative and community-
based crowd-sourced platform [53].
If archives are repositories of power, databases are the digital pathways to that power,
and in the case of literature, they are also the road to canonicity. The awareness of databases
as a digital site for research and knowledge production is reflected in the digital transition
of bibliographic indexes and the creation of databases across humanities and social sciences
areas of research. JSTOR, Project Muse, and MLA International Bibliography are just some
examples of relational databases that have, over the years, grown both representatively
and in the sheer amount of data that is now available for researchers [
52
]. It is therefore
crucial that literature research in Indian languages is accessible for such research queries,
and relational databases are built to cater to them so that they are part of the much larger
humanities and literature research ecosystem. Not having a digital presence risks neglecting
their presence as part of the conversations around research in literature from India and
in the global research network. With the aim of developing a publishing catalog that is
dynamic and diverse, KSHIP also has the ambition to publish translations of scholarly
works in regional languages that can be used by university students in different parts of
the country.
5.3. Mukurtu—An Indigenous Content-Centered Managament System
The Mukurtu platform is a community-centered content management system (CMS)
designed to enable Indigenous researchers to preserve and disseminate digital heritage
in accord with cultural protocols. In response to the worldwide momentum toward de-
colonization and reconciliation, Mukurtu constitutes a dynamic digital environmental
humanities (DEH) intervention for managing Indigenous communities’ data [
34
,
54
]. The
Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari archive was established in 2007 through collaborative dis-
cussions with Warumungu community members (Northern Australia). Mukurtu is a
Warumungu word meaning ‘dilly bag’ or a safe keeping place for sacred materials, and as
such, Mukurtu was chosen as the name for the archive, which represents a safe keeping
place where Warumungu people can share stories, knowledge, and cultural material using
their own protocols. The grassroots initiative has empowered communities to curate, man-
age, and disseminate their digital heritage in logistically flexible, culturally appropriate,
and ethically sensitive ways, in spite of the many obstacles to doing so. Managed by the
Center for Digital Scholarship and Curation at Washington State University, Mukurtu is dis-
tributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License as a series of commonly used
licenses ensuring the freedom to download, run, share, study, and modify software. The
development of Mukurtu has been supported to a large extent by the US-based National
Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Andrew
Publications 2023,11, 41 10 of 17
W. Mellon Foundation, and the National Science Foundation. Streamlining access to digital
collections, Mukurtu facilitates the uploading, modification, and management of editable
versions of digital materials rather than long-term preservation master files produced at
high-resolution specifications such as TIFF, WAV, DNC, INSK, and DPX files. The plat-
form’s focus on lower resolution files reduces users’ costs while enabling those with limited
Internet availability, especially in remote locations, to access material required for research.
Enhancing the production of content while traveling or in field settings, the companion
app Mukurtu Mobile can be used with the Mukurtu CMS to align data procurement and
research methodologies with community requirements and cultural protocols.
The Mukurtu Showcase features ten projects, one of which is Gather. This illustrative
example of the application of Mukurtu innovation is based at the State Library of New
South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Gather’s objective is to facilitate access to the Library’s
existing holdings of Aboriginal Australian cultural heritage material. The project’s core
activities include digitally returning copies of historical photographs, manuscripts, and
documents to their owners; engaging with communities to identify individuals, locations,
and narratives featured in archival images; and expanding the Library’s collections of
historical material through the addition of local knowledge from Indigenous stakeholders.
In keeping with cultural guidelines, access to some content is restricted. Gather is organized
into four categories: Mob; Country and Culture; Languages; and Resistance and Activism.
An example of a digital object from Country and Culture is Ngunawal Elder Don Bell’s
story “Great Dividing Range: A Gurulidj (Bunyip) Story” in the form of a 7-min audio file.
The Ngunawal are an Aboriginal people of southern New South Wales and the Australian
Capital Territory of Australia, including the towns of Queanbeyan, Yass, Tumut, Boorowa,
and Goulburn. Ngunawal people traditionally camped on rises near water sources with
access to food but avoided camping directly next to rivers for fear of bunyips (creatures
regarded as dwelling in rivers, streams, creeks, swamps, waterholes, and billabongs). The
Gather version of Elder Don Bell’s story includes a transcription along with a map situating
the reader geographically. In the narrative, disobedient boys transgress traditional Law by
entering a taboo place where they encounter a monstrous bunyip and flee in terror. The vi-
olation of cultural protocol not only suggests the importance of environmental stewardship
and respect for natural forces but also encodes biocultural knowledge. The storyteller, for
instance, associates gum and box trees with taboo sites, and as the boys flee the bunyip, they
come across a women’s party gathering yams and bracken roots for bushtucker (6 min and
15 secs). In addition to Gather, Mukurtu projects have been developed by the Chugachmiut
people of Alaska, the Passamaquoddy people of northeastern North America, and other
Indigenous communities, enhancing principles of Indigenous data sovereignty [55].
5.4. Climate Stories Project—An Open-Access Participatory Platform on Climate Disruption
The Climate Stories Project (CSP) is an open-access participatory platform designed
for sharing narratives of climate disruption, recognizing the need to place human stories at
the center of multifaceted climate debates. Focusing on oral histories, CSP brings affective,
human-scale considerations to the abstract, technologized, and oftentimes overwhelming
nature of climate change discourse. Contributions include accounts of wildfires, floods,
and other natural disasters exacerbated by climate disturbance; firsthand observations of
changes in seasonal patterns and cycles; expressions of deep concern for the welfare of
families, communities, and cultures; inspiring stories of adaptation to weather extremes
and rising sea levels; and narratives of community resilience-building through grassroots
campaigns and nonviolent resistance. More than an exclusively archival medium, however,
CSP aims to enable musicians and other artists, for example, to draw from climate stories
in devising creative responses with the potential to engage wider audiences in the climate
debate. The Share a Story tab provides contributors with the opportunity to Share Your
Climate Story or Share a Climate Story Interview. Additionally, the Climate Stories tab
invites users to explore an interactive map of climate narratives from the United States,
Canada, Africa, Europe, Asia/Pacific, and Latin America. A vital component of CSP, fur-
Publications 2023,11, 41 11 of 17
thermore, is ongoing community engagement through workshops on climate storytelling,
an ambassadors program training individuals to conduct interviews around the world, and
a focus on collaborations between musicians and storytellers creatively reinterpreting the
platform’s rich multimedia content. Amenable for use in educational and heritage settings,
the short interviews are curated from their raw, unedited versions. CSP exemplifies an
inclusive, participatory, open data project grappling with the global impacts of climate
disturbance through oral histories and the creative interpretation of content.
5.5. Indigenous Foods Knowledges Network—An Open Initiative on Indigenous Biocultural
Knowledge and Food Sovereignty
The Indigenous Foods Knowledges Network (IFKN), in contrast, offers an example
of a collaborative open platform underscoring the value of food security, sovereignty, and
equity, in close partnership with Indigenous communities. A limitation of the Climate
Stories Project is its prevailing Anglocentric focus on North American climate narratives,
with comparatively few contributions from Indigenous communities and members of the
Global South. Like Mukurtu, IFKN provides, first and foremost, a framework promoting
greater equity and inclusion in open Indigenous biocultural knowledge projects respond-
ing to climate change urgencies. As a digital channel connecting Arctic and US-American
Southwest Indigenous food knowledge systems, IFKN fosters a network of Indigenous
leaders, cultural representatives, and heritage scholars concerned with building community
capacity through research into Indigenous food sovereignty and knowledge. The two
regions of the Arctic and the US-American Southwest hold in common the challenge of
revivifying, sustaining, and adapting food-related knowledge systems in the context of the
social and environmental precarities of the present era, and this project responds to the
challenge of bringing them together. The IFKN Charter encourages research that engages
Indigenous knowledge-making processes, integrates Indigenous values, and bolsters the
resilience of Indigenous communities [
56
]. More precisely, the IFKN promotes Indige-
nous sovereignty, strives for ethical and equitable research partnerships, develops data
in alignment with community values, advances models privileging community-centered
approaches and equitable knowledge exchange, recognizes Indigenous languages as vital
elements of food sovereignty, demonstrates respect for Indigenous epistemologies, supports
Indigenous authority over the research projects impacting them, and remains responsive to
the concerns of communities in the Arctic and US-Southwest over seeds, plants, animals,
land, air, water, and biocultural assemblages [56].
6. Discussion
As our population becomes more digital, many are caught in a cycle of poverty, with
the digital divide furthering their lack of engagement and representation [
6
,
36
,
41
]. To facili-
tate greater social inclusion and equity for all, the use of digital tools and processes requires
the collective design of more open and collaborative networks to engage a richer diversity
of communities [
4
,
27
]. We argue that one approach to achieving this is to implement the
seven principles proposed in the OCSDNet Manifesto, which is focused on (i) enabling a
knowledge commons where all individuals have the means to decide how their knowledge
is governed and managed to address their needs; (ii) recognizing cognitive justice and the
need for diverse understandings of knowledge-making to co-exist in scientific production;
(iii) practicing situated openness by addressing the ways in which context, power, and
inequality condition scientific research; (iv) advocating for each individual’s right to re-
search and enabling different forms of participation at all stages of the research process;
(v) fostering equitable collaboration between scientists and social actors, and cultivating
co-creation and social innovation in society; (vi) incentivizing inclusive infrastructures that
empower people of all abilities to make and use accessible open-source technologies; and
(vii) using knowledge as a pathway to sustainable development [35].
Realizing these principles will require collaboration through respectful debate and
discussion for the co-creation of meaningful, collective knowledge [
35
]. Yet barriers to
Publications 2023,11, 41 12 of 17
collaboration exist even within the very networks themselves, aggravated by the diverse
multi-disciplinary and multi-language landscape and interests of those from varied North-
ern and Southern contexts [
57
]. To address these barriers, the creation of infrastructures
and practices should intentionally include the voices, worldviews, languages, and epis-
temologies that have to date been largely excluded from the open science system [
26
,
40
].
Through adopting the seven principles of OCSDNet, the case studies provided in this
article have sought to explore the potential of open scholarship through the creation of new
tools and frameworks focused on addressing local issues and needs. The first case study
illustrates the importance of native languages to address the uneven patterns of access to
information in South Africa and to make the scholarly communication infrastructure for
the humanities and social sciences more inclusive for local communities. SADiLaR (South
African Centre for Digital Language Resources), with its national digitization program
systematically creating resources related to all official languages of South Africa, is sig-
nificantly contributing to promoting and recognizing cultural diversity and intercultural
understanding by enabling advanced research on language transmission and adaptation.
This has included the importance of digital upskilling programs and the provision of
a co-learning and co-creation environment aimed at generating greater connectivity for
the sharing of each other’s experiences, raising awareness of possibilities afforded by the
digital environment, and meeting national needs. By developing the basis for a system
for sharing, linking, and storing data in multiple languages and across national/linguistic
boundaries, SADiLaR provides an excellent foundation for the open sharing of a depth
of local understanding, stimulating greater knowledge exchange and advancement, with
clear benefits for the broader scholarly community.
Similarly, databases offer digital pathways for the collection of literature, developed
over time, for the recording, preserving, and sharing of histories and the transmitting of
knowledge and culture that can play a social, psychological, spiritual, and political role.
Yet, their emphasis on the English language is endangering the power balance, putting the
emphasis on a smaller group of scientific communities [
57
]. KSHIP offers an ambitious
example of publishing scholarly works in regional languages that can be used by university
researchers and students in different parts of the country and, in the case of literature,
promoting the presence of conversations around research in literature from India and
across the global research network. The KSHIP platform serves as a collaborative space for
Indian literature scholarship, engaging the community in the capturing of sources, writing
and programming, enriching, and archiving of data, and various forms of dissemination.
This has included crowdsourcing, publishing, and the sharing of efforts [
53
]. By engaging
citizens rather than working alone with academics, crowdsourcing can help open up and
link resources to enable digital exploration of archival records and collections in the quest
to discover, collect, and preserve knowledge that may otherwise be lost, offering a means
to promote democratic and innovative approaches to the management and safeguarding of
collections [
58
]. Rather than merely being an instrument to involve citizens in the delivery
of better content to end users, crowdsourcing offers a way of enabling users to participate
in the collection and archiving of previously ‘untapped’ external knowledge, expertise,
and interest, thereby raising public awareness, transcending geo-political borders and
boundaries, and promoting greater equality and democratization of knowledge [5,59,60].
Yet too often, even where efforts have been made to engage local communities in the
knowledge infrastructure, these activities have been framed and packaged according to the
socio-political views of the academics, technicians, and funding bodies who have formed
part of their development [
59
], with the participation or representation of local groups being
‘shallow’ and ‘tokenistic’ rather than transformative [
61
]. While many online platforms
have facilitated greater user uptake and collaboration, limited attention has been given to
redressing the disconnect between narratives around the democratization of knowledge,
reinforcing the over-representation of information and the styles of presentation by the
dominant groups [
5
,
62
]. In the case of Indigenous peoples, taking knowledge, cultural
practices, and data onto public platforms requires addressing concerns around ownership,
Publications 2023,11, 41 13 of 17
repatriation, and Indigenous sovereignty [
34
]. Merely transforming data and making it
open and accessible does not adequately address the concerns of Indigenous peoples [
6
].
To the contrary, advocates are calling for Indigenous peoples to be centrally involved in
every step of the process of digitalization and the management and governance of their
data [6,34].
The example of the Mukurtu platform illustrates the importance of protocols for par-
ticipation, repatriation, and the creation of a safe keeping place by providing Indigenous
peoples with the right to own, control, access, and process data that derive from them
and that pertain to their communities, knowledge systems, customs, and territories. This
recognition of sovereignty has been a first step in understanding and placing historically
uneven relationships on a more equal footing, facilitating the repositioning and refram-
ing of materials through expanded and enriched metadata, customizable categories and
vocabularies, and a focus on Indigenous knowledge that may not be wholly reliant on
text, but also on oral storytelling, audio, video, and other culturally specific forms [
34
]. It
has included developing data in alignment with community values through community-
centered approaches and equitable knowledge exchange. Unlike most content management
platforms, Mukurtu has been designed around respectful social relationships, not just
records—creating a safe keeping place for ‘holding up’ relationships and knowledge for
the preservation and reinvigoration of traditional knowledge for future generations [
54
].
While the futures of Indigenous communities have been constrained by political, economic,
and social structures that are legacies of violent histories, the Mukurtu platform is seen
as a way of intentionally entangling the old and the new, the traditional and the digital,
opening up different types of mediated futures [54].
Furthermore, the examples of open access participatory platforms on climate dis-
ruption and Indigenous food sovereignty networks illustrate how digital environmental
humanities ideas have been implemented in significant projects that engage with, envi-
sion, re-imagine, and foster communities for environmental action and transformation.
These platforms aim to democratize environmental knowledge through open, community-
engaged methods, including recognizing Indigenous languages as vital elements of food
sovereignty. The multifaceted, multidisciplinary, community-focused, and often partic-
ipatory orientation of these platforms aims to broaden public awareness of interlinked
cultural and ecological urgencies. Through the use of different methods—including the
archival conservation of biocultural heritage and the making of digital artifacts informed
by ideas of environmental ethics, ecological justice, ecofeminism, sustainability, biore-
gionalism, biodiversity conservation, and multispecies thinking—such platforms offer
opportunities for expanding participation to a broader community, to grapple with the
direct impacts of climate change, ecosystem degradation, and biocultural loss [
63
]. These
examples highlight the importance of linking community and Indigenous peoples’ oral
histories and stories for the sharing of firsthand accounts of climate change and public
domains for food security focused on greater equity and inclusion in biocultural knowledge
projects. Along similar lines, the Indigenous Knowledge Weather Project demonstrates
the movement of traditional biocultural forms (Aboriginal Australian calendars) into the
digital public domain through ongoing collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology
and Indigenous communities [
64
]. These open and innovative communication practices
give an insight into the importance of discussions based on Indigenous knowledge sharing
and practices passed across generations, intertwined with recognition of sovereignty and
community ownership of communication resources [
6
]. Cultural diversity therefore has a
clear role to play in the design and management of open access infrastructure and open
communication, and should embrace access to multilingual, multi-disciplinary, and multi-
stakeholder content, allowing communication and participation within and beyond the
research community [57].
Publications 2023,11, 41 14 of 17
7. Conclusions
This paper has revealed a wide disconnect between the aspirations of the open schol-
arship movement and its promise for a more equitable democratization of knowledge,
and the socio-political histories and realities of well-resourced, privileged institutions, a
situation that has served to further exacerbate knowledge and research inequalities. Digital
technologies have generated new forms of knowledge production and circulation and
new types of access and modes of curation, providing many avenues for the sharing and
examining of knowledge by diverse citizens, higher education institutions, research centers,
government and non-government organizations, and private institutional and international
bodies for the benefit of society [
2
,
18
]. The design of trusted digital infrastructure resources,
openness to archival data, global access policies, and values embedded in international
copyright and IP laws have sought to improve information access globally. Yet, moves
toward openness have too often been decontextualized from their historical, political, socio-
cultural, and economic origins, widening the knowledge gap between the global North
and South and further excluding those more marginalized [
29
,
30
]. In other words, despite
their clear goals for greater democratization of knowledge, open systems have the potential
to replicate the very values the movement has sought to challenge [
26
]. If we are to address
the risk of further widening the power imbalances, then efforts to promote openness must
be grounded in their historical and socio-political contexts [33,40].
Today, while digital technologies are creating unprecedented and almost unlimited
possibilities to satisfy the demand for a stream of high-quality, audience-specific, tailored
digital content, questions remain around the extent to which the benefits are truly demo-
cratic and fully inclusive. Effective communication requires a multi-directional flow of
ideas between different groups within the community. Without this, information can be
siloed around ‘knowledge clubs’ of exclusive academic or scholarly status, impeding in-
put from more vibrant community spaces for the exchange of knowledge that embraces
inclusion [
5
,
57
,
65
]. Core to enabling collaboration is a give-and-take between all groups
of stakeholders in the technical design, archiving, production, and management of open
platforms, with community participation starting from the project’s inception. But this
requires investing resources in different forms of technical support and training for each
member, as well as time to build relationships [
34
]. Technology alone will not save or revive
languages or cultures, or ensure sovereignty is enacted, but by building awareness of the
need for more inclusive and equitable systems of knowledge production and sharing and
by empowering people to create their own digital systems for the cultural preservation
and production of knowledge, we can begin to reduce the historical and contemporary
harms imposed through the traditional academic system, and make scholarship more open,
collaborative, and fair.
8. Future Directions
Based on the concepts and case studies elaborated in this paper, we recommend a
series of actions to build commitment to open scholarship philosophies for more equitable,
sustainable, and readily available public utilization of knowledge. These include more
reflexive, critical, and just modes of working together to promote common understanding,
common values, and the common good. Above all, it requires encouraging those in the
global North to analyze their ‘open’ systems through new lenses, reflecting on their histories,
reviewing what negative impacts these may potentially have on those less privileged
or those in the global South, and questioning how knowledge infrastructure has been
designed and to what extent this is controlling or biasing the type of information included
or left out. Openness can give rise to and support the concept of a global knowledge
commons for social equity and justice. Yet, to do so requires considering open scholarship
at the international scale, socially and culturally, through the development of collaborative
North–South and South–South networks and by retaining community ownership of local
and Indigenous knowledge [
41
]. This includes encouraging a constant appraisal of how
agendas, standards, and norms are set, and by whom. By working together to build and
Publications 2023,11, 41 15 of 17
learn from successful case studies like those outlined above, we can actively seek to share
learning and enrich education more openly and equitably [6].
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, P.L.A., L.H., J.C.R., N.M. and L.K.; methodology, P.L.A. and
L.H.; validation, J.C.R., N.M. and L.K.; investigation, P.L.A., L.H., J.C.R., N.M. and L.K.; writing—original
draft preparation, P.L.A. and L.H.; writing—review and editing, P.L.A., L.H., J.C.R., N.M. and L.K. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not Applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
United Nations General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN Gen. Assem.
1948
,302, 14–25. Available online:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (accessed on 20 April 2023).
2.
Tennant, J.P.; Waldner, F.; Jacques, D.C.; Masuzzo, P.; Collister, L.B.; Hartgerink, C.H.J. The academic, economic and societal
impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research 2016,5, 632. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
UNESCO. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris,
France, 2021.
4.
Smith, M.L.; Seward, R.K. (Eds.) Making Open Development Inclusive: Lessons from IDRC Research; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2020.
5.
Okune, A.; Hillyer, R.; Albornoz, D.; Posada, A.; Chan, L. Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge
Infrastructures in Open Science. In Connecting The Knowledge Commons—From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure; Chan, L.,
Mounier, P., Eds.; OpenEdition Books: Marseille, France, 2019.
6.
Dutta, M.; Ramasubramanian, S.; Barrett, M.; Elers, C.; Sarwatay, D.; Raghunath, P.; Kaur, S.; Dutta, D.; Jayan, P.; Rahman, M.;
et al. Decolonizing Open Science: Southern Interventions. J. Commun. 2021,71, 803–826. [CrossRef]
7. Laakso, M.; Björk, B.-C. Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC
Med. 2012,10, 124. [CrossRef]
8.
Guédon, J.C. Open access: Toward the internet of the mind. In Budapest Open Access Initiative; Essay: Aylesbury, UK, 2017.
Available online: https://apo.org.au/node/74479 (accessed on 20 April 2023).
9. Barbour, G.; Nicholls, S. Open Access: Should one model ever fit all? Aust. Q. 2019,9, 3–9. Available online: https://www.jstor.
org/stable/10.2307/26687171 (accessed on 20 April 2023).
10.
Larivière, V.; Haustein, S.; Mongeon, P. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS ONE
2015
,10, e0127502.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Holzman, A. US open access publishing for the humanities and social sciences. Eur. Political Sci. 2016,15, 177–182. [CrossRef]
12.
Fyfe, A.; Coate, K.; Curry, S.; Lawson, S.; Moxham, N.; Røstvik, C.M. Untangling Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship
between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research; University of St Andrews: St Andrews, Scotland, 2017.
13.
Albagli, S.; Clinio, A.; Parra, H.Z.; Fonseca, F. Beyond the Dichotomy between Natural and Knowledge Commons: Reflections on
the IAD Framework from the Ubatuba Open Science Project. J. Interact. Pers. Système 2018. [CrossRef]
14.
Hess, C.; Ostrom, E. (Eds.) Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
15.
Hynek, P. The Hyper-Commons: How Open Science Prizes Can Expand and Level the Medical Research Playing Field. Rejuvena-
tion Res. 2008,11, 1065–1072. [CrossRef]
16.
Rhoten, D.; Powell, W.W. The Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Expanded Protection versus New Models of Open Science. Annu.
Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2007,3, 345–373. [CrossRef]
17.
Schroeder, R. e-Research Infrastructures and Open Science: Towards a New System of Knowledge Production? Prometheus
2007
,
25, 1–17. [CrossRef]
18.
Hampson, G. Common Ground in the Global Quest for Open Research. In Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings; Science
Communication Institute: Seattle, WA, USA; Mason Publishing: Fairfax, VA, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
19.
Tennant, J.; Beamer, J.; Bosman, J.; Brembs, B.; Chung, N.C.; Clement, G.; Crick, T.; Dugan, J.; Dunning, A.; Eccles, D.; et al.
Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development. In Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings; Science Communication
Institute: Seattle, WA, USA; Mason Publishing: Fairfax, VA, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
20.
Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J.; Appleton, G.; Axton, M.; Baak, A.; Blomberg, N.; Boiten, J.W.; da Silva
Santos, L.B.; Bourne, P.E.; et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data
2016
,3,
160018:1–160018:9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Willensky, J. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access Research and Scholarship; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006.
22.
Wilsdon, J.; Allen, L.; Belfiore, E.; Campbell, P.; Curry, S.; Hill, S.; Jones, R.; Kain, R.; Kerridge, S.; Thelwall, M.; et al. The Metric
Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. In The Metric Tide;
HEFCE: Bristol, UK, 2015. [CrossRef]
Publications 2023,11, 41 16 of 17
23.
Knowledge Exchange; Neylon, C.; Belsø, R.; Bijsterbosch, M.; Cordewener, B.; Foncel, J.; Friesike, S.; Fyfe, A.; Jacobs, N.;
Katerbow, M.; et al. Open Scholarship and the Need for Collective Action. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.
2019. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/128 (accessed on 20 April 2023).
24.
Beaulieu, M.; Breton, M.; Brousselle, A. Conceptualizing 20 years of engaged scholarship: A scoping review. PLoS ONE
2018
,13,
e0193201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Arthur, P.L.; Hearn, L. Toward Open Research: A Narrative Review of the Challenges and Opportunities for Open Humanities. J.
Commun. 2021,71, 827–853. [CrossRef]
26.
Albornoz, D.; Okune, A.; Chan, L. Can open scholarly practices redress epistemic injustice. In Reassembling Scholarly Communica-
tions: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access; Eve, M.P., Gray, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020;
pp. 65–79.
27.
Chan, L.; Kirsop, B.; Arunachalam, S. Towards Open and Equitable Access to Research and Knowledge for Development. PLoS
Med. 2011,8, e1001016. [CrossRef]
28.
Ross-Hellauer, T.; Reichmann, S.; Cole, N.L.; Fessl, A.; Klebel, T.; Pontika, N. Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to
equity in open science: A scoping review. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2022,9, 211032. [CrossRef]
29. Chakravartty, P.; Kuo, R.; Grubbs, V.; McIlwain, C. # CommunicationSoWhite. J. Commun. 2018,68, 254–266.
30.
Dutta, M.J. Whiteness, internationalization, and erasure: Decolonizing futures from the Global South. Commun. Crit. Stud.
2020
,
17, 228–235. [CrossRef]
31.
Leonelli, S.; Spichtinger, D.; Prainsack, B. Sticks and carrots: Encouraging open science at its source. Geo Geogr. Environ.
2015
,2,
12–16. [CrossRef]
32. Tennant, J. A value proposition for Open Science. SocArXiv 2020. [CrossRef]
33.
Hillyer, R.; Posada, A.; Albornoz, D.; Chan, L.; Okune, A. Framing a situated and inclusive open science: Emerging lessons from
the open and collaborative science in development network. In Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and
Diversity in Concepts and Practices; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 18–33.
34.
Christen, K. Relationships, not records: Digital heritage and the ethics of sharing Indigenous knowledge online. In The Routledge
Companion to Media Studies and Digital Humanities; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 403–412.
35.
Chan, L.; Okune, A.; Hillyer, R.; Albornoz, D.; Posada, A. Contextualizing Openness: Situating Open Science; International
Development Research Centre, Ed.; Perspectives on Open Access; University of Ottawa Press: Ottawa, ON, USA, 2019.
36.
Fox, J.; E Pearce, K.; Massanari, A.L.; Riles, J.M.; Szulc, Ł.; Ranjit, Y.S.; Trevisan, F.; Soriano, C.R.R.; Vitak, J.; Arora, P.; et al. Open
Science, Closed Doors? Countering Marginalization through an Agenda for Ethical, Inclusive Research in Communication. J.
Commun. 2021,71, 764–784. [CrossRef]
37.
Terras, M. Opening Access to collections: The making and using of open digitised cultural content. Online Inf. Rev.
2015
,39,
733–752. [CrossRef]
38.
Hicks, M. Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing; MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2017.
39.
Knöchelmann, M. The democratisation myth: Open Access and the solidification of epistemic injustices. Sci. Technol. Stud.
2021
,
34, 65–89. [CrossRef]
40.
Christen, K. Does information really want to be free? Indigenous knowledge systems and the question of openness. Int. J.
Commun. 2012,6, 2870–2893.
41.
de Oliveira, T.M.; Marques, F.P.J.; Leão, A.V.; de Albuquerque, A.; Prado, J.L.A.; Grohmann, R.; Clinio, A.; Cogo, D.; Guazina, L.S.
Towards an Inclusive Agenda of Open Science for Communication Research: A Latin American approach. J. Commun.
2021
,71,
785–802. [CrossRef]
42.
de Albuquerque, A.; de Oliveira, T.M.; Junior, M.A.D.S.; de Albuquerque, S.O.F. Structural Limits to the De-Westernization of the
Communication Field: The Editorial Board in Clarivate’s JCR System. Commun. Cult. Crit. 2020,13, 185–203. [CrossRef]
43. Suzina, A.C. English as lingua franca. Or the sterilisation of scientific work. Media Cult. Soc. 2021,43, 171–179. [CrossRef]
44.
Mukherjee, R. Of Experts and Tokens: Mapping a Critical Race Archaeology of Communication. Commun. Cult. Crit.
2020
,13,
152–167. [CrossRef]
45.
Wagner, C.S.; Wong, S.K. Unseen science? Representation of BRICs in global science. Scientometrics
2011
,90, 1001–1013. [CrossRef]
46. Neff, M.W. How academic science gave its soul to the publishing industry. Issues Sci. Technol. 2020,36, 35–43.
47.
Khanna, S.; Ball, J.; Alperin, J.P.; Willinsky, J. Recalibrating the scope of scholarly publishing: A modest step in a vast decolonization
process. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2022,3, 912–930. [CrossRef]
48. Toledo, E.G. Research assessment in Humanities and Social Sciences in review. Rev. Esp. Doc. Cient. 2018,41, e208. [CrossRef]
49.
Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet). Open Science Manifesto: Towards an Inclusive Open
Science for Social and Evironmental Well-Being. 2017. Available online: https://ocsdnet.org/manifesto/open-science-manifesto/
(accessed on 20 April 2023).
50.
Hillyer, R.; Albornoz, D.; Posada, A.; Okune, A.; Chan, L. 13 Toward an Inclusive, Open, and Collaborative Science: Lessons from
OCSDNet. In Making Open Development Inclusive: Lessons from IDRC Research; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020.
51.
Khumalo, L. Keynote address. In Proceedings of the BAALA Conference, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa, 28–30 March 2023; North
West University: Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2023.
Publications 2023,11, 41 17 of 17
52.
Shanmugapriya, T.; Arora, S.; Menon, N. Developing Database for Scholarship in Indian Languages and Literatures. Asian Q. Int.
J. Contemp. Issues AQ 2017,15, 85–99.
53.
Menon, N. Decolonizing Knowledge Structures in Open Access and Scholarly Publishing. Presented at DH2017, Montréal, QC,
Canada, 8–11 August 2017. Available online: https://dh2017.adho.org/program-2/abstracts/ (accessed on 20 April 2023).
54.
Christen, K. The songline is alive in Mukurtu: Return, reuse, and respect. In Archival Returns: Central Australia and Beyond;
Barwick, L., Green, J., Vaarzon-Morel, P., Eds.; University of Hawai’i Press: Honolulu, HI, USA; Sydney University Press: Sydney,
Australia, 2019.
55. Kukutai, T.; Taylor, J. Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2016.
56. IFKN. Indigenous Foods Knowledges Network Charter. 2018. Available online: https://ifkn.org/charter (accessed on 20 April 2023).
57.
Maryl, M.; Błaszczy´nska, M.; Szuli´nska, A.; Rams, P. The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social
sciences and humanities. F1000Research 2020,9, 1265. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58.
Arthur, P.L.; Ensor, J.; van Faassen, M.; Hoekstra, R.; Peters, N. Migrating People, Migrating Data: Digital Approaches to Migrant
Heritage. J. Jpn. Assoc. Digit. Humanit. 2018,3, 98–113. [CrossRef]
59.
Albornoz, D.; Huang, M.; Martin, I.M.; Mateus, M.; Touré, A.Y.; Chan, L. Framing Power: Tracing Key Discourses in Open Science
Policies. In Proceedings of the ELPUB 2018, Toronto, ON, Canada, 22–24 June 2018.
60.
Terras, M. Crowdsourcing in the digital humanities. In New Companion to Digital Humanities; Schreibman, S., Siemens, R.,
Unsworth, J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2016; pp. 420–439.
61.
Ng, W.; Ware, S.M.; Greenberg, A. Activating Diversity and Inclusion: A Blueprint for Museum Educators as Allies and Change
Makers. J. Mus. Educ. 2017,42, 142–154. [CrossRef]
62.
Bonacchi, C.; Bevan, A.; Keinan-Schoonbaert, A.; Pett, D.; Wexler, J. Participation in heritage crowdsourcing. Mus. Manag.
Curatorship 2018,34, 166–182. [CrossRef]
63.
Ryan, J.C.; Lydia, H.; Paul, L.A. The Digital Environmental Humanities (DEH) in the Anthropocene: Challenges and Opportunities
in an Era of Ecological Precarity. Digit. Humanit. Q. 2023, in press.
64.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Indigenous Weather Knowledge. 2023. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/
(accessed on 20 April 2023).
65.
Neylon, C. The End of the Journal: What Has Changed and What Stayed the Same. 2015. Available online: http://cameronneylon.
net/blog/the-end-of-the-journal-what-haschanged-what-stayed-the-same/ (accessed on 20 April 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
