[JoPP-Public] RfC- CFP JOPP#15

[Kat Braybrooke]

Hi JoPP editors and community,

A very quick update that I've now shared (and pinned) the CfP for Issue 15
via the @peerproduction Twitter account - so, if those on this list who are
also active on Twitter don't mind liking/RTing the tweet below, it will
help ensure the CfP gets more eyeballs.

Here's the link:
https://twitter.com/Peer_Production/status/1280822428864778247

Thanks in advance!

Kat

--------------------->>> ☾
Dr. Kat Braybrooke codekat.net








On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 03:19, Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>
wrote:

> [Hi all - response below Kat's post]
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf
> of Kat [snip]
> *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] RfC- CFP JOPP#15
>
> Hi all,
> I will post to commslist and phd-design, and when there is a permalink on
> the website will make it the featured tweet on the Twitter account.
> Will also email the list of folk directly who have asked to submit papers
> in the past months, so they're aware it's out.
> Congrats Mathieu et al on the release!
> Kat
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Thanks Kat.
>
> I have sent your version of the call to ACS and SOCNET. As I was reviewing
> the latter before sending, it belatedly occurred to me that nowhere does it
> mention that the issue is nominally being edited by Panos and me, so I
> added some words at the end of the meta section. In some ways this reflects
> the fact that the call and the journal are more the product of a collective
> than an individual approach, but at the same time not having names might
> put people off, not sure. Re-posting amended CFP below in case anyone wants
> to continue spreading the word.
>
> cheers
> Mathieu
>
> PS. Have not had time to post on website front-page, if anyone with admin
> rights wants to help out please do so.
>
> ==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==
> <apologies for multiple posts>
>
> CFP: Journal of Peer Production #15 TRANSITION
>
> /// Peer production and our crises
>
> Peer producers are people who create and manage common-pool resources
> together. It sometimes seems as if “peer production” and “digital commons”
> can be used interchangeably. Digital commons such as free and open source
> software and Wikipedia are non-rivalrous (they can be reproduced at little
> or no cost) and non-excludable (no-one can prevent others from using them,
> through property rights for example). So, practically speaking, proprietary
> objects could be produced by equal “peers”. We argue that peer production
> has a normative dimension so that what chiefly characterizes this mode of
> production is  that “the  output is orientated towards the further
> expansion of the commons; while the commons, recursively, is the chief
> resource in this mode of production” (Söderberg & O'Neil, 2014, p. 2). The
> Journal of Peer Production has tracked the evolution of peer production
> from open knowledge to open design and manufacturing. It approaches its
> ten-year anniversary in the time of the global pandemic, and of the
> continuing environmental crisis. The impacts of Covid-19 are profound, but
> will not last forever, though local infection pools may subsist in poorer
> countries for much longer than in the Global North. In contrast, the
> environmental crisis is here to stay.
>
> /// The role of the Journal of Peer Production
>
> Significant social change is required to stave off climate destruction,
> and principles such as cooperation and trust, transparency in production,
> collective democratic decision-making, etc., can usefully contribute to
> necessary processes of “relocalization” and “degrowth”.* What should be
> done to develop the digital and physical commons? What role should the
> Journal of Peer Production play in this development? And what shape should
> it take? It is clear that in addition to maintaining its uniquely
> transparent curation and dissemination of academic research, the Journal of
> Peer Production needs to expand its work in several ways:
>
> -Should it feature more practical advice to develop commons, such as
> toolkits and how-to guides?
> -Should it comprise policy proposals to help grow the infrastructure which
> supports the commons?
> -In other words, should it combine research and action?
>
> The answer is "yes" in all three cases. To this end we seek creative,
> practical and policy-oriented ideas to help invent a new type of scientific
> journal that both fulfills strict academic criteria, and brings research
> work closer to practice. Our next issue, JOPP #15 will thus be a
> "TRANSITION" issue featuring, in addition to peer-reviewed research,
> experimental formats and "meta" articles.
>
> /// JOPP #15 TRANSITION - Call for Papers
>
> We seek investigations into societal transition (how can we move towards a
> society where contributions to the commons are valued and recognised?),
> into the journal's editorial transition (how should the Journal of Peer
> Production change to assist this societal transition), as well as
> idiosyncratic understandings of scientific and political transitions.
>
> /// JOPP #15 TRANSITION - Peer-reviewed articles + Complement
>
> We invite submissions of peer-reviewed academic papers from multiple
> fields on how "things can change". What are the sociological and historical
> conditions for transition to occur? For example: what is the impact of
> manifestos? When is innovation socialised? How can allies be enrolled? etc.
> Editorial guidelines for peer-reviewed articles: max 8,000 words;
> peer-reviewed in accordance with the JOPP peer review process [
> http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/]
> For this TRANSITION issue, academic papers must be complemented by a
> shorter piece in which the contents of the academic paper are transformed
> into a different format. The nature of this transformation is up to the
> authors.
> We can suggest the following: policy guidelines; practical toolkits;
> comic-books; etc.
> Other authors may be enlisted to assist in the article's transition.
> Editorial guidelines for complementary pieces: max 2,000 words; reviewed
> by the editors.
>
> /// JOPP #15 TRANSITION - Non peer-reviewed articles
>
> We also invite submissions of non-peer reviewed academic papers dealing
> with transition. These will be reviewed by the issue editors, Panayotis
> Antoniades and Mathieu O'Neil.
>
> A-Follow-up papers
> Papers "following-up" on previous issues of JOPP, or on specific articles
> by the authors or others.
> What has changed since this article was published?
>
> B-Policy and strategic papers
> Papers bringing together academics and policy makers.
> Strategies for connecting to actors in government and/or civil society.
>
> C-Meta papers
> Papers on the question of impactful academic publishing: how can academics
> pursue a career and have social impact at the same time?
> Papers on the transition of research fields: how do research fields evolve
> to better meet their aims?
> Rewriting influential papers, or a chapter of a classic book, or
> revisiting one's own past paper: what has changed?
>
> Editorial guidelines for A, B, and C: max 4,000 words.
>
> /// JOPP #15 TRANSITION: Timeline
>
> CFP released 01 July 2020
> EOI peer-reviewed articles deadline (500-words max. extended abstract +
> 100-words max. complementary paper abstract) 30 July 2020
> EOI non peer-reviewed articles deadline (250-words max. abstract) 30 July
> 2020
> Authors advised 30 August 2020
> First submission sent out for review 30 November 2020
> Reviews due 30 January 2021
> Revised submissions due 30 March 2021
> Signals due 30 May 2021
> JOPP # 15 released 30 June 2021
>
> ==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==
>
> *The following is an excerpt from the final chapter of the forthcoming
> Handbook of Peer Production (Wiley, 2021), “Be Your Own Peer! Principles
> and Policies for the Commons” (O’Neil, Toupin, Pentzold):
>
> The governance of peer produced projects, one of the central aspects of
> the studies of peer production, aspires to the self-regulation of
> participants in autonomous collectives. This governance raises the broader
> issue of political sovereignty. The appeal of self-governance for peer
> production participants can perhaps be explained by the amount of strategic
> control most citizens in liberal democracies have over their lives and
> environment. This control has been drastically reduced by unaccountable
> global actors – e.g. financial markets, extractive industrial interests,
> supranational trade agreements, and the list goes on – who influence and
> constrain the policy options of notionally democratic nation-states. In the
> early 2020s, racist nativism and authoritarianism are being embraced by
> some people in reaction to the failures of export-oriented, deregulated,
> and globalized neoliberalism. A way out of this political crisis is linked
> to a solution to the environmental crisis: we must head toward more
> democracy by relocalizing or deglobalizing, and towards more sustainability
> by degrowing, our economies.
>
> As engaged researchers, we believe the Handbook of Peer Production needs
> to offer a response, however modest, to these political and ecological
> challenges. Addressing the macro-economic aspects of “deglobalization”
> would lead us far away from peer production, towards issues which would
> probably require a Handbook of their own.  Accordingly, we focus here on
> relocalization as it relates to degrowth (décroissance), the downscaling of
> over-production and over-consumption (Kallis, 2019; Latouche, 2006). In a
> nutshell: unlimited growth and consumption are not sustainable, so we need
> more access to free public services, a shorter work week, and a turn
> towards climate-friendly industries. In this context, Stefania Barca (2019)
> suggests that the one question that matters is that posed by self-governing
> workers: “should surplus value be reinvested in production, or not”? Yet
> since only a handful of firms and industrial sectors are run following
> so-called “holacratic” (i.e., communal or participatory) principles,
> degrowth must – in a first stage at least – be deployed in a piecemeal,
> hybrid manner.
>
> In the context of discussing the cooperative sector, Gibson-Graham (2003)
> suggest that if we perceive economic relations as already plural, then the
> revolutionary “project of replacement” can be modified into one of
> “strengthening already existing non-capitalist economic processes and
> building new non-capitalist enterprises,” of establishing “communal
> subjects” (p. 157). Several chapters in the Handbook of Peer Production
> [...] have discussed ways in which this “strengthening” has begun to occur
> at the municipal level. However, as noted by Adrian Smith (2014) in his
> account of London’s early-1980s Technology Networks (community-based
> workshops which provided open access to shared machine tools, technical
> advice, and prototyping services), a “key lesson from this history is that
> “radical aspirations invested in workshops, such as democratizing
> technology, will need to connect to wider social mobilizations capable of
> bringing about reinforcing political, economic and institutional change”
> (Smith, 2014, online). In other words, the ecology around peer production
> must be nurtured. Further, adopting strictly local settings leaves the
> public policy terrain open to neoliberal and/or reactionary perspectives.
>
> References
>
> Barca, S. (2019) The labor(s) of degrowth. Capitalism Nature Socialism,
> 30(2), 207–216.
>
> Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism and
> class. Critical Sociology. 29(2): 123-164.
>
> Kallis, G. (2019) Socialism without growth. Capitalism Nature Socialism,
> 30(2): 189-206.
>
> Latouche, S. (2006) The globe downshifted. Le monde diplomatique. January.
> https://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth
>
> Smith, A. (2014) Technology Networks for socially useful production.
> Journal of Peer Production, 5: Shared Machine Shops.
> http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/technology-networks-for-socially-useful-production/
>
> Söderberg, J., & O’Neil, M. (2014). Introduction. In: Söderberg, J., &
> Maxigas (Eds.), Book of Peer Production (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU Press.
> http://peerproduction.net/projects/books/book-of-peer-production/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------->>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20200708/d2dcf01e/attachment-0001.html>