My paper for Chercher le texte, the Electronic Literature Organization’s 2013 conference in Paris next month, is about ready and I’ve uploaded it to the ELO conference website and to Figshare.

Figshare was new to me. It’s an open access non-peer-reviewed research repository built to contain more than just papers: the idea is that you share your datasets, images, posters or whatever – and if you like a traditional paper as well – and Figshare sets you up with a nice website for your research materials all citation ready.

My paper is a network analysis of links to creative works of electronic literature from dissertations on electronic literature, so Figshare makes it easy to share the paper along with that data, allowing anyone else who is interested to import the same data into Gephi or some other software and do their own exploration of it. Excellent! It’s like GitHub for academics! Of course, some academics already use GitHub in fascinating ways, but I do like the idea of a site specifically for academic datasets, and I especially appreciate the citation information they provide. It also provides versioning, which is useful for this kind of data – I hope to get more PhD dissertations analysed before the conference, and when I do, I’ll update the dataset and the paper too – and Figshare will keep track of that for me.

My ELO2013 article, with its datasets, on Figshare
Figshare’s view of my paper with its datasets. Note how easy it would be to cite this. And sharing in social media is nicely integrated too, although the embed option doesn’t work with selfhosted WordPress blogs  like mine.

I would like Figshare even better if there was some layer of peer-review here. You could leave uploads open to everyone, but with some kind of peer-review on top of that to give the best work a stamp of approval from your peers, you could make this sort of publication the only kind we would need. On the other hand, you do to some extent get this from the shares and views – although my own two shares are the only ones here, and at least 20-30 of my views, maybe more, are because I used this URL when I had participants in our workshop last week download the dataset as a test set to learn to use Gephi.

Another point is that Figshare was very obviously built for the natural sciences, and there are very few humanities papers in there. I’m not sure how much that matters. Less community for us humanists, certainly, but we can still use it for sharing.

I’ve never done research before the last year or so where I’ve thought of myself as using datasets – traditionally that’s not how we think about our work in the humanities. Obviously doing visualisations with data from the ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base does generate datasets that others could reuse. What I do have from previous research is piles of screenshots of works and blogs that I’ve written about but not used in my publications. Most of that is sort of half-lost on forgotten hard drives. Perhaps if sites like Figshare become part of our workflow, even we humanists will start thinking about our notes and screenshots and other materials as datasets that could be shared?

Figshare also promises to help write your data management plan for grant applications, because they provide the services required by funding agencies – a system for keeping data safe. Not private or confidential, but archived, permanently. I’m not sure I’d trust a private company with that, to be honest. Figshare was started by a PhD student and is owned by Digital Science, a subsidiary of Macmillan Publishing that “creates software and tools rather than content”. Which sounds good, but how long will they be around? How independent are they? What is their plan for monetizing this? This is exactly the sort of system universities should be working together to provide, for example through GÉANT, the European network that among other things provides Eduroam, secure roaming wifi for students and employees at hundreds of universities worldwide. Actually, most universities’ open access research archives, such as my own university’s BORA, probably support uploading datasets along with papers. But I don’t think they suggest it – you can upload multiple files, but it’s certainly not the default expectation, and poking around BORA I couldn’t find any examples of research publications archived with their datasets.

There’s also a shift here to a culture of sharing research before it’s quite finished, and preprints before they’re in a journal. My paper here is less finished than it will be when it goes to publication, so it’s not really a preprint, just a draft of a conference presentation that I plan to do further work on. I’d certainly love any feedback on it at this point, though!


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. […] blogger, Jill Walker Rettberg, a professor of digital culture at the University of Bergen, wonders about trusting a private company to keep data safe and archived. “[H]ow long will they be around? […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.