Preface: Foregrounding the Social and Affective Life of Open Access Publishing
Simon Bowie & Rebekka Kiesewetter
Since 2019, the Copim community – a network of scholars, open access publishers, librarians, infrastructure providers, and others interested in building a more equitable and diverse ecosystem for scholarly publishing – has developed and supported new infrastructures for open access (OA) book publishing. Through the Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project (2019–2023) and the Open Book Futures (OBF) project (2023–2026), it has created and maintained cooperative organisations, sustainable funding models, and decentralised systems that support community-led open access publishing, governed by the priorities of its participants rather than the demands of profit-driven interests and stakeholders (Barnes et al. 2025).
As part of this, we – together with Janneke Adema and Julien McHardy forming the Experimental Publishing Group within COPIM and OBF – have supported authors, publishers, and developers to experiment with the forms, formats, practices, processes, and relationalities of OA monograph publishing in the humanities. This has included engaging with the workflows and tools that make such experimentation possible, moving beyond dominant single-authored, print-based, closed models. The resulting experiments include multimodal and versioned books; books organised as databases (McHardy 2023); books that re-use openly licensed material (Adema & Kiesewetter 2022); and books that incorporate or execute code as part of their scholarly argument (Bowie 2022). Across these projects, we also have explored diverse modes of engagement around publishing – such as open peer review, social annotation, and collective writing and editing – to support more heterogeneous, relational, and context-specific ways of creating, evaluating, and sharing knowledges.
While, during the COPIM project, we offered editorial, technical, and conceptual support to a number of pilot projects, with OBF, we extended this support through an open call for experimental book pilots: by doing so, we took on a grant-giving role, offering small amounts of funding alongside technical and editorial support to three selected projects, among them ‘ServPub – An Infrastructure to Serve and Publish’, resulting in this book. Crucially, this experiment in funding was itself conceived as part of the research process to create the conditions under which participating groups could explore what they themselves find meaningful, necessary, and relevant within their own contexts. In other words, rather than directing experimentation – besides minimal baseline requirements in alignment with OBF’s values such as the use of open-source tools, the implementation of Diamond OA, and open documentation – we sought to give space, time, and agency to communities to define the questions, methods, and forms of publishing that they find relevant to explore (OBF Experimental Publishing Group 2025).
We see this work as important because, within current institutional environments, many scholars lack the support, time, and energy to explore alternative publishing models (within or beyond OA publishing) during paid working hours – even when they are aware of the limitations of prevailing systems and express a desire to work differently (Adema & Moore 2023; Kiesewetter 2025a, Pia et al 2020). The para-academic and non-academic communities involved in this book – including Constant, Creative Crowds, In-grid, Systerserver, TiTiPi, and Varia – face parallel constraints that take the form of precarity, unpaid labour, and chronic infrastructural under-resourcing. In the academic sphere specifically, these pressures are intensified by an environment in which prestige is, as Aileen Fyfe et al. (2017) note, increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few large commercial publishers who have expanded and centralised control over editorial systems, peer-review governance, proprietary submission platforms, and citation-based metrics. These components are now marketed to neoliberal research institutions as value-added services promising more efficient management of scholarship. In doing so, they reproduce prestige economies that equate scholarly value with citation counts, journal rankings, and high-volume publishing. Within this entanglement of institutional priorities and commercial publishing agendas, national research assessment schemes – such as Italy’s Valutazione della Qualità della Ricerca (VQR) and the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF 2029) – alongside legislation in countries like Argentina, Mexico, and the United States, and funders such as the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Wellcome Trust, and the European Commission, have begun embedding specific, funders- and policy-driven versions of OA publishing into broader frameworks of research evaluation and funding eligibility (Kiesewetter 2025a). In these contexts, openness is enacted as a static, top-down mandate – a compliance checkbox within a bureaucratic apparatus of performance metrics. As a result, mandated forms of OA become directly tied to institutional and individual competitiveness, positioned as a prerequisite for securing funding, increasing visibility, and sustaining advantage within performance-based environments. For many HSS scholars, this means experiencing OA publishing less as a scholarly or ethical choice and more as an administrative obligation, tightly entangled with prestige metrics such as citation counts and journal rankings (Pia et al. 2020; Bargheer & Verdicchio 2020).
As Janneke Adema and Samuel Moore note, publishing labour is increasingly caught between ‘unmeasurable service work and metricised performance targets … affective, open-ended, collegiate labour, while also being quantified and monitored as anxiety-inducing performance management’ (2023: 15). Rosalind Gill (2016) similarly observes that the desire to produce meaningful, critical, or ethical scholarship often collides with institutional imperatives for metric-driven productivity. Even those wary of this evolution frequently lack the time, resources, or institutional support to pursue alternatives (Pia el a. 2020). Under pressure to produce work that is legible to evaluative systems – publishable, citable, and easily measured – humanities researchers in the UK, Europe, as well as in other regions on the globe increasingly adjust their scholarly practices to fit dominant publishing norms and the English-language, high-ranking, journal-centred outputs privileged by evaluation systems as the most visible, citable, and professionally rewarded (Batterbury 2025; Chan et al. 2020; Schuh 2009). Studies show how this evolution narrows methodological, epistemic, and procedural possibilities: scholars favour more linear and generalisable modes of argumentation (Knöchelmann 2023); scale back speculative, emergent, or relational forms of inquiry (Fitzpatrick 2011; Kiesewetter 2024); strategically shift to writing in English, even when this constrains the conceptual or cultural vocabularies available to them (Mboa Nkoudou 2020); and redirect the social and collaborative practices that underpin research into activities aimed at visibility, networking, or strategic career advancement (Magazine & Méndez Cota 2024; Nicholas et al. 2019). These responses to prevalent evaluative regimes tend to reinforce prestige economies that devalue subjective, embodied, community-rooted, or non-Western epistemic traditions, thereby reproducing long-standing inequities in what counts as legitimate scholarship (Chan et al. 2020; Piron et al. 2016; Fricker 2007).
The resulting dissonance between scholars’ intellectual, epistemic, and ethical commitments and the narrow forms of value recognised by institutions produces stress, alienation, and a persistent sense of disconnection from one’s work. Emerging research – particularly from intersectional feminist, queer, and disability studies scholars such as Mimi Khúc (2023) and Ela Przybyło (2025) – demonstrates that this emotional strain is unevenly distributed: early-career researchers, women, scholars of colour, queer scholars, and neurodiverse or disabled faculty experience these pressures more acutely, while absorbing disproportionate amounts of invisible labour framed as ‘collegiality’, ‘community service’, or ‘diversity work’ – tasks undervalued by performance metrics and sometimes even penalised as insufficiently productive.
While there has been growing attention to how these pressures shape the relational and emotional experience of academic life, in infrastructure work the social and affective dimension has remained under-acknowledged. Especially conversations about publishing infrastructures still tend to prioritise technical, administrative, or policy-driven concerns, leaving the emotional, relational, and care-based aspects of infrastructuring largely invisible. This has also been true for much of the Copim community’s work – designing new organisational models, outlining governance structures, and developing and documenting software.
As Susan Leigh Star famously observed, infrastructure is often invisibilised: ‘People commonly envision infrastructure as a system of substrates – railroad lines, pipes and plumbing, electrical power plants, and wires. It is by definition invisible, part of the background for other kinds of work. It is ready-to-hand’ (1999: 380). This remains true in scholarly publishing, where infrastructure tends to recede into the background and becomes visible primarily through breakdown. Even when addressed directly, it is frequently represented through technical diagrams or system maps that foreground components and processes rather than the human relationships, social practices, and emotional engagements through which infrastructures actually function, endure, or falter.
Against this background, ServPub’s emphasis on social and affective dimensions offered a vital complement to this largely technical imaginary of infrastructure in scholarly publishing practice and research – and productively widened the Copim community’s own infrastructural horizon towards a more holistic understanding of how publishing systems are configured and sustained in practice.
This is consonant with more recent ethnographic and critical work that reorients attention toward the practice of infrastructuring and the relational labour it entails. Calkins and Rottenburg describe infrastructures as ‘experimental material-semiotic practices interweaving social, economic, political, and legal orderings with moral reasoning and technical networks that inevitably produce new and unpredictable assemblages that reconfigure the world’ (2016: 254). This framing foregrounds infrastructure as situated, contingent, and affectively charged – shaped less by its technical components than by the social relations that hold it together.
From within the Copim community itself, Joe Deville (2024), OBF’s Principal Investigator, has extended this perspective by analysing how affect is entangled in the infrastructuring of scholarly publishing. In a 2024 presentation at the Society for the Study of Affect (SSA) Conference, he argued that OA publishing infrastructures are situated and affectively mediating interventions, and that attending to affects such as hope, disappointment, and optimism is vital for materialising more equitable publishing futures. Our Experimental Publishing Group colleague Julien McHardy (2017, 78) similarly noted in a publishing workshop that ‘love is our business model’: an insistence that attachment, ethical commitment, relational accountability, and collegial solidarity are not antithetical to publishing but central to sustaining non-extractive, community-led infrastructures that resist the ‘cold’ bureaucratic logics governing much of the contemporary publishing landscape.
This orientation towards the social and affective dimensions of infrastructuring also sits in close conversation with wider interventions in the field of OA publishing, to which the Experimental Publishing Group is intellectually, politically, and practically indebted: Across the histories of OA publishing, advocates have challenged prevalent – for example, funder- and policy-mandated – approaches that equate openness with the mere removal of technological, economic, or legal barriers to research outputs. Drawing on relational worldviews such as buen vivir in Latin America, Ubuntu in Africa, and the work of theorists such as Arjun Appadurai and Boaventura de Sousa Santos, some scholars argue that OA publishing must instead be understood as a plural, contested practice grounded in epistemic justice: questioning whose knowledge counts and who is authorised to speak[1] (Hillyer et al. 2020; Piron et al. 2016; Raju et al. 2020). Others, on the basis of Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism and Étienne Balibar’s conception of democratisation as an ongoing and conflictual process, conceptualise OA as something sustained through disagreement, experimentation, and reflexivity rather than achieved through the removal of technical access barriers alone (Adema & Hall 2013; Hall 2008). Still others locate the transformative potential of OA publishing in activist publishing traditions rooted in anti-capitalist, feminist, queer, anti-colonial, anti-racist, and labour movements. These include the Combahee River Collective, Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press, Precarias a la Deriva, and Cita Press – initiatives that practise collaborative publishing as a form of resistance to dominant white, Western, patriarchal, and capitalist epistemologies (Adema 2024; Albornoz et al. 2020; Kiesewetter 2020, 2023).
Building on these interventions, OA publishing has been framed as a doing, ‘less a project and model to be implemented, and more a process of continuous struggle and critical resistance’ (Adema & Hall 2013, 33); ‘an entry point to intervene into the hegemonic system of traditional scientific knowledge’ (Albornoz et al. 2020, 131); ‘a way to dis-establish the practice of admitting only those who speak our language or who position themselves as we do’ (Amiran et al. 1990); or an ‘undoing of scholarship’, a sustained effort to deconstruct the everyday operations of classed, gendered, and racialised power within academic processes (Kiesewetter 2020, 115). Other formulations emphasise OA as a refusal of the ‘spirit of competition and individualism’ and the cultivation of ‘friendship and cooperation’ in editorial and publishing practices (Le grenier des savoirs n.d.). Still others position OA as an opportunity to rethink research cultures themselves by enabling bottom-up critical discourses and collaborative infrastructures in response to the top-down corporatisation of university life (Magazine & Méndez Cota 2024, 12–13).
Taken together, these strands of work – of which ServPub offers a situated, infrastructural expression – reorient OA publishing towards the social, epistemic, and affective conditions through which knowledge is created, validated, and shared. In doing so, they reshape the very notion of openness on which it relies. As Adema (2018) argues, doing OA involves cultivating ‘forms of openness that do not simply repeat established forms … or succumb to the closures’ produced by the institutionalisation of OA – such as its codification into policy mandates and compliance checklists, as discussed earlier. In this way OA publishing opens space ‘for reimagining what counts as scholarship and research … what an author, a text, and a work actually is’ (Adema & Hall 2013). Similarly, Denisse Albornoz, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan (2020) call for an understanding of openness grounded in political engagement, community participation, and the collective imagination of ‘futures radically different from the present’.
The ServPub project contributes to these reorientations of OA publishing by demonstrating how they can be enacted within the practical work of infrastructuring. The team’s emphasis on non-extractive collaboration resonates strongly with the traditions outlined above which understand OA publishing not as the removal of access barriers alone, but as a situated, justice-oriented, and epistemically accountable practice. In conversations for our documentation of the project, a member of In-grid referred to the project as 'a social project' and said that 'acknowleding the social aspects of it is as important as it being a technical experiment'. The infrastructuring has been first and foremost a collective practice of bringing together a web of interdependencies, alliances, and the values of resisting corporate hegemony in publishing. In this context, in our conversations with the team, non-extraction emerged as a practised form of infrastructuring, sustained through reciprocity, shared responsibility, and mutual care across differently positioned contributors. As Systerserver put it, ‘we are always working with limited resources, so the question becomes how we can share those to compensate each other with time, knowledge, and effort’. Such work requires acknowledging how collaborators are situated within extractive systems, and how these systems distribute privilege and precarity unevenly. Many participants – including those employed in UK higher education – operate under shared conditions of precarity, making it crucial to attend to how power, recognition, and vulnerability circulate and shift across institutional and non-institutional settings. As In-grid noted, ‘in the context of “ServPub” it has been important to acknowledge the differences in privilege between groups... alongside moving funding around and trying to repurpose it toward those without access’. Participants also stressed the importance of attending to non-material and relational forms of labour. As noNames observed, this includes recognising and crediting work already undertaken by others – particularly in contexts where academic actors have historically drawn on community knowledge without acknowledgement. ServPub has made these contributions visible through, for instance, its ‘Infrastructure Colophon’, which documents community labour, tools, and situated expertise as part of the infrastructure itself (Bowie 2025; Kiesewetter 2025b).
Through this focus, ServPub foregrounds the social and affective labour through which publishing infrastructures actually function, and insists that these dimensions must be treated as consequential rather than peripheral. Doing so requires redistributing decision-making power, recognition, and resources in ways that make relational, collaborative, and reciprocal forms of work structurally significant rather than merely supplementary. This, in turn, demands rethinking what publishing infrastructures are for and how they are organised: redesigning workflows – from peer review and editorial labour to technical maintenance, documentation, and credit attribution – so that they sustain relations of mutual support, epistemic accountability, and non-extraction. In this sense, ServPub shows that OA publishing is not merely about making content available, but about cultivating forms of openness that centre the social, epistemic, and infrastructural conditions through which knowledge is produced, validated, and shared, and that transform how power circulates across these sites. This book offers a practical and situated insight into how such commitments can be enacted in day-to-day infrastructuring work.
[1] Buen vivir (good living), emerging in Latin America, critiques economic growth by emphasising harmony with self (identity), society (equity), and nature (sustainability) (Hillyer et al. 2020). Ubuntu, a Zulu concept of communal justice, holds that actions are right when they foster harmony and honour relationships (Piron et al. 2016; Raju et al. 2020).
References
Adema, Janneke. 2018. ‘The poethics of openness. ‘ In The poethics of scholarship, edited by Janneke Adema, Kaja Marczewska, Frances McDonlad, and Whitney Trettien, 16–23. Coventry: Post Office Press & Rope Press. https://radicaloa.postdigitalcultures.org/conferences/roa2/the-poethics-of-scholarship/
Adema, Janneke. 2024. ‘Experimental Publishing as Collective Struggle. Providing Imaginaries for Posthumanist Knowledge Production.’ Culture Machine 23. https://culturemachine.net/vol-23-publishing-after-progress/adema-experimental-publishing-collective-struggle/
Adema, Janneke, and Samuel A. Moore. 2023. ‘“Just One Day of Unstructured Autonomous Time”: Supporting Editorial Labour for Ethical Publishing within the University’. New Formations 2023 (110): 8–27. https://doi.org/10.3898/NewF:110-111.01.2024.
Adema Janneke, and Rebekka Kiesewetter. 2022. ‘Combinatorial Books Pilot Case: Introduction to Pilot Documentation’. Copim, 30 Jun. https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-introduction-post-1/
Adema, Janneke, and Gary Hall. 2013. “The political nature of the book: on artists’ books and radical open access.’New Formations 78 (1): 138–156. https://doi.org/10.3898/NewF.78.07.2013.
Albornoz, Denisse, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan. 2020. ‘Can open scholarly practices redress epistemic injustice?’ In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0009
Amiran, Eyal, Eileen Orr, and John Unsworth. 1990. ‘Preface.’ Postmodern Culture, 1(1). https://www.pomoculture.org/2013/09/26/preface
Bargheer, Margo, and Dirk Verdicchio. 2020. ‘Auswirkungen von Policies und Infrastrukturen auf die Wissenschaftskommunikation.’ Paper presented at Open Access: mehr Partizipation oder neue Ungleichheiten?, University of Bern, 25 November.
Barnes, Lucy, Tom Grady, Kira Hopkins, Anna Hughes, and Kevin Sanders. 2025. ‘From Mission to Market: The Commercialisation of Institutional Publishing’. Preprint, Zenodo, November 8. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17540083.
Batterbury, Simon. 2025. ‘The Chequered History of Scholar-led OA: Doing it and Supporting it.’ In Publishing Activism Within/Without a Toxic University, edited by Radical Open Access Collective, 7–14. London & Coventry: Open Humanities Press & Post Office Press. https://works.hcommons.org/records/jg2as-46424
Bowie, Simon. 2025. ‘Embodied and Embedded Publishing Infrastructure on ServPub’. Copim, 21 March. https://copim.pub/pilot-project-documentation-servpub3/.
Bowie, Simon. 2022. ‘What is Computational Publishing.’ Copim, 7 July. https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/computational-publishing/
Calkins, Sandra, and Richard Rottenburg. 2016. ‘Evidence, Infrastructure and Worth’. In Infrastructures and Social Complexity. Routledge.
Chan, Leslie, Brian Hall, Florence Piron, Rajesh Tandon, and William L. Williams. 2020. ‘Open science beyond open access: For and with communities, a step towards the decolonization of knowledge (Version 1).’ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3946773.
Deville, Joe. 2024. ‘Affects of Open Access: Platform Building as Affective Method in Scholarly Publishing’. Society for the Study of Affect (SSA) Conference, 2024, 13 October. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14652801.
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2011. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York: NYU Press.
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
Fyfe, Aileen, Kelly Coate, Stephen Curry, Stuart Lawson, Noah Moxham, and Camilla Mørk Røstvik. 2017. “Untangling Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship Between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research.” University of St Andrews. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100.
Gill, Rosalind. 2016. ‘Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia.’ Feministische Studien 34 (1): 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/fs-2016-0105.
Hall, Gary. 2008. Digitize This Book!.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hillyer, Rebecca, Denisse Albornoz, Alejandra Posada, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan. 2020. ‘Toward an Inclusive, Open, and Collaborative Science: Lessons from OCSDNet.’ In Making Open Development Inclusive: Lessons from IDRC Research,edited by Matthew L. Smith and Ruhiya Seward, 93–122. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4873/chapter/618144/Toward-an-Inclusive-Open-and-Collaborative-Science
Khúc, Mimi. 2023. Dear Elia. Letters from the Asian American Abyss. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kiesewetter, Rebekka. 2025a (it’s a paper which is not out yet. will update asap)
Kiesewetter, Rebekka. 2025b. ‘The (Im)possibility of Non-Extractive Collaboration’. Copim, August 1. https://copim.pub/pilot-project-documentation-servpub4-non-extractive-collab/.
Kiesewetter, Rebekka. 2020. ‘Undoing Scholarship: Towards an Activist Genealogy of the OA Movement’. Tijdschrift Voor Genderstudies 23 (2): 113–30. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVGN2020.2.001.KIES
Kiesewetter, Rebekka. 2024. ‘Experiments toward editing otherwise.’ Culture Machine 23. https://culturemachine.net/vol-23-publishing-after-progress/kiesewetter-experiments-toward-editing-otherwise/.
Knöchelmann, Marcel. 2023. Authorship and Publishing in the Humanities: Constructing Credibility in the Twenty-First Century.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009223089
Mboa Nkoudou, Thomas Hervé. 2020. ‘Epistemic alienation in African scholarly communications: Open access as a pharmakon.’ In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray, 103–121. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0006.
Magazine, Roger, and Gabriela Méndez Cota. 2024. ‘Reverse scholarship as solidarity after progress.’ Culture Machine 23. https://culturemachine.net/vol-23-publishing-after-progress/magazine-mendez-reverse-scholarship/.
McHardy, Julien. 2023. ‘On patents and databooks.’ Copim, 28 April. https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/on-patents-and-datebooks/
McHardy, Julien. 2017. ‘Like Cream: Valuing the Invaluable’. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3 (February): 73–83. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.116.
Nicholas, David, Anthony Watkinson, Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Jie Xu, A. Abrizah, Dj Clark, and Eti Herman. 2019. “So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change?.”Learned Publishing, 32(3), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1232
OBF Experimental Publishing Group (This blogpost still needs to be released)
Pia, Andrea, Simon Batterbury, Agnieszka Joniak-Lüthi, Marcel LaFlamme, Gerda Wielander, Filippo Zerilli, Melissa Nolas, et al. 2020. ‘Labour of Love: An Open Access Manifesto for Freedom, Integrity, and Creativity in the Humanities and Interpretive Social Sciences’. Commonplace. https://commonplace.knowledgefutures.org/pub/y0xy565k/
Piron, Florence, Samuel Regulus, and Marie Sophie Dibounje Madiba. 2016. ‘Introduction : Une autre science est possible’. In Justice cognitive, libre accès et savoirs locaux, edited by Florence Piron. Montréal: Éditions science et bien commun. https://scienceetbiencommun.pressbooks.pub/justicecognitive1/front-matter/introduction/.
Przybyło, Ela. 2025. ‘Manufactured unwellness, publishing scheming, and how only mad people can burn it down.’ In Publishing Activism Within/Without a Toxic University, edited by Radical Open Access Collective, 23–30. London & Coventry: Open Humanities Press & Post Office Press. https://works.hcommons.org/records/jg2as-46424
Raju, Reggie, Jill Claassen, Namhla Madini, Tamzyn Suliaman, and Bethany Nowviskie. 2020. ‘Social Justice and Inclusivity: Drivers for the Dissemination of African Scholarship’. In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0008
Schuh, Christina (2009). ‘Publikationsverhalten im Überblick – eine Zusammenfassung der einzelnen Diskussionsbeiträge.’ In Diskussionspapiere der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. Publikationsverhalten in unterschiedlichen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen. Beiträge zur Beurteilung von Forschungsleistungen, edited by Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, 6–13. Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. https://qs.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/d_qualitaetssicherung/Dateidownloads/Publikationsverhalten_in_unterschiedlichen_wissenschaftlichen_Disziplinen.pdf
Star, Susan Leigh. 1999. ‘The Ethnography of Infrastructure’. The American Behavioral Scientist (Thousand Oaks, United States) 43 (3): 377–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326.