Just had an ECR board meeting with @WellcomeOpenRes. Have previously had my doubts about such quick publishing, but this model, and also the ability to share and see others' data, has been shown I think as quite valuable during COVID.

Some really important arts and social sciences responses from this journal so far have been, for example:

- This study on disproportionate mental health effects of the pandemic on women, those with pre-existing conditions, or history of financial problems https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-195 

- This study on the potential of bubbles to provide social contact and solidarity - key for mental health - without vastly increasing public health risk https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-213 

- This very powerful open letter arguing for the importance of the patient-made term 'long covid', and for centring patient expertise in thinking about this pandemic - https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-224 

- This historical analysis of how a word I just casually used, 'risk', reflects longer term anxieties about the NHS, cultural attachments, and social and medical hierarchies in patient groups - https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-130 

- The ongoing issues with Track and Trace and spreadsheets (sigh) have also shown the importance of making data accessible and available for many people to analyse, which is another benefit of this journal with their 'Data Note' form - https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/for-authors/article-guidelines/data-notes

Of course I don't think that all historians and social scientists should be rushing to say something, anything, about this pandemic if we don't have anything to say. My own work does not have any clear resonances here at the moment.

But I am glad that @WellcomeOpenRes allows people with relevant work to share it quickly, especially as this disease is so new and the evidence-base rapidly changing. Because COVID is socially transmitted, sharing humanities and social science work is so important too.

Final thought from this Board meeting was whether humanities can learn more from sciences and social sciences in terms of being open about our sources. Historians I think are protective of our sources, of the lives within them, and of the restrictions placed by archives.

But also we're aware of the politics of the archive, what is stored, and of how our lives shape how we interpret our documents. So maybe more reflections on our sources ('data'?), as with WOR's Data Notes, is good scholarly practice, even if not yet rewarded by key metrics.