Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

DARIAH Open Open scholarly practices in the arts and humanities

people searching information

Assessing non-traditional academic formats: the hidden traps to the treasure trove

The advent of digital methods has contributed to raising awareness of hitherto neglected methodological bricks and activities adjacent to (and relevant for) the production of knowledge. Academia traditionally values research outputs published in an authoritative version like monographs and research papers. Yet, digital approaches have shown that iterative processes as well as the intermediate work steps are necessary to write the research papers in the first place.

Hamburg Workshop participants on workflows (Aug 2024)

Workflows for Creating, Managing and Archiving Textual Corpora in Under-resourced Languages

The DARIAH Working Groups Research Data Management and Multilingual DH joined their forces this year in a research project financed by the DARIAH Working Groups Funding Call 2023-25 entitled “Creating, Managing and Archiving Textual Corpora in Under-resourced Languages”. In the context of this project, the Working Groups recently organised a...

DARIAH signs the Manifesto on Science as Global Public Good

The Global Summit on Diamond Open Access in Toluca, Mexico (23-27 October 2023) brought the Diamond OA community together in a dialogue between journal editors, organizations, experts, and stakeholders from all continent. This event was organised by Redalyc, UAEMéx, AmeliCA, UNESCO, CLACSO, UÓR, ANR, cOAlition S, OPERAS and Science Europe....

Recognising Digital Scholarly Outputs in the Humanities (ALLEA Report)

ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, has recently released a new report on ​the evolution of digital practices in the humanities. Drafted by the ALLEA Working Group E-Humanities, the report ‘Recognising Digital Scholarly Outputs in the Humanities’ stresses that the expansion of digital practices and open outputs in humanities scholarship should be regarded as a natural progression of scholarly endeavours leveraging digital technologies.

How do DARIAH research outputs meet the EOSC? – a case study 

In our EOSC blog post series, we do our best to debunk the big acronym and to bring recent developments happening in the many angles of the big infrastructure and the social layers around it closer to arts and humanities scholars’ desks.
In the following posts, we are going to show examples for such pathways, also because we believe that this is the most concrete, tangible way to provide you with a compass to the EOSC and help you assess how you can make the best use of it. 

How to link your research records to the OpenAIRE-DARIAH Gateway

Most of the DARIAH affiliated services are not offered through a federated architecture, but instead through in-kind contributions of individual partners (see Kálmán et al. 2019). The OpenAIRE-DARIAH Gateway serves as a dedicated discovery hub to DARIAH-affiliated research outputs of different kinds as it brings them together from dispersed locations,...

Closing the evaluation gap? Social Sciences and Humanities and the reform of research assessment

In this post, Ioana Galleron, professor of Digital humanities in the University Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle and former chair of ENRESSH shares insights on why scholars’ informed judgement from specific disciplinary fields should be in the heart of the ongoing reform, where are the biggest mismatches currently in the SSH domain and how the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment should and could integrate such bottom-up perspectives.

Reflections on research assessment #2: Emanuel Kulczycki on ”Essential research is published in all languages”

Is social sciences and humanities scholarship well served by the current and nascent academic reward mechanisms? And if not, where our options and power lie to change this for the better? Recognized as crucial for the future well-being and flourishing of humanistic scholarship, such questions have been repeatedly raised and discussed on DARIAH Open both in opinion pieces, in declaring commitments or policy reflections. In support of the ongoing European research assessment reform, we are extending this ongoing thread of discussion and inviting expert perspectives from the social sciences and humanities fields to further explore the issues and opportunities our research domain faces in the brave new world of research assessment.

 Reflections on research assessment #1: Samuel Moore on ”Research assessment in the university without condition”

Is social sciences and humanities scholarship well served by the current and nascent academic reward mechanisms? And if not, where our options and power lie to change this for the better? Recognized as crucial for the future well-being and flourishing of humanistic scholarship, such questions have been repeatedly raised and...

Joining forces to realign research assessment to research realities: a Europe-wide Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment is now published 

The existing tools of academic rewards and recognition criteria, such as citation counts, h-indexes, and the weight of publisher prestige have ceased to accurately reflect what we most value in, and need from, research. On the 20th of July 2022, the European Commission, Science Europe, the European University Association (EUA) has reached a milestone in bringing a critical mess of 380 organizations (universities, funders, academies and learned societies, research centers, ministries, etc.) together from across and beyond Europe to form a coalition and carry out this timely reform.

How research data management “became a thing”: the DARIAH Research Data Management Working Group on a writing sprint

Brief recap of the DARIAH Research Data Management Working Group’s first face to face meeting and writing sprint that took place between the 23-24th of June at the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IBL PAN).

Talking peer review series #2: Experiences in Optimizing Peer-Reviewing – A success story in five acts, three years, and two astonishing voting rounds

Peer review is a central scholarly practice, a practice that carries an enormous weight in terms of gatekeeping; shaping disciplines, publication patterns and power relations. It governs the (re)distribution of resources such as research grants, promotions, tenure and even larger institutional budgets. As such, it is crucial to deeply understand how it works in situated evaluation practices, and to continually rethink it to strive for its best, and least imperfect (or reasonably imperfect) instances. This new series on the blog, Talking Peer Review, is a means to do just that.

The Trouble With Big Data: insights from Jennifer Edmond, Jörg Lehmann, Mike Priddy and Nicola Horsley 

In this episode of our Open Scholar stars series, I am talking with a whole group: Jennifer Edmond (Trinity College Dublin), Jörg Lehmann (University of Tübingen), Mike Priddy (Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS), and Nicola Horsley (Leeds Beckett University) on occasion of the publication of their Open Access book, The Trouble With Big Data: How Datafication Displaces Cultural Practices. We discuss inherent disciplinary and cultural biases in doing data-driven research,  digitization agendas,  data and power, data metaphors, apen access book publishing and more. Enjoy! 

Talking peer review series #1: On kindness in scholarly evaluation practices – a guest post

Peer review is a central scholarly practice, a practice that carries an enormous weight in terms of gatekeeping; shaping disciplines, publication patterns and power relations. It governs the (re)distribution of resources such as research grants, promotions, tenure and even larger institutional budgets. As such, it is crucial to deeply understand how it works in situated evaluation practices, and to continually rethink it to strive for its best, and least imperfect (or reasonably imperfect) instances. This new series on the blog, Talking Peer Review, is a means to do just that. You will find here reflections, reports, opinion pieces and, to bring in some metascience, reviews of the current state of the art in the arts and humanities disciplines. In the first episode, Anne Baillot, Professor in German Studies at Le Mans Université shares insights about the value of kindness in peer review and possibilities to bring more transparency to the process Enjoy! 

Developing Identifiers for Heritage Collections: Q&A with Rebecca Grant (F1000) and Frances Madden (British Library), authors of the Open Educational Resource

Persistent Identifiers (DOIs, handles, ORCID IDs, Wikidata IDs etc.) became essential resources in our increasingly noisy digital workplaces. Beyond enabling linking instead of losing our resources, PIDs usually come with secure storing, versioning and long-term archiving solutions too. Although assigning PIDs to our scholarly outputs became a no-brainer on the level of project and data management guidelines, in reality, the selection and implementation of PID systems are anything but straightforward – especially in working conditions where the use of Zenodo or other research data repositories is simply not the best solution. In this post, we are talking with Frances Madden (British Library) and Rebecca Grant (F1000) on occasion of releasing a new Open Educational Resource which provides guidance on developing and using PIDs in the context of heritage collections.