A small experiment in making research infrastructure legible to LLM-based agents — and what it suggests about the broader relationship between AI and Research Infrastructures (RIs). The discoverability gap Research infrastructures in the Social Sciences and Humanities have, over the past decade, done a remarkable amount of work to expose...
From the submission process until final publication, authors have to face and respond to many requirements of the academic publishing process and even more for a digital humanities journal open to non-traditional research outputs. From writing the text itself to ensuring that the outputs are reusable, authors are invited to follow...
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.
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...
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....
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.
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.
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,...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
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!
