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 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 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.
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.
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!
Research assessment has been recognized as the Achilles heel of firmly grounding Open Science practices in research realities for a long while now. A wide range of innovative, born-digital scholarship are still invisible from formal research administration and assessment. Entering 2022, we see strong European-level policy drive and momentum to change this for the better. In this post, we showcase 4 ways in which DARIAH supports this important endeavor in areas that naturally fall close to DARIAH’s mission.
In this post, we are going to take a look at a significant Open Access innovation: overlay journal publishing. We will see what is the value in them and how epistemic cultures shape their uptake in the arts and humanities disciplines. For easier readability, the post is, somewhat arbitrarily, structured along the frequently asked questions that I collected from the DARIAH Open Science helpdesk, workshops and conversations on the topic.
One of the common beliefs that often comes up when discussing research dissemination strategies is that Open Access publishing equals high publishing costs. Shifting the burden of payment from readers to authors (or their funders or institutions) indeed creates a new set of inequalities in open scholarly communication as article...
