As the role of the publisher changes, our traditional partnership in negotiating these issues may deteriorate. The adoption of the online medium for scholarly communication leads to very gradual, iterative shifts in the norms and values of the academy. Spiro, Lisa, “This is why we fight”: Defining the values of the digital humanities, in Debates in the digital humanities, ed.
The 'demand side' of the scholarly communication equation must therefore address the changes in the reading habits of consumers of published research. Although it might seem that any of these could be used to refer to the key process implied in the etymology of the term (that is, making something public), it is generally agreed that publication is the most restricted of the terms (although there is much overlap in their common usage). 20 Bob Shoemaker, 'The Future of the (e)Book', History Matters (1 December 2015), http://www.historymatters.group.shef.ac.uk/future-ebook/.
Lyons, Rebecca and Samantha Rayner, eds., The Academic Book of the Future (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), https://doi. Shoemaker, Bob, 'The Future of the (e)Book', History Matters (1 December 2015), http://www.historymatters.group.shef.ac.uk/future-ebook/. In the following section, we present a qualitative analysis of the effect of digital humanities, as evidenced by the case study database.
20 Lisa Spiro, "This Is Why We Fight": Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities, in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Uniquely rare, of course; these artifacts contribute to the diverse media ecology of digital humanities. Spiro, Lisa, "This Is Why We Fight": Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities, in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed.
12 Bernard Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). Criticism and evaluation of the discourse code in the (digital) humanities has mostly focused on the evaluation of stance tracks and peer review of the 'surface' of the digital. The current practice of "black-boxing" code results in a neglect of its epistemological contributions and jeopardizes one of the key components of knowledge production in the digital humanities.
The development of the software is driven by tasks specific to the research at hand. The latter model relates to the content, the data as meaningful concepts and the analytical part of the research.
Cerquiglini, Bernard, In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). Kemman, Max, Martijn Kleppe, and Stef Scagliola, “Just Google It: Digital Research Practices of Humanities Scholars,” in Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress 2012, ed. What has been the experience of digital humanities communities with the evaluation of digital scholarship in the years before c.
In short: what is the history of the acquisition and development of evaluative methods for evaluating digital scholarship in the humanities. This chapter contributes to this volume by presenting an overview of the trajectory and contours of debates about digital scholarship and communication that occurred in the humanities computing community. 9 American Council of Learned Societies, Our Cultural Commonwealth: Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyber Infrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences (New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 2006), p.
To explore these questions further, and thus to understand more about the antecedents of the evaluation of digital scholarship, I will map some of the conversations that the computing humanities community engaged in in the years before ca. In this way, I believe, the unfortunate reception digital scholarship sometimes receives from the wider community partly explains the ambivalence that some members of the computing humanities community expressed towards the evaluation of digital scholarship in the conversations summarized below.31 The conversations that took place about the evaluation of digital scholarship will now be presented, beginning with discussions about what outputs could be considered peer review. One of the richest sources of discussion about experiences with and attitudes toward the evaluation and peer review of digital scholarship that I have come across is contained in the Humanist archives.
As we will see, social and dialogical factors over the longer term also played a role in convincing the humanities computing community of the need to formally evaluate digital science in the humanities. Almost all of the "G10" (that is, the top thirteen research institutions of Canada) have institutionalized digital humanities activities in the form of degree […] programs […] or through institutes. Is it merely a coincidence that peer review efforts bear a particular kind of fruit, and exert a particular influence, around the time of the 'emergence' of the term digital humanities.
Is it plausible to suggest that advances made in the digital evaluation of scholarship have contributed to the institutionalization of the digital humanities. And, if so, what role can digital evaluation play in the ongoing development and institutionalization of the digital humanities. As indicated by Goldfield, peer review is closely connected to disciplinary identity.68 Our approaches to the evaluation of digital science in the coming years are of crucial importance, not only in terms of the field's ongoing institutionalization, but also in terms of what peer review can reveal about the digital humanities.