Disrupting Hierarchies of Evaluation: The Case of Reviews in Digital Humanities | CommonPlace, Series 2.2 Community-led Editorial Management

flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks 2022-11-28


Risam, R., & Guiliano, J. (2022). Disrupting Hierarchies of Evaluation: The Case of Reviews in Digital Humanities. Commonplace. https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.7918cf75


This essay discusses how the editors of the journal Reviews in Digital Humanities have developed a people-first approach to peer review: community-centered peer review policies, workflows, and practices intended to address the gap in evaluation of digital scholarship. This work offers a model for disrupting hierarchies of evaluation that position senior, tenured professors as the appropriate gatekeepers of “quality” for digital scholarship and instead reframes the notion of “scholarly community” to recognize that expertise lies beyond the professoriate — particularly when evaluating public-facing scholarship. The essay further offers an example of how to create a community-driven peer review culture that brings in graduate students, librarians, archivists, public humanities workers, curators, and more to assess scholarship. In doing so, it articulates a vision for disrupting conventional notions of “expertise” and, in turn, hierarchies of evaluation for scholarship within the academy.




From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » flavoursofopenscience's bookmarks


oa.new oa.peer_review oa.ssh oa.humanities oa.digital_humanities oa.ssh

Date tagged:

11/28/2022, 11:14

Date published:

11/28/2022, 06:14