[Humanist] 24.843 DHQ: 1 April deadline extended

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sat Apr 2 09:39:27 CEST 2011


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 843.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    "Holly C. Shulman" <hcs8n at virginia.edu>                  (118)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.839 DHQ: automate before the day is out!

  [2]   From:    "Schlitz, Stephanie" <sschlitz at bloomu.edu>                 (5)
        Subject: RE: [Humanist] 24.837 DHQ to automated peer-review

  [3]   From:    David Golumbia <dgolumbia at gmail.com>                     (105)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.839 DHQ: automate before the day is out!

  [4]   From:    Alan Galey <galey.lists at gmail.com>                        (66)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.837 DHQ to automated peer-review


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:31:48 -0400
        From: "Holly C. Shulman" <hcs8n at virginia.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.839 DHQ: automate before the day is out!
        In-Reply-To: <20110401155953.66D66126951 at woodward.joyent.us>


I am writing in response to the move by the journal Digital Humanities
Quarterly to PRAT (Peer Review with Advanced Technology).

Before we all rush to accept – and copy – this innovation I would simply
like to inject a few words of caution, especially as a historian.  To begin
with, scholarly approaches to analysis, research, and texts vary between
disciplines, and within disciplines across sub-disciplinary requirements.
These differences at least in part determine the choice of style and
vocabulary employed by any given scholar.  In fact, the very meaning of a
word, especially a word used in a theoretical framework, may vary between
specializations.  Historians rarely deploy the same theoretical language as
literary critics.

These internal differences determine the style of any article. Thus the
introduction of automated review here will “privilege” some fields, and some
authors, over others, regardless of the merit of their contribution. This
approach to peer review will predetermine scholarship, and its expression,
in a way that will curtail innovation and diversity.

Holly C. Shulman


-- 
Holly C. Shulman
Editor, Dolley Madison Digital Edition
Founding Director, Documents Compass
Research Professor, Department of History
University of Virginia
434-243-8881
hcs8n at virginia.edu



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:30:29 -0400
        From: "Schlitz, Stephanie" <sschlitz at bloomu.edu>
        Subject: RE: [Humanist] 24.837 DHQ to automated peer-review
        In-Reply-To: <20110401070110.57270126B97 at woodward.joyent.us>


Peer Review with Advanced Technology (PRAT)... April Fools'?

--- Stephanie


--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:55:12 -0400
        From: David Golumbia <dgolumbia at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.839 DHQ: automate before the day is out!
        In-Reply-To: <20110401155953.66D66126951 at woodward.joyent.us>


#!/usr/bin/perl
$hpost = "
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/cgi-bin/humanist/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=/Humanist.vol24.txt&msgnum=832&start=102048&end=102155
"
$irony = EVAL_IN_HIST($hpost)
while(date = "today") {
$irony = false }
else {
 $irony = true }


-- 
David Golumbia
dgolumbia at gmail.com



--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:22:12 -0400
        From: Alan Galey <galey.lists at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.837 DHQ to automated peer-review
        In-Reply-To: <20110401070110.57270126B97 at woodward.joyent.us>

Dear Julia, Melissa, and Wendell,

This is very welcome news. DHQ's move to automated peer-review is a
wonderful idea, and a natural progression of our field.

I'm especially happy about your announcement because I've been working
on a complementary system to automate the writing of articles, based
on parameters nearly identical to your implementation of PRAT. The
system is tentatively called the Phonetic Iterator and Integrator (or
PhoneItIn), and should be able to produce 3-4 articles per week. It
can already detect and avoid duplication of Minimum Publishable Units.
I'm hoping to add an automated article submission and revision
component, which would mean that automated writing and review systems
would be interoperable, communicating asynchronously in a feedback
loop with no human supervision.

Unfortunately, every test-run of PhoneItIn so far only seems to
generate Eagles lyrics. Not sure why. Once I fix this problem I'll
post the project on SourceForge.

Best of the season,
Alan

-- 
Alan Galey
Assistant Professor
University of Toronto
individual.utoronto.ca/alangaley/







More information about the Humanist mailing list