- PC2023 - lists.digitalhumanities.org

DH2023 Conference Proceedings Opportunity
by Diane Jakacki 13 Nov '23

13 Nov '23

Dear all, I hope this finds you well. We are in the process of developing the Digital Scholarship in the Humanities conference proceedings issue, and would like to invite any members of the DH2023 Program Committee who are interested to participate in the editorial team. Attached you will find the DH Conference Issue Workflow document. Please take a look at the document. If you are interested in participating, please reach out to me. We're hoping to move on to the next phase of editorial planning, so if possible please contact me by 30 November if you are interested in taking part and/or if you have any questions. With best wishes, Diane -- Diane Jakacki, Ph.D. Digital Scholarship Coordinator Affiliate Faculty in Comparative & Digital Humanities Bucknell University diane.jakacki(a)bucknell.edu (she/her) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7836-1223 Fulbright Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities, 2022-3 Principal Investigator, LAB Cooperative and REED London Online Executive Board Chair, ADHO Chair, TEI-C Executive Board

1 0

Best review award
by Anne Baillot 20 Jun '23

20 Jun '23

Dear PC, for your information, we reviewed the nominations for the best review award and decided to award it to two reviewers: Rosamond E. Thalken and Wenyi Shang. Thanks a lot to Nanette for her help in the selection process! All best, Anne -- Anne Baillot Professeure en Etudes Germaniques Faculté de Lettres, Langues et Sciences Humaines Département d'allemand Université du Mans Avenue Olivier Messiaen F-72085 LE MANS Cedex 9 CV et publications: https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/annebaillot Sur twitter: @AnneBaillot

1 0

Keynotes; program; best review award
by Anne Baillot 01 May '23

01 May '23

Dear Members of the PC, We now have both keynotes lined up with titles and abstracts. Sarah Kenderdine will deliver the opening keynote under the title “Two-Fold Revolutions: Computational Museology in the Age of Experience”. The closing keynote will be held by Claire Fernandez and is entitled: "Contesting power in the digital age: the role of civil society in Europe." We are really excited about both of them. We are currently working on the program and have managed to group some nice thematic units for the long papers; we will proceed next week with the short papers. Workshops are already online and panels don’t request much decision-making since they occupy one full slot each. One topic that we have left unaddressed is the reviewer award. Several reviewers have received the same number of nominations for the reviewer award, and only one of them can receive the award. If two people from the PC felt inclined to take the matter in their own hands, it would really be great (not that we would not want to do it, but we would really like a fresh look on submissions and reviews). We would send you the list of the reviewers that were nominated (PC members excluded) and ask you to select one by looking at their review. If you would like, you could also present the awardee with a small eulogy during the conference. Please let us know what you think about this suggestion. All best, Anne and Toma -- Anne Baillot Professeure en Etudes Germaniques Faculté de Lettres, Langues et Sciences Humaines Département d'allemand Université du Mans Avenue Olivier Messiaen F-72085 LE MANS Cedex 9 CV et publications:https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/annebaillot Sur twitter: @AnneBaillot

4 4

Next step in the DH2023 preparation process: selection of accepted submissions
by Anne Baillot 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Dear members of the PC, in the next stage of preparations for DH2023 – finalizing the list of accepted submissions – the role of the PC will be essential. We will need your help with some specific tasks, so please read on. To access all the submissions and the reviews, you should log in to ConfTool and then click on “Manage Submissions and Reviews” > “Online Forum for the Program Committee”. Quantitative cutoffs for acceptance Keeping in mind that we would like to have around 6 parallel sessions in the main program, we are currently proposing to accept the following submissions: * Long presentations: submissions with a grade equal or above 80,5 * Short presentations: submissions with a grade equal or above 76,7 (except one rejection for an author who submitted only their CV and didn’t provide an actual abstract in the response phase although he was asked to) * Panels: submissions with a grade equal or above 85,7 * Workshops: submissions with a grade equal or above 85 This would give us enough content to fill around 6 parallel sessions. Grading spans This purely quantitative approach, however, seems to us to be only half satisfactory considering the very wide spans there can be between two reviews for the same paper (you can see the span in Conftool in the second column from the left) - see picture below: For some submissions whose score is within the ranges mentioned above or slightly below and that have a particularly big span between reviews, we would like to ask you to provide meta-reviews. Meta-reviews Providing a meta-review consists in having a look at the abstract and at the reviews and suggesting a decision (accept/not accept) with one sentence of explanation. The goal is not that you do an additional review, but that you provide an assessment in these cases where the quality of the submission does not seem to be unequivocal. You can do this “meta-review” directly in the forum - neither authors nor reviewers will have access to it, and your judgment will remain within the PC. When in the forum, the right column leads to a “comment” area in which you can both provide an assessment and a justification for it in a textbox. We have prepared a sheet with a list of submission IDs that need such a meta-review and would be extremely grateful if you could: 1. put your name next to 1-2 submissions; 2. do the meta-reviews for your self-assigned submissions by March 1st. This should not be as work-intensive as our reviewing effort in December. Self-assignments should be random and on a first-come, first-served basis. We are not looking for specific expertise, just common sense and an objective, external point of view in regard to the quality of the submissions, the available reviews and, in some cases, authors’ responses. Here is the link to the list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ra35OvOzSIo1CsBygq5CdHfy-Qt2LuizsYI… <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ra35OvOzSIo1CsBygq5CdHfy-Qt2LuizsYI…> This concerns all submission types but posters, which we will deal with and inform you about separately. We thank you in advance for your help with this work step too! - and will keep you posted on the overall progress of the selection process. All best, Anne and Toma -- Anne Baillot Professeure en Etudes Germaniques Faculté de Lettres, Langues et Sciences Humaines Département d'allemand Université du Mans Avenue Olivier Messiaen F-72085 LE MANS Cedex 9 CV et publications:https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/annebaillot Sur twitter: @AnneBaillot

8 12

Reviewing process
by Diane Jakacki 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

Hello all, I'd like to thank you for incorporating the response-to-reviewer feedback phase of the process in such a productive manner. I was grateful for the chance to engage further with the authors who responded. In many cases their further explanations helped me to see what I hadn't in the first round of review, and was able to adjust quantitative marks. Thanks for all of your hard work. It's getting close now, and I believe ever more that we have the makings of an excellent conference. Best wishes, Diane -- Diane Jakacki, Ph.D. Digital Scholarship Coordinator Affiliate Faculty in Comparative & Digital Humanities Bucknell University diane.jakacki(a)bucknell.edu (she/her) Fulbright Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities, 2022-3 Principal Investigator, LAB Cooperative and REED London Online Executive Board Chair-Elect, ADHO Chair, TEI-C Executive Board

2 1

DH2023 Reference formatting
by Laura Estill 23 Jan '23

23 Jan '23

Dear Anne, Toma, and PC, I see in the CFP that there is a mention of “citation style”; and I see in the recent reminder email (thank you—and nicely done!) that accepted papers will be submitting “camera-ready” copies, but I can’t seem to find a style guide or stated citation style anywhere. Given that the ADHO journals all use different citation styles (DHQ, DSH, DSCN, etc), and expectations vary by region or (sub)discipline, I didn’t want to make any assumptions. Is there a recommended citation style for the conference? (For DH2020 we cited “A short note on pointless reference formatting<https://utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/jsp.44.3.006>” for the book of abstracts—but each year gets to choose how they proceed with references.) Thanks again, Anne and Toma, for all of your hard work. Laura Dr. Laura Estill Associate Professor of English St. Francis Xavier University Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities

3 2

Deadline approaching — many reviews still missing
by Toma Tasovac 21 Dec '22

21 Dec '22

Dear colleagues, many thanks to those of you who have already completed your reviews. Please make sure to check whether new ones were assigned to you last week. We have noticed, however, that we're still missing quite a few reviews from PC members, and in some cases — all of them. We totally understand — and are all struggling a bit to keep up. Still, we have to kindly ask you to make sure you have all your reviews (the original ones and those reassigned last week) completed by Friday noon, CET. It's really important that we have as many of the remaining reviews done before Anne, Walter and I meet on Friday, so that we don't have to reassign too many in the final reviewing sprint between Christmas and the 28th, when we're supposed to release the reviews. Sorry to be pestering you about this, but we're getting a little bit stressed and we do want us all to have nice holidays, without a sense of the impending reviewing doom... :) All best, Toma & Anne -- Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities http://humanistika.org

1 0

Reassigning reviews
by Anne Baillot 16 Dec '22

16 Dec '22

Dear members of the Program Committee, we just spent 2,5 hours reassigning missing reviews and only managed to deal with panels, long papers and short papers. The figures of the missing reviews were really scary, to be honest. We will reassign what needs to be reassigned concerning posters and workshops tomorrow morning. Conftool is still open for review so that you can complete the additional reviews completely normally (and reviewers that haven't completed their reviews can still do so). So many evaluations were missing that we had to assign each of you quite a bundle of reviews (as well as to a few colleagues who offered to help and whom we can't thank enough for that service). The period to complete the additional reviews runs from now to the 23rd at noon CET - be aware that we might also allot you a few more posters or workshops tomorrow morning (we will probably go for 2 reviews only for posters though). Please check for conflicts of interests and/or areas of competence issues as soon as you can. In case we need to reshuffle, it would be best if we could do it tomorrow morning as well (we meet at 11:30 A.M. CET). We thank you very, very much in advance for your precious help in what is going to be a very full week. All best, Anne, Toma & Walter -- Anne Baillot Professeure en Etudes Germaniques Faculté de Lettres, Langues et Sciences Humaines Département d'allemand Université du Mans Avenue Olivier Messiaen F-72085 LE MANS Cedex 9 CV et publications: https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/annebaillot

7 6

Reassignement of reviews
by Anne Baillot 12 Dec '22

12 Dec '22

Dear PC members, first, thanks a lot to those of you who already did their reviews! A few submissions have been withdrawn so that we now are at 765 submissions in total. During today's meeting, we spotted a few more problematic cases (no upload, submission in German) and reassigned them to PC members. Also, due to review rejections, a series of submissions only had 2 or 3 reviewers left assigned. We have reassigned reviewers manually (based on topic convergence) so that all panels and long papers have at least 4 reviewers and the other types of proposals at least 3. Due to this reconfiguration, some of you now have a few additional reviews to tend to (staying within the limit you have indicated). We plan to send an e-mail to all reviewers on the 28th to remind them to check if they need to reject reviews (well... and not to forget to actually do the reviews), and to do a reviewer re-assignment round (if needed) on the 30th. All best, Anne, together with Toma and Walter -- Anne Baillot Professeure en Etudes Germaniques Faculté de Lettres, Langues et Sciences Humaines Département d'allemand Université du Mans Avenue Olivier Messiaen F-72085 LE MANS Cedex 9 CV et publications: https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/annebaillot Sur twitter: @AnneBaillot

2 1

"Best Review Award" - great idea
by Laura Estill 28 Nov '22

28 Nov '22

Dear Ann and Toma, (and DH2023 PC) I just wanted to write to say that your reminder email for reviews hit just the right tone. Also, I love the idea of the “Best Review Award.” A fantastic way to recognize some often-overlooked yet critical academic labour. Thank you for your hard work, Laura Dr. Laura Estill Associate Professor of English St. Francis Xavier University Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities

1 0