[Humanist] 27.381 peer review

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Fri Sep 27 05:44:51 CEST 2013


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 381.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    "Sara A. Schmidt" <saschmidt8 at gmail.com>                  (61)
        Subject: Re:  27.380 peer review?

  [2]   From:    Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>                           (30)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 27.380 peer review?

  [3]   From:    Melissa Terras <melissaterras at gmail.com>                  (84)
        Subject: Re:  27.380 peer review?


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:40:38 -0500
        From: "Sara A. Schmidt" <saschmidt8 at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  27.380 peer review?
        In-Reply-To: <20130926061104.D456D3094 at digitalhumanities.org>


Ray Siemens would be better able to speak to this issue than me, but I
think single blind review has been used since ADHO started using ConfTool
because people were routinely listing their names and affiliations in the
files they were uploading into conftool so it would have been necessary for
the PC chair to download each uploaded file in order to make sure no names
or affiliations were included. I believe individuals submitting panel
abstracts have historically tended to mention the names and affiliations of
the various speakers planning to take part in the panel sessions. In
addition I believe that it was believed that some long term members of the
digital humanities community were familiar enough with the research and
writing styles of some of their colleagues so that they would be able to
make an educated guess as to the authors of a number of the abstracts they
were being asked to review.

Sara Schmidt

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 380.
>             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>         Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:19:49 +0100
>         From: "James O'Sullivan" <josullivan.c at gmail.com>
>         Subject: Peer Review Processes
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> I was hoping to start a discussion on peer review processes. Looking at the
> submission guidelines for the DH2014, I noticed that the ADHO "has
> discontinued the anonymization of papers during the review process (moving
> to single-blind review)". I'm wondering why this is, and what people think
> of such a move?
>
> I've always been of the opinion that single-blind review has few benefits
> when compared with double-blind processes, and I've also heard some
> convincing arguments in relation to more open models.
>
> I have limited experience as a reviewer, so I am curious to know if there
> are any merits to a single-blind review process?
>
> Thanks as always...
> James
>
> --
> *James O'Sullivan *
> @jamescosullivan  http://twitter.com/jamescosullivan **
> Web: josullivan.org
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jamescosullivan
> http://twitter.com/#%21/jamescosullivan
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/jameschristopherosullivan
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jameschristopherosullivan
> Facebook: http://facebook.com/jameschristopherosullivan
> http://www.facebook.com/jameschristopherosullivan
>
> New Binary Press: http://newbinarypress.com/Bookstore.html
> OpenDAHT: http://opendaht.org/
> Submit to *The Weary Blues*: http://thewearyblues.org/submit.html


--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 05:40:59 -0700
        From: Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 27.380 peer review?
        In-Reply-To: <20130926061104.D456D3094 at digitalhumanities.org>


I've been doing reviews for the DH conference for many years, and it's 
usually pretty obvious who the authors of most of the papers are. This 
is a small community, and most of us are aware of the specializations, 
projects and preoccupations of most of those who work in the areas we're 
familiar with. If you do any additional reading (following up references 
or checking claims in the abstract) it becomes even more obvious. I 
don't know the motivations of the program committee in making this move, 
but I don't think it changes very much from the point of view of reviewers.

Cheers,
Martin



--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:14:48 +0100
        From: Melissa Terras <melissaterras at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  27.380 peer review?
        In-Reply-To: <20130926061104.D456D3094 at digitalhumanities.org>


Dear James,

As Program Committee Chair for DH2014, I'm happy to share what I know of the
current situation. It's a very interesting question, and I'm looking forward
to subsequent discussions.

The change to single-blind peer review for DH was made in 2005. In the
Annexe to the ADHO conference protocol
(http://adho.org/administration/conference-coordinating/annex-adho-conference-protocol),
you can see, under "Reviewing of Papers", "ADHO is discontinuing the
practice of anonymizing papers during the review process." It would require
some digging to get the minutes of the discussion that let to it, but as I
understand it, this was because author identities are often so recognizable
from the DH projects referenced in proposals.

The conference organisation is bound by these protocols from one year to the
next - so the procedure for DH2014 is now set up. However, we of course
welcome input and discussion, and if there is a sense from the community
that this needs to be changed, this can be addressed at committee level, and
the protocols amended. Our community has changed a lot since 2005, indeed.

The Conference Coordinating Committee would be the place to direct any
recommendations, or queries, or to ask for this to be raised again as a
discussion item, as they are responsible for maintaining the conference
protocols. http://adho.org/administration/conference-coordinating 

We welcome any members of the ADHO community asking this sort of question
about process, and as our community grows and develops, its important to
think about how existing protocols reflect the community's needs.

best,

Melissa Terras
(PC Chair DH2014).



-----------------
Melissa M. Terras MA MSc DPhil CLTHE CITP FHEA
Director, UCL Centre for Digital Humanities
Reader in Electronic Communication
Department of Information Studies
Foster Court
University College London
Gower Street
WC1E 6BT

Tel: 020-7679-7206 (direct), 020-7679-7204 (dept), 020-7383-0557 (fax)
Email: m.terras at ucl.ac.uk
Web: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/melissa-terras/
Blog: http://melissaterras.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @melissaterras






More information about the Humanist mailing list