|
a born-digital, open-review volume edited by Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki

last day of open peer review (with 850 comments so far) for Writing History in the Digital Age

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 With over 850 comments so far, our eight-week open peer review for Writing History in the Digital Age will conclude at midnight (Eastern time), Monday, November 28th, 2011. Here’s what some of our readers have written about the process on their own blogs.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Charlotte D. Rochez writes about her experiences as a doctoral student who has become one of our most active commenters on Writing History in the Digital Age in her blog, Researching the History of Home-Based Education. While she initially felt reluctant about sharing her reactions to the essays, this soon changed:

About half way through the book I gained the confidence to begin posting online. My nerves were eased when authors responded kindly to my comments, entering into a dialogue where further ideas, information and links were shared. I gained much from reading the comments and authors’ responses. I found this most interesting when these took the form of public conversations between two authors whose essays had similar substantive interest. In this way I felt that the volume blurred the boundaries between a conference and a book, between speech and text.

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Will Thomas, chair of the history department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, describes in his blog how he asked students in his graduate digital humanities class to post extended comments on at least one of the essays in the online volume, and to reflect on their experience. After quoting different types of reactions from several students, he concluded:

My own view of this process is very positive after listening to my students. I think we need more open review not less, more substantive engagement with scholarship before publication than after, and more willingness to allow experimental ideas and approaches not less. There is an additional benefit to open review–our students learn how to do peer review in an open rather than a closed environment. In fact, this was one of the most striking problems the class faced–they did not know how to do a review: should they make grammatical corrections, should they be critical, . . . When we close off the review process in pre-publication, we keep mysterious a central scholarly function.

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 See also individual blog posts about the experience of publicly peer reviewing by graduate students Jason Heppler and Brian Sarnacki.

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 As the co-editors of this volume, we reflect on our experiences on navigating the open peer review process in “Online history book takes peer review to a new level,” in a blog post for The Guardian Higher Education Network (UK). Also, on Friday, December 2nd, we will co-present on “Building and Editing a Born-Digital Volume” at the HASTAC 2011 conference in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where we also will review all of the comments and decide which essays will be invited to revise and resubmit for our final manuscript. Our volume is under contract with the University of Michigan Press for the Digital Humanities Series of its digitalculturebooks imprint.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 -Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki, co-editors

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0

Source: https://writinghistory.trincoll.edu/2011/11/last-day/