It's not the only thing that is a little weird lately with DH. But yes, as a reviewer, when diversity is not part of the paper, "downgrading" the note because this is about European 20th century without any specific other marker seems a bit sad. I would prefer it to be a bonus only. - ThreadSky

ponteineptique.bsky.social • 34 days ago

It's not the only thing that is a little weird lately with DH. But yes, as a reviewer, when diversity is not part of the paper, "downgrading" the note because this is about European 20th century without any specific other marker seems a bit sad. I would prefer it to be a bonus only.

Comments

ponteineptique.bsky.social•34 days ago

To be clear, if your paper does not fit diversity, you can lose at least 7 points (3 points = more or less no diversity). I don't understand this.
But I do value that the paper supporting diversity, through authors or thematic, should be valued.

ponteineptique.bsky.social•34 days ago

On another note, we are starting to consider DHy stuff that is definitely less and less digit./computational. If the community goes to this direction, that's its choice of course.
But I am afraid that the 2019 schism operated with computational humanities (CHR) or NLP4DH is gonna widen even more...

ponteineptique.bsky.social•34 days ago

At the cost of exchanges between data builders, data users, tool builders and tool users, between the more technical / computational approaches will prefer conferences with more overall quality in its submission.

ponteineptique.bsky.social•34 days ago

On this note, I wish DH moved away from abstract towards full paper submission, because declaration of intentions are complicated to deal with and lead to paper with potentially unfair evaluation because it was hard to evaluate "promises" or space limited proposals.

ponteineptique.bsky.social•34 days ago

I have had a much better time reviewing CHR or NLP4DH papers, even not very good ones, because it's easier to argue over finished and completely described papers...

jamescummings.bsky.social•34 days ago

That is certainly a benefit. This is the first time in a long time though that the submissions I reviewed were very much on my technical interests. But even so my reviews were often superficial because of time or knowing papers will be updated significantly closer to the conference.

jamescummings.bsky.social•34 days ago

This does mean slower turn around because you can't submit until work is done, by which time in some parts of the field it may already be outdated. There are pros and cons to both systems.

ponteineptique.bsky.social•34 days ago

Nlp works this way, and you have preprint. This is completely in line with the open review approach of DH I think

lb42.bsky.social•34 days ago

Nonsense. Work in this field is never done. And as thibault points out full preprints are the norm in some other fast moving fields.

lb42.bsky.social•34 days ago

Requiring full papers is probly not such a bad idea. It might reduce participation and improve quality, but at the expense of making more work for reviewers

ponteineptique.bsky.social•34 days ago

IF it ends up meaning better quality for the conference, then it would be better yes.
It would also allow for a better archival of production in the context of DH (abstract can be very light compared to the full presentation, which makes knowing what was said complicated...)

jamescummings.bsky.social•34 days ago

This would, however, increase barriers for certain types of individuals, likely those already disadvantaged by other factors. I'm glad that I don't need to make these decisions.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply