DH in Tenure & Promotion
From our discussion of T&P and publicly engaged, digital scholarship, and translational scholarship on March 24, 2016, see the resulting:
At UF, the Digital Humanities Working Group (DHWG) and many others are interested in ensuring that structural processes support the necessary review, valuation, and validation of all forms of scholarly work, including collaborative and digital research practices. In addition to the resources on this page, we expect to continue to hold conversations and conduct activities in order to validate or put in place the necessary processes. Processes for review, valuation, and validation of collaborative and digital scholarly work are clearly needed in the Digital Humanities, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Informatics, and many other areas as all of our work becomes increasingly collaborative and inter- or multi-disciplinary.
Resources for DH in Tenure & Promotion
- UF T&P Guidelines in CWSGR (includes language addressing interdisciplinarity and public impact)
- UF T&P Guidelines in the Libraries (includes language on digital and public impact, several departments have voted to approve implementation)
- UF Imagining America report, which notes that the Office of the Provost would be supportive of expanded tenure/promotion criteria that credit engaged scholarship in arts, humanities, and design. These must be generated through discussions in individual departments with their faculty.
- Report of the Florida Extension Reconsidered Initiative, noting problems of UF current (2015) RCM and T&P standards
- American Historical Association (AHA), Draft Guidelines on the Evaluation of Digital Scholarship
- Modern Language Association (MLA) Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media
- List of Peer Review and T&P Guidelines (2016, by Alex Gil)
- Case Studies and Examples for Evaluating Digital Scholarship, College Art Association (2016)
- Statement on Exhibit Venues, College Art Association (2016)
Resources for Peer Review for Alternative Scholarly Products
In order to support alternative scholarly products which are common with scholarship in the age of Big Data, including the Digital Humanities and other types of Digital Scholarship, additional resources are needed especially for peer review. Some of the needed resources already exist and are available, with others in development to support peer review, publishing, and other critical needs.
Venues for Review of Alternative Scholarly Works (as models and for reviewing)
- Advanced Research Consortium (ARC) and affiliated projects:
- NINES for peer-review of digital resources and archives; reviewing for content and technologies, and Submission process and form to request peer review
- Renaissance English Knowledgebase (Rekn)
- Modernist Networks (ModNets), coming soon
- Journal of American History: Web site Reviews
- Reviews in History
- Online Exhibits as Scholarship from the Women Writers Project at Brown with Guidelines for Exhibit Authors and Peer Review and Scholarly Communication: three stage review process: 1) all reviewed by WWP editorial team for suitability; response options appear to be reject, revise, or continue; 2) if approved to move on, review by one or more subject expert reviewers; 3) review again by WWP editorial team
- Digital Humanities Quarterly (DHQ)
- “ Hiring, firing, & evaluating digital humanities scholarship” blog post by UF Graduate Student, Ken Chitwood
- Towards a Peer Review of Geohumanities Projects: A Community Consultation (2015)
- Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (DSH); renamed from Literary Linguistic and Computing in 2014
- Digital Studies ( http://www.digitalstudies.org/ojs/index.php/digital_studies)
- Journal for Digital Humanities ( http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/)
- Digital Philology: A Journal of Medieval Cultures ( http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/digital_philology/)
- L. Mandell (2012) “Promotion and Tenure for Digital Scholarship: An Open Letter to the Promotion and Tenure Committee at Texas A&M University” ( http://idhmc.tamu.edu/commentpress/promotion-and-tenure/)
- T. Presner et. al (2011) “How to Evaluate Digital Scholarship” ( http://humanitiesblast.com/Evaluating_digital_scholarship.pdf)
- University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Center for Digital Research in the Humanities, “Promotion & Tenure Criteria for Assessing Digital Research in the Humanities” ( http://humanitiesblast.com/Evaluating_digital_scholarship.pdf)
- American Association for History and Computing (AAHC). 2000. “AAHC Suggested Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Media Activities in Tenure, Review, and Promotion – Draft Statement.” Journal of the Association for History and Computing 3 (3).
- The American Historical Review offers an annual Prize in Digital Historical Scholarship for the best born-digital short scholarly contribution.
- Bates, David, Janet Nelson, Charlotte Roueché, and Jane Winters. 2006. Peer Review and Evaluation of Digital Resources for the Arts and Humanities. Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) ICT Strategy Project. London, UK: Institute of Historical Research, University of London, September.
- Warwick, C., M. Terras, I. Galina, P. Huntington, and N. Eva Pappa. 2007. Evaluating Digital Humanities Resources: The LAIRAH Project Checklist and the Internet Shakespeare Editions Project. In ELPUB2007. Openness in Digital Publishing: Awareness, Discovery and Access – Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, ed. L. Chan and B. Martens, 297-306. Vienna, Austria: OEKK – Editions.
- 2013 Whitepaper: Encouraging Digital Scholarly Publishing in the Humanities (NEH project)
- Diane Harley & Sophia Krzys Acord; Peer Review in Academic Promotion & Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future(2011).
- Michelle Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (2009).
- PREPARDE: Peer REview for Publication & Accreditation of Research Data in the Earth sciences
- Peer Review Primer from RIN
- Valuing & Evaluating DH [Digital Humanities] Practice, various resources from the Carolina Digital Humanities Initiative
- Article-Level Metrics: A SPARC Primer (2013)
- Modern Language Association
- Wiki on the Evaluation of Digital Work (Types, Guide to Evaluation, Stories, Documenting a New Media Case, FAQ, Resources)
- Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages
- Guiding Questions for Vetters of Scholarly Editions
- Workshop on Evaluating Digital Scholarship 2012: MLA Wiki on the 2012 workshop and Report in The Chronicle
- American Anthropological Association (AAA)
- Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL):
- Imaging America
Scholarship in Public: Knowledge Creation and Tenure Policy in the Engaged University: A Resource on Promotion and Tenure in the Arts, Humanities, and Design
Summary recommendations: 1. Define public scholarly and creative work. 2. Develop policy based on a continuum of scholarship. 3. Recognize the excellence of work that connects domains of knowledge. 4. Expand what counts. 5. Document what counts. 6. Present what counts: use portfolios. 7. Expand who counts: Broaden the community of peer review. 8. Support publicly engaged graduate students and junior faculty. 9. Build in flexibility at the point of hire. 10. Promote public scholars to full professor. 11. Organize the department for policy change. 12. Take this report home and use it to start something.
- Scholarship in Public: Knowledge Creation and Tenure Policy in the Engaged University: A Resource on Promotion and Tenure in the Arts, Humanities, and Design
- Altmetrics: http://altmetrics.org/ and Altmetrics tools
- Attribution and Citation for Digital Humanities Projects
Examples and/or Models
- Tenure case supported by Wikipedia editing at Auburn University at Montgomery (English and Philosophy Department)
- Tenure portfolio, done digitally with primarily digital scholarship
- New Media Department, University of Maine, Promotion and Tenure Guidelines Addendum: Rationale for Redefined Criteria, New Criteria for New Media and Addendum
- CREC research publication manuscript peer review forms and submission process for files
- DDISMedia: A Peer Reviewed Digital Media Library for Pest Diagnosis
- Florida Statistical Abstract, published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)
- College of Law journals and reviews
- CSHE: The Future of Scholarly Communication:
- Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing; Its Meaning, Locus, and Future: Project Report and Associated Recommendations, Proceedings from a Meeting, and Background Papers
- New Media & Society, journal issue (theme: Scholarly Communication: Changes, Challenges & Initiatives) undergoing open peer review
- “Scholarly Publishing in the Digital Library of the Caribbean (dLOC).” Library Publishing Toolkit (2013)
- “On Tenure and Why Code Can’t Speak for Itself” by Ryan Shaw (March 2012)
- “Valuing Digital Scholarship: Exploring the Changing Realities of Intellectual Work,” James P. Purdy & Joyce R. Walker, Profession 2010.
- Articles in the section on “Evaluating Digital Scholarship” in Profession 2011:
- “Introduction” by Susan Schreibman, Laura Mandell, and Stephen Olsen
- “Engaging Digital Scholarship: Thoughts on Evaluating Multimedia Scholarship” by Steve Anderson and Tara McPherson
- “On the Evaluation of Digital Media as Scholarship” by Geoffrey Rockwell
- “Where Credit Is Due: Preconditions for the Evaluation of Collaborative Digital Scholarship” by Bethany Nowviskie
- “On Creating a Usable Future” by Jerome McGann
- “Peer Review, Judgment, and Reading” by Kathleen Fitzpatrick
- “ New Media in the Academy: Labor and the Production of Knowledge in Scholarly Multimedia” by Helen Burgess and Jeanne Hamming
UF Facilitated Peer Review Committee
In addition to the external resources listed above, the Facilitated Peer Review Committee was established at UF with the approval of the Dean of the Libraries to support the peer review process for alternative scholarly works across the UF campus. The Committee was developed as a pilot to act in a manner akin to an editorial board that facilitates, but not conduct, peer review. Peer review is conducted by subject experts. This supportive process is critically needed across many fields to support scholarly efforts in multimedia publication, data curation, publicly-engaged scholarship, collaborative work, and other forms of alternative scholarly products that do not fit within established disciplinary traditions. After the pilot, the UF Digital Humanities Library Group has been discussing next steps for this group in support of broad academic community needs.
For more information, see the Facilitated Peer Review Committee website.