Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 252.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: Frederike Neuber <neuber.frederike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.247: admired scholarly editions (178)
[2] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: admired examples (16)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2023-10-11 18:37:42+00:00
From: Frederike Neuber <neuber.frederike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.247: admired scholarly editions
Dear colleagues,
@Thomas, thank you for bringing up RIDE.
RIDE (https://ride.i-d-e.de/) and the associated criteria catalogues for
evaluation (https://ride.i-d-e.de/reviewers/catalogue-criteria-for-reviewing-digital-editions-and-resources/)
were initiated by the Institute for Documentology and Scholarly Editing
(IDE) among other things, because digital research and the resulting
results/products are hardly ever discussed in traditional review journals
(which leads to a lack of crediting for the work of digital editors) as
well as to discuss and define what is state-of-the-art in the field (for
more Information about the scope of Ride see our editorial:
<https://ride.i-d-e.de/about/editorial/>.
So going back to your question @Willard “Do we not need to sort out what
works well from what does not?” I am not sure what you mean with ‘sorting
out’, but determining what is good and why can help develop best practices
and standards that the community can collectively follow. This is
especially important in a young discipline like the digital humanities
were common grounds on how to create sustainable and functional research
resources have to be found. I cannot think of a better way than systematic
reviewing to discuss the quality of digital scholarly editions or any other
digital scholarly resource - can you?
Best,
Frederike (Neuber)
-----
Dr. Frederike Neuber
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften
TELOTA - Koordination Digital Humanities (http://www.bbaw.de/telota)
Jean Paul-Briefedition (https://www.jeanpaul-edition.de)
Kontakt:
Jägerstraße 22/23, 10117 Berlin, Raum 458
Telefon: +49 (0)30 20370 395
Email: frederike.neuber@bbaw.de
- - - -
Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik (https://www.i-d-e.de/)
RIDE - A review journal for digital editions and resources (Managing
Editor, https://ride.i-d-e.de/)
Am Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2023 schrieb Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org>:
>
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 247.
> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
> Hosted by DH-Cologne
> www.dhhumanist.org
> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
> [1] From: Thomas Gloning <thomas.gloning@germanistik.uni-giessen.de
> >
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.246: admired scholarly editions? (15)
>
> [2] From: Thomas Gloning <thomas.gloning@germanistik.uni-giessen.de
> >
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.246: admired scholarly editions? (86)
>
>
> --[1]-------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> Date: 2023-10-10 20:07:21+00:00
> From: Thomas Gloning <thomas.gloning@germanistik.uni-giessen.de>
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.246: admired scholarly editions?
>
> > qualities. It would be enlightening to many here, I suspect,
> > were these qualities to be identified and discussed.
>
> I understand that Peter Shillingsburg asked for personal opinions.
> Nevertheless I would like to point out that there are forms of review
> that specifically deal with sholarly editions:
>
> https://www.i-d-e.de/publikationen/ride/
>
> As is typical for reviews, both quality standards are introduced and
> editions are evaluated against those standards. So, analyzing reviews of
> scholarly editions in respect of quality standards might be an
> additional way of investigating the topic.
>
> All best, Thomas
>
> --[2]-------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> Date: 2023-10-10 20:32:15+00:00
> From: Thomas Gloning <thomas.gloning@germanistik.uni-giessen.de>
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.246: admired scholarly editions?
>
> P.S.: There is also a section with guidelines on criteria for reviewing
> scholarly digital editions as a part of the RIDE site, see the first
> link below.
>
> There are reviews in other journals as well. Just in case one would like
> to build a "Corpus of Reviews of Scholarly Digital Editions" (CRSDE) for
> an empirical investigation.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> English
>
> RIDE is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Institut für
> Dokumentologie und Editorik dedicated to digital editions and resources.
> RIDE aims to direct attention to digital editions and resources and to
> provide a forum in which expert peers criticise and discuss the efforts
> of digital editors in order to improve current practices and advance
> future developments. Reviewers are expected to discuss not only the
> traditional achievements ands problems of editions, corpora, etc. in
> general, but also to address the developing methodology its technical
> implications. To this end, the IDE developed a comprehensive catalogues
> of criteria for the review of digital resources guiding the reviewers:
>
> * Criteria for Reviewing Scholarly Digital Editions
> <https://www.i-d-e.de/publikationen/weitereschriften/criteria-
> version-1-1/>
> * Criteria for Reviewing Text Collections
> <https://www.i-d-e.de/publikationen/weitereschriften/criteria-text-
> collections-version-1-0/>
> * Criteria for Reviewing Tools and Environments for Digital Scholarly
> Editing
> <https://www.i-d-e.de/publikationen/weitereschriften/criteria-tools-
> version-1/>
>
> Read more about RIDE at ride.i-d-e.de <http://ride.i-d-e.de>.
>
>
> Issues published
>
> * Issue 14 <http://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-14/>: Scholarly Editions
> (published November 2021, /rolling issue/)
> * Issue 13 <http://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-13/>: Scholarly Editions
> (published December 2020)
> * Issue 12 <http://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-12/>: Scholarly Editions
> (Correspondence) (published July 2020)
> * Issue 11 <http://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-11/>: Tools and
> Environments (published January 2020)
> * Issue 10 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-10/>: Scholarly
> Editions (Correspondence) (published June 2019)
> * Issue 9 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-9/>: Text Collections
> (published November 2018)
> * Issue 8 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-8/>: Text Collections
> (published February 2018)
> * Issue 7 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-7/>: Scholarly Editions
> (published December 2017)
> * Issue 6 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-6/>: Text Collections
> (published September 2017)
> * Issue 5 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-5/>: Scholarly Editions
> (published February 2017)
> * Issue 4 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issue-4>: Scholarly Editions
> (published June 2016)
> * Issue 3 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issue-3>: Scholarly Editions
> (published November 2015)
> * Issue 2 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issue-2>: Scholarly Editions
> (published December 2014)
> * Issue 1 <https://ride.i-d-e.de/issue-1>: Scholarly Editions
> (published June 2014)
>
> Am 10.10.2023 um 22:07 schrieb Thomas Gloning:
> >
> >> qualities. It would be enlightening to many here, I suspect,
> >> were these qualities to be identified and discussed.
> >
> > I understand that Peter Shillingsburg asked for personal opinions.
> > Nevertheless I would like to point out that there are forms of review
> > that specifically deal with sholarly editions:
> >
> > https://www.i-d-e.de/publikationen/ride/
> >
> > As is typical for reviews, both quality standards are introduced and
> > editions are evaluated against those standards. So, analyzing reviews
> > of scholarly editions in respect of quality standards might be an
> > additional way of investigating the topic.
> >
> > All best, Thomas
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2023-10-11 07:29:43+00:00
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: admired examples
Peter Shillingsburg's criterion for scholarly editions, that they are
'admired', interests me for its broad focus because it allows for the
possibly unexpected assembly of characteristics which draws in users of
these editions. If in unexpected numbers, then perhaps designers of
these editions have something to ponder. I'd think this
especially true of digital scholarly editions.
Comments?
Yours,
WM
--
Willard McCarty,
Professor emeritus, King's College London;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
www.mccarty.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
