Editorial Process

Selection for Review

Projects are identified for review through the journal’s open call for submissions, and by nomination from topic editors, special issue editors, and members of the editorial board. 

Special issues are initiated through a brief proposal process. The proposal should contain:

• a 100-150 word description of your vision for the special issue;

• a 100-150 word description of your experience in the area of study, topic, or method,

• who you might want to invite to guest edit the issue with you (if appropriate).

You should also (if you already have projects identified) complete the document where you identify potential projects and reviewers. This would be a preliminary list; if you brought on a special issue editor, they would also contribute. Given where we are at with workload, we'd like to see 7-10 projects suggested. Proposals, inquiries, or questions regarding special issues should be directed to the editors, Jennifer Guiliano and Roopika Risam, at [email protected].

Review Criteria

Reviews in Digital Humanities uses a single-blind review process, however the names of reviewers are made public upon publishing of the review. The editors maintain a pool of volunteer reviewers who evaluate submissions based on their humanistic and technical work and situate the project within existing scholarship and technological practices. Project reviews are then published with the context overview provided by the project team. All projects selected for review will also be listed in the journal’s project registry.

Reviewers assess both the humanistic claims and the use of technology by the project. Projects are evaluated according to professional guidelines for evaluating digital scholarship such as the Modern Language Association’s Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media and the American Historical Association’s Guidelines for the Professional Evaluation of Digital Scholarship by Historians. This may include, where relevant:

• engagement of new audiences; 

• funding, awards or other recognition; 

• adoption and use of the output by other scholars; 

• and citations of the project in scholarship or press.

Editors provide reviewers with a template to guide the process and work to ensure a rigorous contribution that is free from bias and unwarranted claims.

Review Workflow

All digital projects will be listed on our website as part of the registry upon their review.

Reviews, once received and reviewed by the managing editors, are sent to founding editors-in-chair, thus ensuring that most reviews are edited for content, grammar, and style by at least two people. Unless editorial intervention is significant, reviews will be published upon completion of the editorial process.

Reviews may be rejected for publication upon recommendation of the editors. Reviews in Digital Humanities recognizes the importance of reviews to tenure, promotion, and future funding of projects. As such, we will not post reviews that are categorically negative. Instead, these reviews will be shared with the project team in confidence. The project will remain in the registry but can be resubmitted for future consideration after substantive efforts have been made to address concerns of the review and editorial staff. In this case, the original review is returned to the author. Upon finalization of overviews and reviews, the materials are scheduled for publication.