• DARIAH EU
• Publications close
• Other research products close
• FR close
• HR close
• GB close

The aim of this poster is to provide an overview of the work carried out in the CLS INFRA project and its conclusions for the field of Computational Literary Studies.

Research assessment reform is crucial for the social sustainability of research infrastructures (RIs): RIs can only thrive in the long term if the researchers who contribute to their development and growth receive academic credit for the kind of work they do in and around research infrastructures. To put it bluntly, research infrastructures have a vested interest in supporting the reform of research assessment. But, conversely, ongoing attempts to reform research assessment can also benefit from the work of research infrastructures because RIs have a great deal of experience creating and maintaining public services for producing, curating and harvesting both traditional and non-traditional academic outputs. The goal of this paper is to outline DARIAH’s position on the importance of research assessment reform for thematic RIs and the importance of thematic RIs for research assessment reform at the European level.

Given the dynamic rate of change in the OA books business models landscape, the OPERAS Open Access Business Models Special Interest Group launched a survey in 2021 to 1) improve our understanding of the scholarly publishing landscape and of the challenges that publishers face in the context of publishing OA monographs; and 2) to identify main trends (including opportunities and challenges) and the knowledge of collaborative funding and infrastructure models in OA publishing in Social Science and the Humanities. This white paper updates and expands an earlier version published in 2021, which presented the preliminary analysis of the findings. Despite a small sample of presses meaning that no strong trends ought to be discussed, several insights were drawn and should be considered important directions for the future. Key findings in the report have been grouped into three main areas: collaboration, funding, and support. The report found that, although not opposed to the idea, a majority of presses do not engage in collaboration, specifically collaborative models for shared infrastructure, mainly due to the lack of knowledge and information, or perceived lack of need. This indicates that, for OA books, we are still at the early stage of the adoption curve for collaborative shared infrastructure. In terms of funding, most publishers perceive themselves to be somewhat sustainable. For institutional publishers, parent organisations are crucial as providers of financial or non-monetary support of OA. In addition, most publishers stress the need to have more resources and rely on more than one funding source, including grants and subsidies. The report found that awareness-raising and targeted support and training could be used to engage the presses but further incentivisation may be required to encourage publishers to collaborate more widely. We believe that the insights from this white paper may be interesting to a number of projects, such as DIAMAS, OPERAS-PLUS, and Palomera and have presented areas for further research and more specific actionable points for these projects.

The process of onboarding new texts onto already established platforms, such as the Drama Corpora (DraCor) ecosystem, poses several challenges in terms of data curation and homogenization. We present here for discussion the prototypes of some pipelines, workflows, and tools embedding plays from diverse sources and formats into the DraCor environment. As a showcase of our approach, we also report on the building process of two new corpora (the English-language EPDraCor and the Ukrainian UDraCor), whose different sources require a flexible and tailored approach. Ein Beitrag zur 9. Tagung des Verbands "Digital Humanities im deutschsprachigen Raum" - DHd 2023 Open Humanities Open Culture.

Abstract Wikidata has been widely used in Digital Humanities (DH) projects. However, a focused discussion regarding the current status, potential, and challenges of its application in the field is still lacking. A systematic review was conducted to identify and evaluate how DH projects perceive and utilize Wikidata, as well as its potential and challenges as demonstrated through use. This research concludes that: (1) Wikidata is understood in the DH projects as a content provider, a platform, and a technology stack; (2) it is commonly implemented for annotation and enrichment, metadata curation, knowledge modelling, and Named Entity Recognition (NER); (3) Most projects tend to consume data from Wikidata, whereas there is more potential to utilize it as a platform and a technology stack to publish data on Wikidata or to create an ecosystem of data exchange; and (4) Projects face two types of challenges: technical issues in the implementations and concerns with Wikidata’s data quality. In the discussion, this article contributes to addressing three issues related to coping with the challenges in the specific context of the DH field based on the research findings: the relevance and authority of other available domain sources; domain communities and their practices; and workflow design that coordinates technical and labour resources from projects and Wikidata.

Previous research on indicators for measuring the success of Open Science tends to operate at a macro/global level and very rarely addresses the need to measure success at the level of a single project. However, this previous research has the merit of arguing for the definition of indicators that offer an alternative to more traditional bibliometric measures or indicators that focus on mere performance. This paper is the outcome of work conducted for a specific project that aims to build a discovery platform for social sciences and humanities, the platform GoTriple. GoTriple is designed taking inspiration from Open Science principles and has been built through a user-centered approach. The paper details the practice-led work conducted by the GoTriple team for assessing the meaning of the term success for the project and to identify indicators. To this end, this paper proposes the concept of compass indicators and presents how the project team arrived at the definition of this concept. The paper also highlights a distinction between compass indicators, which are modest measures, and key performance indicators, which tend to be tied up with measurable objectives. Compass indicators are defined as indicators that do not aim to achieve a specified numerical target of success but rather explain the journey of a project toward achieving certain desirable outcomes and offer insights to take action. Compass indicators defined for the project embrace areas such as diversity, inclusivity, collaboration, and the general use of the platform. In the final discussion, the paper offers reflections on the potential relevance of the notion of compass indicators and closes with a discussion of the next steps for this work.

International audience