Towards a Peer Review of GeoHumanities Projects

[from workshop]: What is the intended audience for this project?

[from workshop - Matthew Lincoln] Should the reviewer be asked to specify their perspective and expertise - what aspects of the project are they capable of commenting on?

[from workshop - Kathy Weimer] Guides from Kenneth Field could be helpful: http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0911/making-a-map-meaningful.html and Diane Stinton: http://t.co/s1bwo0kObZ

[from workshop - Karl Grossner]: do we really want to retain these questions about hosting?

[from workshop] Is the term data provenance clear to all? what about data sources? manipulation of other data?

[from workshop] New Question: Does the documentation provide a background to inform the reader/reviewer to understand the contribution?

[from workshop] The term geospatial is repeated over and over here and yet this is only one segment of geohumanities work.

[from workshop] New Question: should dates of different versions be included/described?

[from poster session] Does the site have a colophon describing the technologies? Have you credited the technologists?

[from poster session] New Question: Are the manipulations of other’s data explained?

[from poster session] New Question: Where on the continuum of geohumanities does the project fall?

[Anon from Workshop] 1. Need a statement about how/when the project will end.

[from workshop] Should the reviewer be asked to specify their expertise?

[Anon from workshop] Could the GeoHumanities SIG provide a badge system (like NINES and MESA)?

[Anon from workshop] 1. Who is the audience for the review? That is, the audience should be defined and stated prior to the review request.

[From poster session] 1. Are reused data appropriately cited?

[from poster session] Do the date match the historicity of the map (temporal aspect)!!!

[From workshop] New Question: 1. How is this generalizable to other types of DH projects?

[from workshop] New Question:1. How do we make our digital products fit with the traditional publishing models? e.g. Can my map become a peer reviewed journal article?

[from workshop] New Question: 1. Would this help the non(mapping) expert understand the value of mapping in projects?

[from workshop] New Question: Incompleteness – is it included?

[from poster session] New Question: 1. How do maps communicate to different ways of knowing/knowledge? e.g. indigenous methods of knowledge are different from Western knowledge, that is not written.

[from poster session] New Question: Does the project address the question of granularity?

[from poster session] New Question: 1. Communicate the complexity of date (temporal aspects)?

[from poster session] New Question: 1. What do I present a T&P committee? Why write up a project?

[from poster session] New Question: Does the work produce new artifacts for the community? (ex. geo-referenced TIFFs that others could use & adapt)?

[from poster session] New Question: What about methodology sections in our writing?

Is the reasoning behind the selection of a particular gazetteer or data source described?

Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.

Is the rationale for choice of software included in project documentation?

And audience(s)?

Is there any information relating to licensing/ future usage of elements of the project (e.g. creative commons licence), and citation?

While this section is not meant to be narrow and about interface design, I do think there is room to ask whether adequate documentation about interface design/methodology has been included.