Group items tagged

Although alt-ac is not exclusive digital humanities, or even exclusively humanities, the report on the #alt-ac panel for the Digital Humanities 2011 highlights some of the issues and questions relevant to the DH field. Some of the problems are personal in nature, such as the professional differences between#alt-ac and tenure, and others are more institutional, such as the issues with "credential creep." Although the article does not necessarily provide answers, it highlights many of the concerns alt-ac professionals have in pursuing their career.

This article about the 2011 Digital Humanities meeting highlights three big project announcements from that meeting. The first of these was a then new grant program: Digital Humanities Implementation Grants, a follow up to the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant program. The second of these was a collection of alternative academic careers for humanities scholars titled #alt-academy. The last of these was the introduction of Press Forward, an initiative aiming to fuse traditional scholarly review with open-web filters.

The purpose of this power point presentation is to provide information on an alternative to XML called "Linked Data." The purpose of linked data is, according to the powerpoint, not to create "data silos" but to connect all these pieces of data together akin to hyperlinking. By digitizing materials in this manner, data can be more readily connected through the use of various identifiers such as Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI).

Phil Davis, the writer of this impact entry, questions the sustainability of, what he calls, AO Mega Journals. AO Megas are journals that have no real content area to focus on, are generally open access, and prove an alternative to traditional publication. He believes that the impact factors and decline in citations of the site may cause concern for people looking to publish their work. He also addresses the issue of smaller, more meticulous, and content focused journals. This article was written in 2010, and although PLoS One didn't experience the slow deflation of the "citation bubble," (it is still considered the larges scholarly journal), he makes good points on the adavantages and disadvantages of using the "large blob."