Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23827 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910167340154880 |
|---|---|
| author | Peroni, Silvio |
| author_facet | Peroni, Silvio |
| contents | Open Science has become a central framework for promoting transparency, accessibility, and inclusiveness in scholarly research. While the Digital Humanities (DH) community has long embraced openness in terms of research outputs, less attention seems to have been paid to the openness of the methodological and evaluative processes underlying knowledge production. This paper presents an exploratory study that investigates the current state of openness in DH research practices, focusing specifically on research data management documentation and peer review processes. In particular, this study addresses two research questions: (1) to what extent DH publications that describe data explicitly reference external documentation detailing data creation and management processes; and (2) how widely open peer review practices are adopted across DH conferences and journals. The results revealed a limited adoption of open methodological practices. Only a small fraction of the analysed articles provided explicit, reusable documentation of data creation workflows, and no references to data management plans or formal research data management documentation were found. An even more critical picture emerges from the analysis of peer review practices: the vast majority of DH venues continue to rely on traditional single- or double-blind review models, with open peer review adopted in only a few isolated cases. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_23827 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Are Digital Humanities really committed to open? An exploratory study on the availability of methodological workflows and open peer review practices Peroni, Silvio Digital Libraries Open Science has become a central framework for promoting transparency, accessibility, and inclusiveness in scholarly research. While the Digital Humanities (DH) community has long embraced openness in terms of research outputs, less attention seems to have been paid to the openness of the methodological and evaluative processes underlying knowledge production. This paper presents an exploratory study that investigates the current state of openness in DH research practices, focusing specifically on research data management documentation and peer review processes. In particular, this study addresses two research questions: (1) to what extent DH publications that describe data explicitly reference external documentation detailing data creation and management processes; and (2) how widely open peer review practices are adopted across DH conferences and journals. The results revealed a limited adoption of open methodological practices. Only a small fraction of the analysed articles provided explicit, reusable documentation of data creation workflows, and no references to data management plans or formal research data management documentation were found. An even more critical picture emerges from the analysis of peer review practices: the vast majority of DH venues continue to rely on traditional single- or double-blind review models, with open peer review adopted in only a few isolated cases. |
| title | Are Digital Humanities really committed to open? An exploratory study on the availability of methodological workflows and open peer review practices |
| topic | Digital Libraries |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23827 |