SCS Digital Project Review Guidelines
The SCS is eager to publish informed reviews of digital resources and projects, for which post-publication peer-review venues are currently underdeveloped, compared with those available for print books.
A. Metadata: please provide the following information about the site you are reviewing, to the extent possible:
TITLE: (e.g.) Attic Inscriptions Online
DESCRIPTION (summary or abstract of the content of the resource): English translations of ancient Greek inscriptions from Athens and Attica
NAME (creator or contributor): Lambert, Stephen
PLACE: Cardiff University
COLLECTION TITLE (parent resource of the resource being described; collection of which the resource is a part): [none]
DATE CREATED: 2012–2016
DATE ACCESSED: February 12, 2016
AVAILABILITY: Free [vs. subscription]
RIGHTS (license restrictions imposed on access to a resource): CC-BY-SA
CLASSIFICATION (list any of the following approved tags you feel are appropriate): anthologies, commentaries, databases, dictionaries, digitization, epigraphy, games, Greek, images, journals, language learning tools, language processing, late antiquity, Latin, linked open data, manuscripts, mapping, mobile applications, outreach, papyrology, pedagogy, performance studies, reference materials, texts.
We expect that all reviews will have:
- A brief summary of the project's content and purpose, indicating its major sections
- An assessment of the scholarly research involved in the work. (For example: what is the scholarly argument? What is the project’s audience? What source materials were used? How was the data organized, and why? What scholarly decisions, including platform design, were made? How does the project and the way it is presented advance the state of knowledge in the field? How does this intellectual contribution to the field relate to the scholarly landscape? What methodology was used? To what extent does the site take full advantage of the potential of the digital medium?)
- Notice of factual errors and their gravity
- Identification of the main contributors and their roles (if this is not clear, point that fact out)
- An estimate of the current status of the project with regard to its “life cycle,” as the nature of digital work can change significantly over time
- An assessment of the project’s interface design and navigation
- For open-source projects, how are the digital resources made available for re-use (e.g., code on github)?
Reviews may also include:
- representative screenshots
- results of tests in various browsers (Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox), operating systems (Mac, PC, Linux), and devices (computer, smartphone, tablet)
Reviews will not have:
- Ad hominem arguments
- Long-windedness or excessive detail
- Excessive quotation
- Attacks for not being the project you would have created
If you would like to review a digital project, please email Erik Shell (email@example.com), using the following subject line: “SCS Digital Project Reviews.”
Note: The SCS Digital Project Review guidelines and tag set were developed by the SCS Communications Committee in 2016. The metadata fields are based on the Library of Congress Master Data Elements List of Metadata for Digital Context, version 4.1: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mdc/elements/ . The content expectations are indebted to those developed by the Bryn Mawr Classical Review: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/review.html .