Basic Principles for Modernist Networks Peer Review
For two reasons, review is one of the most important services our Board can provide. First, since digital projects are still not always given equal standing in academic procedure (e.g., evaluation for tenure), expert peer review will help the creators of digital projects demonstrate the value of their work. Second, it will guarantee to users that the projects they access through Modernist Networks are both trustworthy in content and functional in form.
- Is the project primarily a work of scholarship?
Examples of what we’re seeking:
-
-
- A digital edition of a text or set of texts
- A digital concordance or search engine referencing some archive
- A digital exhibit or teaching resource
- A presentation of linguistic data based on a set of texts
- A hypertext chronology of a life or an event
-
Examples of what we’re not seeking:
-
-
- A critical article presented in some digital format
- Original modernism-inspired creative works
- A Web-based critical periodical
- A modernist scholar’s blog
-
- Are digital technologies fundamental to the project?
Comment: A print document simply ported to PDF, for example, would fail this test. See also the examples above.
- Does the project contribute to modernist studies?
Comment: Please see our mission statement.
- Does the project meet scholarly standards customarily applied to print publications?
For example:
-
-
- Is the project a new contribution to scholarship? Does it represent an advance over existing material?
- Is the research thoroughly documented?
- Have proofreading procedures been followed to ensure accuracy?
- Are all contributors appropriately credited for their work?
-
- Is the project effectively designed and competently executed?
Comment: Although ModNets does not mandate specific technical standards (e.g., TEI), users will benefit from thoughtfully considered and well-implemented coding, interface design, and so forth.
