DigiHistCH24
  • Home
  • Book of Abstracts
  • Conference Program
  • Call for Contributions
  • About

Evaluation Criteria

  • Home
  • Book of Abstracts
    • Data-Driven Approaches to Studying the History of Museums on the Web: Challenges and Opportunities for New Discoveries
    • On a solid ground. Building software for a 120-year-old research project applying modern engineering practices
    • Tables are tricky. Testing Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Guidelines for FAIR upcycling of digitised historical statistics.
    • Training engineering students through a digital humanities project: Techn’hom Time Machine
    • From manual work to artificial intelligence: developments in data literacy using the example of the Repertorium Academicum Germanicum (2001-2024)
    • A handful of pixels of blood
    • Impresso 2: Connecting Historical Digitised Newspapers and Radio. A Challenge at the Crossroads of History, User Interfaces and Natural Language Processing.
    • Learning to Read Digital? Constellations of Correspondence Project and Humanist Perspectives on the Aggregated 19th-century Finnish Letter Metadata
    • Teaching the use of Automated Text Recognition online. Ad fontes goes ATR
    • Geovistory, a LOD Research Infrastructure for Historical Sciences
    • Using GIS to Analyze the Development of Public Urban Green Spaces in Hamburg and Marseille (1945 - 1973)
    • Belpop, a history-computer project to study the population of a town during early industrialization
    • Contributing to a Paradigm Shift in Historical Research by Teaching Digital Methods to Master’s Students
    • Revealing the Structure of Land Ownership through the Automatic Vectorisation of Swiss Cadastral Plans
    • Rockefeller fellows as heralds of globalization: the circulation of elites, knowledge, and practices of modernization (1920–1970s): global history, database connection, and teaching experience
    • Theory and Practice of Historical Data Versioning
    • Towards Computational Historiographical Modeling
    • Efficacy of Chat GPT Correlations vs. Co-occurrence Networks in Deciphering Chinese History
    • Data Literacy and the Role of Libraries
    • 20 godparents and 3 wives – studying migrant glassworkers in post-medieval Estonia
    • From record cards to the dynamics of real estate transactions: Working with automatically extracted information from Basel’s historical land register, 1400-1700
    • When the Data Becomes Meta: Quality Control for Digitized Ancient Heritage Collections
    • On the Historiographic Authority of Machine Learning Systems
    • Films as sources and as means of communication for knowledge gained from historical research
    • Develop Yourself! Development according to the Rockefeller Foundation (1913 – 2013)
    • AI-assisted Search for Digitized Publication Archives
    • Digital Film Collection Literacy – Critical Research Interfaces for the “Encyclopaedia Cinematographica”
    • From Source-Criticism to System-Criticism, Born Digital Objects, Forensic Methods, and Digital Literacy for All
    • Connecting floras and herbaria before 1850 – challenges and lessons learned in digital history of biodiversity
    • A Digital History of Internationalization. Operationalizing Concepts and Exploring Millions of Patent Documents
    • From words to numbers. Methodological perspectives on large scale Named Entity Linking
    • Go Digital, They Said. It Will Be Fun, They Said. Teaching DH Methods for Historical Research
    • Unveiling Historical Depth: Semantic annotation of the Panorama of the Battle of Murten
    • When Literacy Goes Digital: Rethinking the Ethics and Politics of Digitisation
  • Conference Program
    • Schedule
    • Keynote
    • Practical Information
    • Event Digital History Network
    • Event SSH ORD
  • Call for Contributions
    • Key Dates
    • Evaluation Criteria
    • Submission Guidelines
  • About
    • Code of Conduct
    • Terms and Conditions

On this page

  • Question/Interest/Claim (40%)
  • Data/Sources/Source Code (30%)
  • Method (30%)
  • Overall Rating
  • Submitting Your Review
  • Edit this page
  • Report an issue

Evaluation Criteria

Question/Interest/Claim (40%)

Does the submission articulate a clear question, interest, or claim that is relevant to digital history?

  • Yes, Clearly Articulated: The submission presents a well-defined question or claim that is highly relevant to digital history.
    • Somewhat Clear: The submission presents a question or claim, but it could be more clearly articulated or more closely aligned with digital history.
    • Unclear or Irrelevant: The submission fails to present a clear question or claim, or it is not relevant to digital history.

Data/Sources/Source Code (30%)

Does the submission provide adequate data, sources, or source code to support its question or claim?

  • Adequate and Relevant: The submission provides sufficient and relevant data or source code.
    • Insufficient or Partially Relevant: The submission provides some data or source code, but it is either insufficient or only partially relevant.
    • Inadequate or Irrelevant: The submission provides inadequate or irrelevant data or source code.

Method (30%)

Is the method employed in the submission appropriate and well-explained?

  • Appropriate and Well-Explained: The method is suitable for the question or claim and is well-explained.
    • Somewhat Appropriate or Partially Explained: The method is somewhat suitable or is not fully explained.
    • Inappropriate or Poorly Explained: The method is not suitable for the question or claim, or it is poorly explained.

Overall Rating

  • Accepted with Distinction: The submission excels in all three dimensions and contributes significantly to the field of digital history.
    • Accepted: The submission meets the criteria in all three dimensions but may require minor revisions.
    • Not Accepted: The submission does not meet the criteria in one or more dimensions and is not suitable for presentation at the conference.

Submitting Your Review

After filling out the review form, click Save Review. You can come back and change your review(s) any time until the end of the review period on February 29, 2024.

On the overview page, the symbol indicating the status of your assigned abstracts might still show a grey circle for »not yet reviewed« even after you saved your review. This will only change to a green light after all reviewers submitted their reviews for the respective abstract.

Back to top

Reuse

CC BY-SA 4.0
Key Dates
Submission Guidelines
Source Code
---
title: Evaluation Criteria
---

## Question/Interest/Claim (40%)

Does the submission articulate a clear question, interest, or claim that is relevant to digital history?

- **Yes, Clearly Articulated**: The submission presents a well-defined question or claim that is highly relevant to digital history.
  - **Somewhat Clear**: The submission presents a question or claim, but it could be more clearly articulated or more closely aligned with digital history.
  - **Unclear or Irrelevant**: The submission fails to present a clear question or claim, or it is not relevant to digital history.

## Data/Sources/Source Code (30%)

Does the submission provide adequate data, sources, or source code to support its question or claim?

- **Adequate and Relevant**: The submission provides sufficient and relevant data or source code.
  - **Insufficient or Partially Relevant**: The submission provides some data or source code, but it is either insufficient or only partially relevant.
  - **Inadequate or Irrelevant**: The submission provides inadequate or irrelevant data or source code.

## Method (30%)

Is the method employed in the submission appropriate and well-explained?

- **Appropriate and Well-Explained**: The method is suitable for the question or claim and is well-explained.
  - **Somewhat Appropriate or Partially Explained**: The method is somewhat suitable or is not fully explained.
  - **Inappropriate or Poorly Explained**: The method is not suitable for the question or claim, or it is poorly explained.

## Overall Rating

- **Accepted with Distinction**: The submission excels in all three dimensions and contributes significantly to the field of digital history.  
  - **Accepted**: The submission meets the criteria in all three dimensions but may require minor revisions.
  - **Not Accepted**: The submission does not meet the criteria in one or more dimensions and is not suitable for presentation at the conference.  

## Submitting Your Review

After filling out the review form, click _Save Review_. You can come back and change your review(s) any time until the end of the review period on February 29, 2024.

On the overview page, the symbol indicating the status of your assigned abstracts might still show a grey circle for »not yet reviewed« even after you saved your review. This will only change to a green light after all reviewers submitted their reviews for the respective abstract.
  • Edit this page
  • Report an issue