it is best not to use “we” but to identify the Press or the editors, etc.
it is best not to use “we” but to identify the Press or the editors, etc. Some readers will not know who “we” is.
Can Nick speak to any of this specifically? How about Ece?
Also, can Travis provide any language about how the analytics data will be stored?
let’s add author-informed analytics
Suggestions from the roster of attendees at the recent Duke DH workshop:
Cheryl Ball, Director, Digital Publishing Collaborative, Wayne State http://ceball.com
Eli Mylonas, Director, Center for Digital Scholarship, Brown University
Catherine Mitchell, Director, Publishing & Special Collections, CDL, University of California
I moved the Underlay content that we had in the narrative over here, but somehow it didn’t stick. It’s possible I accidentally forgot to paste it, but we will need to rewrite
I wonder if we should mention the Underlay at all in the context of this proposal. Catherine, your thoughts? Based on our meeting with Danny yesterday, this initiative is highly speculative (and in need to significant funding). We’ll probably be able to scare up some $$ for one of the devs but the Underlay’s impact on this project, if any, won’t be clear from many years. Me thinks.
I didn’t want to get too into the weeds with the Underlay, but let me know if this is too confusing and needs to be expanded.
I feel like we need something here that is clear that Underlay is experimental, and that we will have full use of Portico to maintain our archives. I know this will be more spelled out in the DMP, but it might be useful to clarify here as well. I think we also may want to lay out that Underlay allows for authors to keep ownership of their writing.
I plan on this section to start with brief discussion of more traditional methods of DH eval (associations, journals). Then move into more digital platforms (closer to us). Explain how we will be different than these previous iterations.
Secondly, I will point to PubPub and show how it is different than other OA platforms (Manifold … what else?). Explain how these differences will make our project different/better than previous iterations because can host community, provide digital affordances, avoid problems of areas like DH Commons
Do we want reviews quarterly? one of the issues with quarterly reviews is the delay between the review’s release, and the project. Projects could change drastically if the reviews are delayed for a quarterly release
What did Laura say on this point? Terry made a good point about these needing to be timely, so perhaps a quicker publishing model is the better way to go here? Like we discussed last week, we can then retroactively call all content published in a given quarter an “issue” for the organization of our content, but it doesn’t necessarily need to some out at once. What do you think?