IDHMC

[...] and offers a Digital Humanities Certificate (http://dhcertificate.tamu.edu). A copy of the whitepaper that established the IDHMC is available [...]

[...] and offers a Digital Humanities Certificate (http://dhcertificate.tamu.edu). A copy of the whitepaper that established the IDHMC is available [...]

[...] Humanities, Media, and Culture, Texas A&M University Cushing Memorial Library and Archives The OCR Summit Meeting Participants Share this:EmailPrintFacebookLinkedInMoreTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]

[...] For more information on our project partners, please see the following links. ECCO at Gale-Cengage Learning EBBO at ProQuest Performant Software SEASR Professor Raghavan Manmatha at the University of Massachusetts Amherst The IMPACT project at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of the Netherlands PRImA at the University of Salford Manchester Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University The Initiative for Digital Humanities, Media, and Culture, Texas A&M University Cushing Memorial Library and Archives The OCR Summit Meeting Participants [...]

[...] Participants [...]

[...] For further reading on evaluation of DH projects, and links to other resources, see: Profession 2011, no. 1 (November 2011). Modern Language Association, “Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media”, http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_it/guidelines_evaluation_digital. Modern Language Association, “Guidelines for Editors of Scholarly Editions”, http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_scholarly/cse_guidelines. U. Nebraska Lincoln, “Recommendations for Digital Humanities Projects”, http://cdrh.unl.edu/articles/best_practices.php. Todd Presner, Evaluating Digital Digital Scholarship, http://idhmc.tamu.edu/commentpress/digital-scholarship/. [...]

[...] Does it work? Where theory and technology collude – This article was recommended during one of the plenary talks. It’s author, Laura [...]

[...] for feedback using CommentPress. There’s more on this and the actual manuscript here: http://idhmc.tamu.edu/commentpress/breaking-the-book/ About I'm the Digital Humanities Librarian for the University of Florida Digital Collections [...]

It may be worth including a footnote on the “body of work” that there are attempts and processes undertaken by libraries and publishers to physically/digitally redact and/or remove articles/publications when retractions are required. I’ve only heard of this being done for the sciences and social sciences where notes have been added to articles in printed volumes and where digital versions have simply disappeared after the article is retracted for a problem with the lab, etc. This is peripheral to the discussion in the paragraph, but it points towards some of the other supports/practices/problems for distribution and socio-technical network protocols for scholarly communications that are part of interactive and precise work.

I feel like I’m dropping in on a conversation I don’t fully understand, so please forgive me if I’m misunderstanding and so not responding in a helpful manner and/or if my response does not follow. I’m not sure how the response on text-mining fits. Text-mining certainly has great capacity when it’s possible. I’ve been following Mandell’s work on improving OCR of 18th century texts, where (like for much of the OCR that is computer-only without any review) there are significant issues that prevent automated analysis. While that’s a technical problem and will be overcome at some point (crowdsourcing for OCR text correction is also proving useful, as the Australia National Digital Newspaper program has shown), it seems very productive to have more information on processes and the larger flows of scholarly communication for those to be considered as existing practices, in some cases, become digital processes.