Guidelines for Reviewing DHNB2023 Long Papers

We rely on you and your expertise to ensure high quality for the review process. Each paper is to be reviewed by at least two qualified reviewers. The review process is single-blind, with the authors visible to the reviewers.

Timeline for DHNB2023 Review Process

1. DHNB2023 Organizers receive full paper submissions by March 24, 2023, 23:59 CET
2. DHNB2023 Organizers assign 2-3 reviewers and notify them 
3. Reviewers evaluate the paper and provide comments, suggestions and recommendations via ConfTool
4. The reviewers submit their feedback by April 26, 2023, 23:59 CET
5. The DHNB2023 Organizers, together with the DHNB Program Committee, ensures overall good quality of reviews 
6. Review results will be made available to the author(s). If minor revisions are requested, the author(s) are asked to  re-submit edited papers. Papers that require major revisions will not be accepted.
   1. For outlying cases, the Program Committee will discuss criteria for inclusion and, if need be, will set a cutoff score. 
7. Authors make amendments and re-submit their paper by May 31, 2023.
8. The final papers are compiled and published in the DHNB2023 Conference Proceedings.

The Role of the Program Committee

• Oversees review process
• Reviews and discusses cases where reviews are not congruent 
• Decides on a cutoff score for inclusion
• Decides on a cutoff span between reviews

Past DHNB Proceedings 

The DHNB Conference Proceedings have been published since DHN2017, when a small selection of revised presentations was published in the open access journal Human IT.

https://humanit.hb.se/issue/view/91. 

From DHN2018 and onwards, the conference proceedings have been published using the open-access platform for proceedings of scientific conferences and workshops CEUR-WS.org.   

The proceedings of DHN2018 can be found at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/ 

The proceedings of DHN2019 can be found at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2364/ 

The proceedings of DHN2020 can be found at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2612/ (pre-conference) and http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2865/ (post-conference)

The proceedings of DHNB2022 can be found at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3232/ 

Template for DHNB2023 Submissions (LaTeX)

Instructions for submissions: https://dhnb.eu/conferences/dhnb2023/conference-proceedings-submission-instructions/

LaTeX template: https://dhnb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Template-for-submissions-to-DHNB2023-Long-Papers-to-CEUR-Workshop-Proceedings-CEUR-WS.org-1.zip 

Framing Parameters

• DHNB2023 abstracts are reviewed in a single-blind peer-review process where reviewers know the names/affiliations of abstract authors and co-authors.
• The names and affiliations of reviewers will be published in the Conference Proceedings.
• In cases where a reviewer cannot review due to personal relations to an author, professional relationship with the author/project and/or other ethical reasons, they must communicate this to the DHNB2023 Organizers.

Writing the Review: a step-by-step guide

Step 1: Research DHNB as an organization

Visit the DHNB homepage and become familiar with the Conference’s content and standards. Refer to the Instructions for Authors to check if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and presentation).

Step 2: Reading the Submission 

When reading, consider these main factors:

1. The originality, presentation, and relevance of the submission to the Conference theme of Sustainability: Environment, Community, Data, and the digital humanities field more broadly. 
2. The accuracy and applicability of the methodology.
3. The thoroughness of the citations and references.
4. The general academic standards.

Step 3: Provide Feedback 

The ConfTool program will provide you with a rubric for review: 

Quality of Content	15%
Thematic Relevance	15%
Significance	5%
Presentation	10%
Originality	5%
Overall Recommendation	50%

(Ratings in %)

 

Range of scores: 1–10 where 10 corresponds to the best score

In addition to the above rubric, you will be asked to provide comments on the submission. Please consider the following:

• These comments should aim to be constructive by offering suggestions for improvement, seeking clarification on unclear points, and requesting further elaboration. 
• It is important to provide feedback on the clarity and quality of the presentation. If you recommend that the submission be shortened, specify where you think this is necessary.  
• While it is not the reviewer’s responsibility to edit the paper for English, it can be helpful to correct any instances where the technical meaning is unclear due to language errors (general suggestions for a language check before a resubmission might be given). Please refrain from suggesting a paper be proofread by a “native English speaker”.

Further points to take into account:

• Submissions should be between 10 and 15 pages long. Papers with many images/charts/tables can be slightly longer.
• Submissions should follow general academic standards.
• Status: students vs senior researchers.
  • Status is indicated in ConfTool; we should work to provide exceptionally welcoming, positive, and constructive feedback to students/Ph.D. candidates.

 

Positive feedback is always welcome, as well as constructive criticism.