Cheverie, Joan F., Jennifer Boettcher, and John Buschman. “Digital Scholarship in the University Tenure and Promotion Process: A Report on the Sixth Scholarly Communication Symposium at the Georgetown University Library.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing April 2009: 219-30. Web. 7 May 2012.
“the language used implies that digital scholarship is of significantly lesser value” (220)
“[W]hen scholarly communication depended on the physical movement of information, we dealt with information scarcity. Now, the digital movement of information has resulted in information abundance, causing a radical shift in how authority, significance, and even scholarly validity are established…” (223)
“What authority means is crucial…” (224)
“[W]hat does expertise mean, and how do we organize labour in these projects? Smith argued that human creativity must be put back at the centre” (224).
“Petrick [history professor at George Mason U] sees three issues for scholarship in the digital humanities: the ethos of traditional humanities scholarship, contrasted with the ethos of digital humanities scholarship; the ethos of parceling out credit (to whom and how much?); and the ethos of peer review –who will review, what criteria should be used, and what experience should the reviewer possess?” (224).
“Visual elements—design, images, colour, and proximity—are the guideposts in understanding that [digital] scholarly work” (224).
“Aesthetic design, that is, the visual look and feel and auditory components, is as important as the information design and architecture” (225).
“[T]he humanities professions have not themselves provided blogs, wikis, and how-to sites for the new or young researcher who has (or wishes to acquire) the visual, content, and engineering skills to do such work, despite the inherent sharing mechanisms of networked scholarship” (226).