Evaluation process

Reviewers are asked to provide informative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal. For the peer review process, we will rely on the Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers from COPE.

The submissions can consist in classical research papers documenting conceptual, theoretical, exploratory, and innovative work, in project notes or tool presentations that have more of a descriptive character, or in data papers describing a data collection that will have to be made available through a publicly accessible archive. In all submission categories, the quality of the scientific content, the attention to the form of the presentation, and the reliability of the underlying data are the key evaluation criteria.

Criteria Content

  • Is the manuscript of sufficient quality in relation to the current state of the art? How relevant is the submitted bibliography? 
  • Does the manuscript demonstrate overall quality in terms of the research methodology, use of data, general discussion etc.?
  • Does the manuscript offer useful insights to potential readers in terms of its approach or findings?

Criteria Form

  • Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
  • Does the manuscript demonstrate a high level of clarity and coherence in its argumentation?

Data availability

  • Is the data referred to in the manuscript accessible in a trusted repository? (see DARIAH Data policy https://zenodo.org/records/10409010, p. 8)
  • If relevant: is the data collection method clearly laid out, rigorous and reproducible?
  • If relevant: is the metadata sufficiently well structured and accurate?
  • If relevant: is the data of high quality and reliable (formats, database structure, data organisation, data integrity, permanent identifiers)?
  • Is the data re-usable (licences and standards used, interoperability, etc.)?