Guidelines for Submissions
We invite scholars from all fields with digital expertise to review resources in RIDE. Please note that as a reviewer, you must not be involved in the creation or publication of the reviewed resource yourself, as reviews in RIDE are intended to be critical assessments made by external reviewers rather than self-introductions of resources and projects (as someone interested in getting their project reviewed, you can of course suggest it for review).
Furthermore, reviews in RIDE should generally be done in a fair manner; i.e. criticism should be expressed in a comprehensible and constructive way. The range of advances in digital methodology is broad between different resources and projects. As RIDE in general aims to encourage the use of digital methods and techniques, but also to contribute to the discussion of the state-of-the art in the field, we recommend that the critique expressed in the reviews takes into account the circumstances of each digital resource and is formulated appropriately.
Acceptance of submissions
Submissions are exposed to both an internal review by the editor’s of the current issue and a (double blind) peer review by an expert from the field of the reviewed resource. Depending on the judgment of the editors and the peer reviewer, a submission may either be accepted, accepted with revisions, or rejected.
Components of a Review
RIDE aims at providing comprehensive information and critical assessments of the reviewed projects to its readers. To that end, we require the reviewers to appreciate and make extensive use of our catalogues of criteria:
- Criteria for Reviewing Scholarly Digital Editions
- Criteria for Reviewing Digital Text Collections
- Criteria for Reviewing Tools and Environments for Digital Scholarly Editing
Note that these catalogues are meant to remind the reviewer of issues that are crucial and can be relevant for the evaluation of digital editions, text collections, and tools but not as a mandatory list of subjects each of which has to be addressed by the reviewer.
The length of the review can vary depending on how much the resource offers that is worthy of discussion (with a minimum of 2,000 words). Please see the information regarding the formatting, bibliography, file format, etc. below in the writing guidelines.
You can submit your review by email to the managing editors or the editors in charge of the planned issue (in case there is a dedicated Call for Review). In addition to the review itself, we ask all reviewers to fill out a substantial questionnaire (the questionnaires are hosted on LimeSurvey and open in a new window):
- Questionnaire: Scholarly Editions
- Questionnaire: Text Collections (under construction)
- Questionnaire: Tools and Environments
Please choose the questionnaire according to the type of resource that you are reviewing. This can be done before or after submitting the review. The data entered in the questionnaire will be used for two purposes: 1) To provide general information regarding the reviewed project and the reviewer, which will be used to generate the header of the written review; 2) To obtain specific information about the reviewed project, which will be used to create a factsheet accompanying the review and to gain statistical insights into the sphere of digital editions, text collections, and tools and environments (see the data overview). The written review and the results of the filled out questionnaire will be merged into a single XML-TEI file publicly available for download.
Review Submission Checklist
- Make sure your review complies with the writing guidelines.
- Remember to submit a short abstract and keywords in English together with your review.
- Create a zip file of the image files that you refer to in your review (if there are any). Please make sure the image files are named according to our guidelines (picture-1.png, picture-2.png, etc.) and correspond to the file names mentioned in your review.
- Fill out the questionnaire.
- Email your review along with the abstract, keywords, and image files to the managing editors or the editors responsible for the issue in preparation.
- Have a beer. (It’s on us! Remind us in case we should ever meet )
We do not charge article submission or processing fees.