Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy

Kairos is a journal that has a wide readership. It has been around since 1996 with all of the issues still available. There are about 45,000 people worldwide that read Kairos. The journal focuses on rhetoric and writing in digital spaces. They cover a variety of topics that center around teaching writing and rhetoric through Digital Humanities. The editors emphasize the importance of technical DH pieces in their articles.

The site itself is easy enough to navigate. The main content on the site is the current issue. The homepage is the table of content page for the articles that are in the issue. The rest of the links that you would need are easily found at the top of the page. The site seems pretty usable without any broken links. The webpages load quickly and work really well. The navigability of the site could be improved if the links opened in a new tab, but it is not too distracting.

The aesthetic of the site is simple. The colors are calming, and the simple design adds to easy navigability. The design does not seem to fit with the type of articles that the editors are trying to recruit; however, the ease of use does help offset that. The readership of Kairos has been around for 20 years, and the simple design makes it more accessible for all users.

The submission process for Kairos is slightly more complicated. Kairos publishes a variety of article types, and each article type has its own list of requirements. They each have a different submission email address. The process is slightly more complicated; however, they do explain the differences between the types of articles well enough that it is not confusing. The different types of submissions allow people to be able to submit multiple articles per issue. Most of the articles are co-authored, so they welcome and celebrate collaboration.

Overall, Kairos offers a very interesting perspective of the DH world. They are an organization that has been around for 20 years and promotes development of the discipline. They have evolved as an organization to welcome and join the DH community. They still have their old issues on the site. The older issues still work without dead links. Kairos is a journal that is well-maintained and updated. The content is interesting with a focus on how to teach the discipline of DH. It is definitely worth checking out!

#DHJournalReport

The journal that I looked at was Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. It seems like this journal is pretty accessible for everyone looking to learn about Digital Humanities and it’s many incarnations. Though I think there is some sort of subscription through a university that is necessary. That could be because of the connection through the Oxford University Press.  I thought this quote was interesting that I found on their about page, “ but not limited to, the field of what is currently called the Digital Humanities.” This seems to imply because of the constant changing nature of DH that this name may not last much longer. I thought that was interesting. Though their site is interesting their navigation and interface if pretty terrible to figure out.

This site was very hard for me to navigate. I didn’t even know if I was on the right website because it is part of the Oxford University Press website so find the main page of this website was pretty challenging for me. It’s pretty plain looking and seems like the site might still be under some development because there are only two volumes listed. This year only has one issue and it’s for April. The issues also start 30 and I couldn’t find the previous 29 very easily. I am thinking that it is an extension of an older journal? Although a feature I really liked is the latest and the “Most Read” section. Also that the articles have a data section where you can see how the people who have submitted go there information from. I think that’s something useful to tell us who is reading what and what is trending in the DH community on this website and how people got their information. This is part of the submission process.

The submission to this website it seems pretty simple it can be done online or a paper copy and it provides the necessary instructions to do so. If someone wanted to submit their work it would seem as though they set up a great way to get work into this journal.

Though the submission site is nice and provides a simple way to put the submissions out there. This site is not overwhelmingly appealing. It’s hard to navigate and is really blocky. However, this may appeal to more audiences because everything is large and pretty easily labeled. But I still think it’s a little difficult to navigate and even find the articles. It took some clicking around before I figured it out. But after all this clicking I found a good article that will help me in my future.

The article I chose was about how to teach in the online classroom. I want to be a teacher and I thought it was an important to look at the online classroom. This article discusses the many factors that influence the online classroom. And as we move more toward technology this is becoming more and more of a reality that the classroom is going digital or even partly digital and as this becomes more of a reality the more we need to look into information about how to make it successful.

 

DHCommons Journal Report

The DHCommons Journal is probably the most digital humanities oriented journal at which we have looked. The audience for the DHCommons is specifically digital humanities learners and participants that want to learn more about the meta explanations for the developing field. It is very interesting for everyone interested in learning about collaboration, peer reviews, authorship, and of course literature and humanities. If anyone wants to know how to develop the digital humanities, and the humanities in general, while realizing how to make specific goals, this journal is a good place to start.

As the issue introduction says on the website, many of the authors they have already worked with thought of everything in theoretical aspects, but the journal has attempted to make technical progress and an actual scholarly impact. The journal is multilingual and very diverse which is something that not all digital humanities sites remembers to include. History is also a major subject in the journal and they discuss the making of digital humanities tools such as timelines and editing in general. Even the historical personal statements of the journal are all more explanatory on how research is obtained for creating databases and interactive websites than they are narrative and based on what they actually discovered.

Because the journal is very new, there is not a lot of information and it is kind of difficult to search the site because of its consequential layout. Even the way the journal articles were titled was very confusing to me. After I presented information in class about my journal, I realized the journal article I found the most interesting was just the journal’s issue 1 introduction. The introduction was the only archived article and the other actual journal articles were called project statements and there were two “how did they make that?” articles. I thought the introduction was the what in the journal. Since the journal is already very meta based, I figured “how did they make that” was a meta anaylsis of the entire journal and that it seemed like the informational resource and abstract of the entire journal-the how of the journal. There is also an about section which explains why the journal was created. I thought this was the introduction. Looking at it more I see that the project statements are likely the actual articles, but it is very hard to see much difference in any of the different works in the different sections of the journal’s site. Typically a statement is more of just a bonus to the what, why, and how the journal is made. The site is very simple to use, but that is likely because it is so empty. There is no search bar, and this journal could become something great in time after more collaborations are made, but it is easily read over many times in just a day.

Though the meta-journal contains eclectic and comprehensive information on the development of the digital humanities, the site is pretty empty and is not aesthetically intriguing. As I said before, there is not even enough articles to incorporate a search bar. There are 10 articles in the whole site and they are all on the sidebar so there is little need to explore past the main page. All of the editors are listed as well, but most of the profiles are not complete. Though the main page is not aesthetically pleasing, the journal articles do include photos, graphs, and timelines. The article about World War I specifically has a good digital humanities interface. The interface and infrastructure of this site do not make a lot of sense to me because there is plenty of information on DHCommons’ home page for collaboration, projects, and the blog, but the link to the journal is quite empty. Though the multilingual aspect of the website is important and exciting, the main blog they use on the front page is in Spanish while the rest of the links are in English. There should be an option to translate every article on the main screen, but in my opinion, the actual main language they show should be more consistent based on who will be reading the page the most. However, I did like the way the different page sections were color coded and there is a search bar on the main page though it is not on the journal section’s page.

To submit one’s own writing to this journal, first of all a profile must be created. Writing must be in a Word document or plain text with usage of images and/or hyperlinks. Writing must also be a part of a bigger project; furthermore, the guidelines of digital humanities content rules must be followed before a submission is sent in. It must address problems with academia, literature, and history. A meta-anaylsis of one’s project is essential to his or her project, and grant proposals are not accepted. Writing cannot be creative and that is why the articles are very explanatory of how the digital humanities function. A digital humanities emphasis is crucial. A team must be developed in order to create a project and the project must be reviewed after it is sent in. It is important to pay rights to everyone involved in the project as well. Noting how readers and reviewers can access the project when it is not fully public is important as well.

Overall, the DHCommons Journal has a lot of potential, but it is still obviously in its very early stages. Hopefully, after I post more of my critiques on my blog, and start research in graduate school, I could learn even more about the digital humanities by collaborating with some of my fellow DH enthusiasts and scholars. Writing in this journal is a good way to help other writers get recognized due to not only the writing experience but also the expansion of this journal and the expansion of the digital humanities. The expansion of digital humanities work can make all communication, networking, exposure, and learning much easier.

Journal of Digital Humanities

((I’m adding this in at the beginning because I want to note that I did write this up and had it set to post right after my presentation, but I think I tabbed out of the window just short of it completing the process. My apologies.))

Journal of Digital Humanities was a fascinating read, and while there happened to be an immediate issue that I found particular interest in for my presentation of the article, it was it was still incredibly interesting to go through and look at other entries to the journal beyond what I focused on for the presentation. In that regard, the journal is fairly extensive and diverse for the number of entries it currently has, bridging a wide gap from discussing the difference of presenting medium digitally to how visuals affect the presentation of studies. Unfortunately, as the journal has continued, those articles are becoming more and more sparse, making some topics feel more thoroughly discussed than others. Which is a real shame, since all the articles are very interesting to read.

What I found incredibly unique about the journal though was the submission process. Before even submitting an article, writers are required to submit a sort of “digital resume” through their online activity and posts. In a way, this validates an individual by saying they have been producing a lot of good content before even coming here, and it also says that if you enjoyed an article that you can find that writer making content of a similar type on another platform. It’s a great way to make sure someone is going to bring a good name to the journal, and in return, that person gets free advertising to their other media outlets. All of these articles are then reviewed by a volunteer editor program called Editor-at-Large, which is a body of DHers with some standing in the community. The requirements to apply for Editor-at-Large are a little broad, but it’s encouraged that the applicant is associated with an institution. In any case, the editor board being somewhat prestigious only adds to the fact that the articles that get into Journal of Digital Humanities are also of a high quality.

I think the major issue for the website though is the feel of it. I tried for a while to identify who I thought would be attracted to this website, and I found it difficult to decide on any particular age group. Mostly, I think this is due the layout of the journal. There are so many facets to it that don’t really mix well with each other that it feels like a little disjointed. The home page launches the reader on the most recent issue, instead of a summary to the site or any direction to allow the reader to pick what they want to read. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with this, except this kind of assumed interest is carried across the whole layout. It is very difficult to actually find the topics of the issues individually. I think this is unappealing to a lot of readers, which is a shame. If you actually click on and read the article, then the content itself will definitely be quality. It’s just a matter of assuming that the reader is interested in the first place, without anything given away besides a single image, which could stem in all kinds of directions. That makes it feel very click-bait-y, which is an unhealthy approach for a journal of this quality, or at least, that’s how I feel about it.

In short, Journal of Digital Humanities is a diverse source of content about DH, but is severely suffering from a poor layout design that doesn’t really encourage readers to engage in the content. If the website’s layout weren’t so cluttered and more linear, as well as maybe that high gate of article entry being slightly lowered, I feel like readers would be fair more engaged to read and more writers would be encouraged to add to it. I hope that’s a consideration of the team behind it, in adding that layer of transparency, because the content that is already there is thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining. Catching up on the whole contents thus far is definitely something I am writing down as a summer read.

Digital Humanities Quarterly: A Review

 

Digital Humanities Quarterly (DHQ) is a journal that publishes at least once a year. The publication includes articles, issues in digital humanities, reviews, and case studies. The journal is mostly read by those in the DH community. However, the website specifies that the journal “extends more broadly to related domains and to the interested non-specialist: for instance, humanities faculty, digital artists, museum curators, archivist, and the like.” Some of the journals are labeled as special editions because there is a particular theme woven throughout every piece published in that edition. For example, 9.2 is Feminisms in Digital Humanities. On a larger scale, the journal addresses the interests of the rhetoric of digital authoring, addressing the divide between the print and the digital, experiments in interactive media, reviews of different books, websites, news media art installations, and digital humanities systems and tools. The journal is versatile and relevant in its content. Some topics that the journal’s readers may be interested in include the new and upcoming tools in DH, being able to read about tools before the use them, the discussions and debates within the community, theory related to DH content.

In terms of navigation, the website is incredibly easy to navigate. The left side of the page has the different issues, which link you to the table of contents. In the table of contents, there are links to the actual articles. Perhaps one of my favorite parts of the way the website is set up is that you can click on a plus arrow below the author’s name and it will open the abstract for you on the page. This makes it easy to navigate and get a preview of the article before you open it. There were no issues I ran into while moving throughout the website. DHQ is specifically designed to be able to withstand times and changes in formatting and the internet. The format in which they publish is meant to be easy to navigate and not change if the internet does.

DHQ is not particularly beautiful, but it is simple. The main logo is in the top left corner, and the banner is easy to navigate and is set up in a way that makes sense. No matter what page you move on to, the issues stay on the left hand of the page which makes it easy to click around and still get back to where you need. I did not find myself getting particularly “lost” in the website. Perhaps one of the most appealing parts of the website is how easy its appearance makes it to navigate. The aesthetics, overall, do converge with the content in ways that make visual sense to me.

The submission tab is on the top of the navigation bar and is easy to find. The tab links directly to the submission guidelines. DHQ accepts submissions at a rolling two-month intervals. The submission must be in XML encoded in the DHQ markup language, XML encoded in TEI, or RFT, Open Office, or MS Word. In order to be published, the editors specify that the submission “must fall within the content of the journal, it must be addressed to an appropriate audience, it must have an argument and should represent an original contribution to the research and practice of the digital humanities field, or should offer an original analysis, critique, or viewpoint on some aspect thereof, and it must be well writing, and must present its argument clearly and interestingly.” After the article is submitted, it is peer reviewed before being considered for publication. There is no guideline specifying whether or not there can be co-authored submissions. However, there are many co-authored articles and case studies that are in the journals. The articles can have visual images in them (including images, audio, video, and accompanying data sets). The biggest thing for DHQ, though, is to be able to maintain long-term access to the journal content so their guidelines for formatting visual images are very tight. DHQ encourages the writing submitted to be inclusive of people who may not be privy to the DH scene. However, they do only accept articles, issues in DH, reviews, or case studies. If something creative or non-academic could fit into one of those categories then there is a chance. But most of the articles I found were centered around more academic topics.

I wish I could spend all my time reading the articles that are in the journal.