Bibliometric Analysis of Open Access Digital Humanities Publications

The main purpose of this paper is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the open access digital humanities scholarly literatures during 2001 to 2020. This paper examines the distribution of year wise growth, authorship pattern, identifies the most productive authors, countries, publication source and institutions and most trusted research areas. The bibliographic data required for this present study has been collected through the Lens database and analyzed on the basis of various indicators of bibliometrics assessment. The study found that digital humanities research on open access platforms is growing rapidly. The study showed that that the developed countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada have played a leading role in digital humanities research. The output of this research paper could be of future use to researchers and faculties associated with digital humanities

The Visual Digital Humanities - Topics, Researchers and Cultures

The data foci of digital humanities are texts, images and objects. While the use of digital methods in the text-oriented disciplines is currently widely established and standardized, a scope of digital methods related to images and other visual objects and basing on vision rather than close reading remains – despite various attempts – essentially undiscovered. Against this background, three areas of usage of visual oriented methods and approaches are of interest for our investigation: (a) Scholars working in visual digital hu-manities, (b) Fields of research, topics and methods used by these scholars, (c) Institutionalization & disciplinary culture of these scholars. Investigations were done via 15 expert interviews with researchers in London and 6 interviews in Los Angeles as well as via two surveys with more than 900 participants each. Key findings are about disciplinary backgrounds and about how scholars enter the digital humanities as well as topics and international collaborations and project funding

Science Mapping Analysis of Digital Humanities research: A scientometric study

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to use scientometric analysis to identify the current state of the academic literature regarding Digital humanities(DH) and analyze its knowledge base such as highly contributing researchers, countries, organizations, sources, keyword analysis and subject areas. Design/methodology/approach– This study carried out a scientometric study on DH literature, 2909 records were retrieved from Scopus database, time span chosen as 2005-2020 as 15 years of study in DH research area. Retrieved data can be analyzed by using VOSviewer,Bibliometrix R package scientometric tools. Findings – The findings suggested the enormous proliferation of DH research during last 15 years, social sciences scores highest position in subject category with (30.3%) publications. Hyvonen, Eero is the higly contributing author. USA is the most productive country. The King\u27s College London tops as the highly productive institutions in the DH research area. This study also shows strong co-authorship pattern between authors, countries and institutions. The most frequently used keyword in DH research is “Digital humanities”. Originality/value– This study on scientometric analysis in DH literature may inform researchers and scholars of current trends and development in DH research area

The VIsual Digital Humanities – Topics, Researchers and Cultures

The data foci of digital humanities are texts, images and objects. While the use of digital methods in the text-oriented disciplines is currently widely established and standardized, a scope of digital methods related to images and other visual objects and basing on vision rather than close reading remains – despite various attempts – essentially undiscovered. Against this background, three areas of usage of visual oriented methods and approaches are of interest for our investigation: (a) Scholars working in visual digital hu-manities, (b) Fields of research, topics and methods used by these scholars, (c) Institutionalization & disciplinary culture of these scholars. Investigations were done via 15 expert interviews with researchers in London and 6 interviews in Los Angeles as well as via two surveys with more than 900 participants each. Key findings are about disciplinary backgrounds and about how scholars enter the digital humanities as well as topics and international collaborations and project funding

Publication practices in the Humanities: An in-depth case study of a Swedish Arts and Humanities Faculty 2010-2018

This paper is a case study of research publication practices at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at Linnaeus University, a young, mid-sized university in the south-east of Sweden. Research output was measured from publications in the local institutional repository following the guidelines of local research policy as defined in university documentation. The data collection comprised 3,316 metadata records of publications self-registered by authors affiliated with the faculty during the period of 2010–2018. A statistical analysis of research output was conducted, focusing on preferred publication types, disciplinary specificity, level of co-authorship, and the language of the publication as registered in the local repository. The analysis focused on two main research questions: 1) how do the local research practices stand in relation to traditional publication patterns in the humanities? 2) how do the observed publication patterns relate to local university policy on publication and research evaluation? The empirical results suggest a limited correlation between publication practices and research incentives from university management, a finding that is corroborated by previous research on the scholarly character of the humanities and university policies. Overall, traditional humanities publication patterns were largely maintained throughout the period under investigation

¿En qué lengua citamos cuando escribimos sobre Humanidades Digitales?

Es cada vez más habitual leer trabajos de investigadores de múltiples disciplinas acerca de la prevalencia del idioma inglés como lingua franca en la publicación académica y apuntando a una discriminación lingüística por parte de revisores o editores científicos. Estos problemas también pueden identificarse en el campo de las Humanidades Digitales a escala global. Pero ¿publicamos los humanistas digitales hispanohablantes en nuestras lenguas cuando se nos presenta la oportunidad? ¿Y citamos a nuestros colegas lingüísticos?   A través de un abordaje meta-analítico acerca de la geopolítica y el multilingüismo en las HD anglófonas e hispanohablantes, examinamos 9580 referencias bibliográficas contenidas en 510 artículos científicos publicados entre 2014 y 2021. Queremos así llamar la atención sobre las prácticas de comunicación y difusión del conocimiento en una comunidad con una gran diversidad sociocultural, lingüística y geopolítica, mostrando la desigualdad en la cantidad de citas de trabajos sobre HD en lenguas diferentes al inglés

In Which Languages Are We Citing When We Write about Humanidades Digitales?

Es cada vez más habitual leer trabajos de investigadores de múltiples disciplinas acerca de la prevalencia del idioma inglés como lingua franca en la publicación académica y apuntando a una discriminación lingüística por parte de revisores o editores científicos. Estos problemas también pueden identificarse en el campo de las Humanidades Digitales a escala global. Pero ¿publicamos los humanistas digitales hispanohablantes en nuestras lenguas cuando se nos presenta la oportunidad? ¿Y citamos a nuestros colegas lingüísticos?A través de un abordaje meta-analítico acerca de la geopolítica y el multilingüismo en las HD anglófonas e hispanohablantes, examinamos 9580 referencias bibliográficas contenidas en 510 artículos científicos publicados entre 2014 y 2021. Queremos así llamar la atención sobre las prácticas de comunicación y difusión del conocimiento en una comunidad con una gran diversidad sociocultural, lingüística y geopolítica, mostrando la desigualdad en la cantidad de citas de trabajos sobre HD en lenguas diferentes al inglés.It is increasingly common to read papers by researchers from multiple disciplines about the prevalence of the English language as the lingua franca in academic publishing, which also point to linguistic discrimination by reviewers or scientific editors. These problems can also be identified in the field of the Digital Humanities on a global scale. But do we, Spanish-speaking digital humanists, publish in our languages when the opportunity presents itself? And are we quoting our linguistic colleagues? Through a meta-analytic approach about the geopolitics and multilingualism in the English and Spanish-speaking DH field, we examine 9580 bibliographic references contained in 510 scientific articles published between 2014 and 2021. We want to draw attention to the communication and dissemination practices of knowledge in a community with great sociocultural, linguistic and geopolitical diversity, showing inequality in the number of citations of works on HD in languages other than English.Fil: del Rio, María Gimena. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Saavedra 15. Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas y Crítica Textual. IIBICRIT - Subsede "Seminario Orduna"; Argentin

Aspects and Dimensions in Collaborative Approach: To Improve Research Discovery in Digital Arts and Digital Humanities

ABSTRACT Utilizing casual local area assessment and insight contraptions, as well as the improvement of the field of automated workmanship since 2013, this paper expects to look at the design, examples, and subjects of cross-public joint efforts in Digital Humanities research. This contains works from the Web of Science Core Collection as of December 2018 in the field of computerized humanities. The discoveries demonstrate the fact that there is a lot of global cooperation in the field of computerized humanities research; the conveyance among nations is lopsided. In this article, we explicitly audited the accounts and discoveries that have been made during the advancement of this specific field of examination, looking at how much they can or ought to be re-examined considering the post-computerized culture where we get ourselves as a part of post-humanistic thinking. This study utilized various informatics procedures and advances to distinguish the examples, subjects, and designs of the global joint effort in digital humanities research and digital art

Confluence between Library and Information Science and Digital Humanities in Spain. Methodologies, standards, and collections

https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2020-0030The purpose of this paper is to study the relevance of heritage collections and the convergence of methodologies and standards traditionally linked to Library and Information Science (LIS) in the development of digital humanities (DH) research in Spain. This paper is based on a systematic review of scientific publications that are representative of DH in Spain and were published between 2013 and 2018. The analysis considered doctoral theses, journal articles and conference papers. The results highlight the synergies between documentary heritage, Library and Information Science and digital humanities. However, it appears that there is a scarcity of scientific literature to support the confluence of LIS and DH and a limited formal connection between heritage institutions and the areas of academia that reuse and enrich these source collections. The review of representative scholarly DH publications was mainly based on the metadata that describe the content of articles, thesis, and conference papers. This work relies on the thematic indexing (descriptors and keywords) of the analysed documents but their level of quality and consistency is very diverse. The topic of the study has not been explored before and this work could contribute to the international debate on the interrelation and complementarity between Library and Information Science and digital humanities. In addition, this paper shows the contribution that standards and documentary methodologies make to projects in which technology is applied to humanities disciplines. We propose that there is an urgent need to strengthen the “scientific relationships” between heritage institutions, as well as enhancing links between the academic field of DH and LIS in order to improve teaching and research strategies in conjunction

Artificial intelligence in government: Concepts, standards, and a unified framework

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), especially in generative language modelling, hold the promise of transforming government. Given the advanced capabilities of new AI systems, it is critical that these are embedded using standard operational procedures, clear epistemic criteria, and behave in alignment with the normative expectations of society. Scholars in multiple domains have subsequently begun to conceptualize the different forms that AI applications may take, highlighting both their potential benefits and pitfalls. However, the literature remains fragmented, with researchers in social science disciplines like public administration and political science, and the fast-moving fields of AI, ML, and robotics, all developing concepts in relative isolation. Although there are calls to formalize the emerging study of AI in government, a balanced account that captures the full depth of theoretical perspectives needed to understand the consequences of embedding AI into a public sector context is lacking. Here, we unify efforts across social and technical disciplines by first conducting an integrative literature review to identify and cluster 69 key terms that frequently co-occur in the multidisciplinary study of AI. We then build on the results of this bibliometric analysis to propose three new multifaceted concepts for understanding and analysing AI-based systems for government (AI-GOV) in a more unified way: (1) operational fitness, (2) epistemic alignment, and (3) normative divergence. Finally, we put these concepts to work by using them as dimensions in a conceptual typology of AI-GOV and connecting each with emerging AI technical measurement standards to encourage operationalization, foster cross-disciplinary dialogue, and stimulate debate among those aiming to rethink government with AI.Comment: 35 pages with references and appendix, 3 tables, 2 figure