Scite.ai Review

Abstract

those reviews contributed by digital humanities practitioners who hold professional backgrounds in the library profession. Moreover, for those who would like to develop their own projects, the reviews would also serve as useful resources. Through referencing Reviews in Digital Humanities, library professionals may be able to eliminate some pitfalls pinpointed in those reviews when launching their own projects. Besides facilitating the library professionals’ efforts to catch up with recent progressions in the promising DH field, Reviews in Digital Humanities may also contribute to the development of Open Educational Resources (OER) in the library space. As one of the most influential movements affecting the American library profession, the OER has bloomed within different types of libraries in the past decades. Reviewing the repertoire of Reviews in Digital Humanities, I recognize the prominent influence of OER on those projects under review. For librarians who would like to initiate their first OER projects, some well-acclaimed projects, along with their reviews, would provide the best practice for their reference. In addition to benefiting those library professionals without adequate knowledge of both DH and OER, Reviews in Digital Humanities could also provide those library workers skilled in digital humanities with open space to exhibit their projects and receive feedback from peers and other DH practitioners across the world. At the top of the website, there is a link to submitting projects for review. After receiving the submissions, website editors would assign them to reviewers with relevant skills and experiences. For digital humanities practitioners working in the library, the publication of reviews on their projects will promote this influence. In addition to the benefits Reviews in Digital Humanities provides to library professionals with different levels of proficiency in the digital humanities, the online journal’s editorial team thinks highly of the advance of diversity in this field. Reviewing its multiple issues, I notice that the majority of DH projects located therein were produced in English. The predominance of English as the working language restrains the advancement of diversity in the DH field. Notably, the journal arranged a new team of “topic editors,” consisting of DH practitioners of different national and cultural backgrounds. It is not surprising that an increasing number of projects in nonEnglish languages and completed by DH practitioners in non-English-speaking countries will appear in Reviews in Digital Humanities. Overall, the online journal and platform provide a pathway for library workers to the DH fields.