Despite all of its affordances for creating texts that present information more dynamically and in greater detail or depth that more traditional publications, digital publishing still seems to struggle with gaining widespread disciplinary recognition. One of the problems is that, as of yet, there isn’t a peer review process that can vet digital works in the same ways as traditionally published texts. Anvil Academic seeks to remedy that:
“One of Anvil’s goals is to build a peer-review infrastructure for research that cannot be easily represented in text. While the digital humanities are widely considered an important frontier, tenure and promotion committees still have trouble evaluating the work of digital humanists because the format is often so unfamiliar.”
I’m looking forward to seeing where this goes.