1. Peer review of digital resources for the arts and humanities David Bates and Jane Winters

3. What do we mean by peer review and evaluation? Peer review Formal assessment of proposed research, undertaken at a sufficiently early stage to influence the course of that research and the nature of its outputs Evaluation Evaluation during or at the end of a research project as part of a formal process of assessment Evaluation by end users, whether through informal feedback or in a published review

4. Institutional affiliation of survey respondents

5. What is important in determining the value of a particular digital resource for your own research?

6. How important is peer evaluation or recommendation in your selection of resources for personal research?

7. Respondents’ comments ‘Peer review and provenance are key for me – I can get non-peer reviewed material any time through Google and evaluate its usefulness myself. It is no substitute for the academic resources’ ‘A proper peer review mechanism, with recommendations made according to a specified and easily available set of criteria’ ‘A review or reviews by experts in my broad fields of study/interest who know the interesting questions to ask’ An open forum on digital resources with signed commentary … would be ideal’

8. Cultural change Greater recognition of the value of collaborative research Addressing the skills gap – greater investment in the training of researchers Publication of reviews of digital resources in leading scholarly journals Clear citation guidelines

10. Peer review The AHRC should consider developing an alternative to the ‘technical appendix’ as a means of ensuring robust project planning and methodologies Research councils should consider developing a two-stage application process Peer reviewers should continue to be selected primarily on the basis of subject expertise, but their ability to assess the technical elements of a proposal should also be taken into account

11. Evaluation Post-completion assessment of research projects with digital outputs – with reports and responses attributed and published Guidelines for reviewers Check-list for basic technical standards Levels of usage should not be a key indicator of scholarly value Kite-marking, or any ‘pass/fail’ system of assessment, should not be adopted Safeguard subjectivity

12. Applications for a framework of peer review and evaluation Facilitates the formal assessment of digital resources, e.g. in the Research Assessment Exercise Allows users to make decisions about appropriate resources for use in their research Assists librarians in making purchasing decisions Allows funding bodies to decide which projects to fund, in both the short and long term, and provides a mechanism for assessing their ‘success’

13. Sustainability Financial – largely beyond the scope of the project, although recognised as a key concern Technical – responsibility of resource creators to take account of technical sustainability when devising their projects Academic sustainability – requires investment of money from a central body, and time from the academic community

15. www.history.ac.uk/digit/peer/