LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects: HIS
This is the final report produced by the AHRC-funded 'Peer review of digital resources for the arts and humanities' ICT strategy project.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 10 Early English Books Online is published by Chadwyck-Healey/ProQuest [8 September 2006]; the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is published by Oxford University Press [8 September 2006]; Eighteenth Century Collections Online is published by Thomson Gale [8 September 2006].
    • 11 Documents Online is one of the many digital resources offered by The National Archives of the UK [8 September 2006]; the British Library integrated catalogue is at the heart of its web presence [8 September 2006].
    • 12 Asked to name the three resources which they consulted most often for their own research, 28 per cent of respondents named the ODNB, 13 per cent named EEBO and six per cent named ECCO (n=442) (Survey report, p. 5).
    • 13 Focus group notes.
    • 14 There are three exceptions to this: the British Pathe, National Portrait Gallery Collections Online and Thesaurus Linguae Graecae websites included in the benchmarking survey ( [20 September 2006]; [20 September 2006]; [20 September 2006]). The first two were included to ensure that both image and moving-image resources, which tend to involve at least partnership with commercial and/or MLA bodies, were given due weight; the last to ensure that a key research tool for classicists was assessed.
    • 75 Survey report, p. 20.
    • 76 'I think there is a definite plea to be made to learned journals to review e-resources' (Focus group notes).
    • 77 Some reviews have been published, e.g. J. Smail, review of T. Hitchcock and R. Shoemaker, The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London, 1674-1834, H-NET [27 February 2006]; T. P. Gallanis, 'Review notice: The Old Bailey Proceedings Online', Journal of Legal History, 26 (2005), 105-7. See also S. Collini, 'Our Island Story' (review of ODNB), London Review of Books, 27:2 (20 January 2005) [26 September 2006].
    • 78 'A well-reviewed website would make as much of that review as it could on its front page. You'd see the reviews as soon as you went to the website. And then you'd know what people thought of it' (Focus group notes).
    • 79 '… we need to have ways of reflecting the changing views of a resource without it necessarily leading to the loss of the resource' (Stakeholder interview).
    • 80 '… you have to have financial resources to pay people to do those kinds of reviews and do them well, because they require a complex array of skills… Those kinds of reviews would be best done in a collaboration; you really would probably only be able to do those with very substantial resources' (Stakeholder interview).
    • 81 Focus group notes. See L. Bud-Frierman, Review of P. Wardley, Bristol Historical Resources CD-ROM, EH.NET [25 September 2006]; E. Jones, Review of P. Wardley, Bristol Historical Resources CD-ROM, Economic History Review, 55 (2002), pp. 562-3.
    • 82 'If you could have an open forum on digital resources with signed commentary, that would be an ideal, original format that would go miles in our understandings' (Survey report, p. 18). 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article