Brief follow-up: I've just seen a brief (but engaged) review of the
Chicago Homer at the useful blog _Tendances et usages du Web_, at
<http://www.be-virtual.ch/blog/index.php?entry=entry070825-233131>.
Maybe it is typical that electronic publications will be reviewed in the
blogosphere but not in the traditional journals (which don't have to be
in print, of course)? I don't think that needs to be the case, and it
will be increasingly bad news for the traditional journals if it remains
so. Does anyone have direct examples of digital-only publications being
reviewed in mainstream Classics periodicals? Has Vindolanda Tablets
Online, or Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, or Demos, been reviewed?
I'm not convinced that BMERR collapsed purely because reviewers were not
interested in writing about items that they didn't get to keep. (People
review for JHS/JRS, whose books are donated to the Joint Library rather
than kept by the reviewer; self-interest can't be *that* pernicious.) I
suppose people were less engaged with electronic resources; as the
journal asked people to consider accessibility, design, usability, etc.
as well as content, maybe that made people feel nervous, unqualified? I
strongly suspect that reviews of electronic resources would be easiest
to ellicit (and more likely to be read) if they were integrated with the
print reviews: both in the sense that they appear among, and that the
expectations are the same. A print review might comment on the quality
of binding, typography, or illustrations, if they seem significant, but
the content is the key; surely the same is true of a review of a digital
publication, except that the typography and display is likely to seem
significant. (If digammas don't appear properly, that is something to
remark upon.) This is what BMCR does now, of course, but as far as I can
recall CDs and the like appear in the "books received" postings, while
websites or free publications rarely if ever do. Can anyone comment on this?
Gabby
(thread history snipped)
>>> Neven Jovanovic a écrit :
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> is there a scholarly review of the Chicago Homer
>>>> (http://www.library.northwestern.edu/homer/)?
>>>>
>>>> A search on the internet and several scholarly journals databases
>>>> turns out just one mention (in a book notice: Concordantia Homerica.
>>>> Pars 2.
>>>> Ilias, a Computer Concordance to the van Thiel Edition of Homer's
>>>> Iliad, J. R. Tebben, by A. Kahane, The Journal of Hellenic Studies,
>>>> Vol.
>>>> 121.
>>>> (2001), pp. 182-183.).
>>>>
>>>> I would greatly appreciate any information --- also on the possible
>>>> reasons of Chicago Homer *not* getting a review.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neven Jovanovic
--
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Kay House
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
|