From Outputs to Workflows: Rethinking Academic Recognition in the Digital Humanities

What happens when we start valuing the “how” just as much as the “what” in research? In the ATRIUM project, we are recognising the overlooked yet essential workflows that underpin scholarly work – and reimagining how they’re assessed and acknowledged.

In the world of academia, traditional research outputs – such as monographs and peer-reviewed journal articles – have long been the gold standard for scholarly recognition. But in the age of digital research, what lies behind those polished results often holds just as much intellectual value: the data preparation, the modeling choices, the scripts, the training resources, the step-by-step processes that make the research possible.

This shift in perspective is central to the ATRIUM project, which is investigating how research infrastructures in the digital humanities can better support, publish, and credit these often-invisible contributions. One of our key focus areas is developing a fair and transparent evaluation framework for non-traditional academic outputs such as data papers, workflows, and training materials.

Our Work Package Leader Anne Baillot has explored this theme in a compelling new article, outlining the many challenges – and the promise – of assessing formats that sit outside conventional academic publishing. From issues of technical feasibility to questions of visibility and recognition, Anne lays out why workflows and intermediate steps are not just tools, but scholarly contributions in their own right.

👉 Read the full article here:
Assessing non-traditional academic formats: the hidden traps to the treasure trove by Anne Baillot (DARIAH)