Abstract:Scholars in the humanities rely on carefully-constructed prose to convey ideas, while many in the sciences deploy numerical precision instead. Although university administrators often tout multi- or inter-discipinarity, it is unclear whether there is a deep understanding of how these modes of investigation are different, and how those differences might be accommodated and supported. For example, the disciplines that use numbers as a chief mode of expression were from the beginning conceived, embodied with and configured for external assessment as part of their claims to authority. As a consequence, their metrics were not designed to assess other kinds of scholarship such as that of the arts and the humanities. And, read in the opposite direction, the fact that the humanities were never customised for those numerical-based controls should not be understood as a failing of the discipline, but as an integral dimension of its distinct practice. This contribution offers a study of documentary form in the academy. The discussion will examine how scholarship in different fields came to have different formal features. It will furthermore consider what the implications of these differences are for how the disciplines are now seen and assessed. By looking to the history and traditions of different forms of scholarship, this chapter seeks to offer insight into the current debates about how productivity and impact are to be defined, marked and assessed in the academy. This chapter introduces the possibility that humanistic research might be expressed in word or wood and investigates the consequences of such a provocation. It concerns itself with select dimensions of scholarly publication that are especially apparent from a perspective across wood and word-among them, peer review, assessment, dissemination, citation and ownership. Under the intensifying exigencies of documentation, components of the written document that were once provisional become obligatory and codified through practice. The foregoing discussion of a historically informed experiment in academic publishing raises for consideration how specific practices of knowledge have been legitimised over time. The moments of friction encountered by the Cabinet, Box and Article provide clues about how certain forms of knowledge gain traction over time. Conceiving publications as unique performances of meaning may stimulate alternative strategies of assessment, interpretation and dissemination that are cognisant of—and work in concert with—the diverse forms at issue.

Editing Technical Texts

The text of the New Testament and computers: The International Greek New Testament Project

Editing the Greek New Testament on the threshold of the twenty-first century

Computer-Assisted Processing of Intertextuality in Ancient Languages

Unjust Revisions: A Social Justice Framework for Technical Editing

Discussion on the Nature and Dialectical Theory of the Editorial Artificial Language

Editing a Woman's Voice

Differentiating Editing, Post-Editing and Revision

The Hermeneutic Profit of Annotation: On Preventing and Fostering Disagreement in Literary Analysis

Automated Postediting of Documents

Several Problems about "consistency" Need to Be Concerned in Editing of Sci-Tech Journals

Editorial: Mechanics of Intelligent Materials and Structures

Speech Editing -- a Summary

In wood and word, or, a gloss on documents and documentation in the humanities

Removing Manually-Generated Boilerplate from Electronic Texts: Experiments with Project Gutenberg e-Books

Textual therapy on the relationship between medicine and grammar in Galen

Encoding Models for Scholarly Literature

Pantograph: A Fluid and Typed Structure Editor

Toward a community model of scholarly editing: FAIR/CARE, research ethics, & labour visibility

Tables in Leibniz: a challenge for the digital humanities

Edit Distances and Their Applications to Downstream Tasks in Research and Commercial Contexts