(Doing) Computational History: The Role of Data Work in Computational Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article Themes on (Doing)  Computational History, covers a highly topical subject and deserves the journal's attention. Although the article is well written and has a sound thesis — namely, that the selection and preliminary analysis of data is just as important as their analysis using software — it is essentially compilative. For this reason, I suggest changing the title to  Themes on (Doing)  Computational History. A Review

The role of a software (an AI) operating on  massive archives to help historical studies. The paper is  essentially a review. I consider it a relevant paper in this respect. Regarding the originality, I think it is such if you equate originality and completeness.  As a review paper it does not contain any significant news.  As a review paper it is well made.   The references, they are appropriate   In conclusion, in my opinion the paper is a well written and interesting review. It can be published in its present form. I only suggested a slight change of the title.

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided by all reviewers. I read the reviews as generally positive and supportive of the paper’s overall aims and argument. Rather than responding to each evaluative point individually, I therefore focus below on the concrete comments and suggestions raised in the reviews and describe the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript.

A recurring theme across the reviews was the request for more detailed discussion of the project examples mentioned in the paper. In response, I have elaborated on these examples, either in the main text or in footnotes, so that readers unfamiliar with the projects do not need to consult external sources to follow the argument. I also added a new section (4.) with a case study of mine to make it a bit more applied. 

2. General Qs
In line with the generally positive evaluation, I have focused on concrete revisions rather than responding point-by-point to all general questions.

Comment 1:
The article Themes on (Doing) Computational History, covers a highly topical subject and deserves the journal's attention. Although the article is well written and has a sound thesis — namely, that the selection and preliminary analysis of data is just as important as their analysis using software — it is essentially compilative. For this reason, I suggest changing the title to Themes on (Doing) Computational History. A Review

Response 1:
Thank you for this positive assessment and for the suggestion regarding the title. I understand the reasoning behind adding “A Review,” as the paper does not present a single new empirical intervention. However, I would argue that the manuscript is more accurately characterised as a position paper rather than a review. When I encounter the term “review,” I typically expect a systematic or comprehensive review of the literature, which is not the aim of this contribution. Instead, the paper advances a specific thesis and framing, drawing on selected examples to support a broader argument.

For this reason, I have changed the title but not by adding "a review" - I retained  and modified the original title to hopefully make it easier to understand what direction the article would take. That said, I have clarified the review-like and position-paper character of the contribution in the introduction, so that readers are not surprised by the absence of a practical or experimental component. Also, by adding a case study of my own (reflecting on it), it is probably more practical and applied than before. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is extremely valuable for the DH community as it summarizes and put together many studies and approaches in a well-designed and well-argumented paper. The value of the paper lies less in its innovative arguments than in its dialogue with the current state of the art and existing practices, but this is a needed paper that put together many concerns and interesting ideas related to the field. I was however surprised that born-digital sources are not considered and that the world of libraries and GLAMs remain rather absent from this paper (although librarians are mentioned, but very shortly). Many datasets and corpora are digitized by professionals in the field of archives, libraries, etc. and the relationship to these datasets and their producers should also fall into the scope of the paper (and may raise different interesting issues about interdisciplinarity, collaborations with fields outside academia, etc.). While the article adresses many key issues, I was a bit frustrated that it remains rather general and sometimes abstract. The author explains "It outlines a set of characteristics that recur across visible and influential projects in the field, irrespective of whether the practitioners identify as computational historians, digital historians, or simply as historians. These characteristics are drawn from observed practices and the author’s own experience". I would have been interested in concrete examples of influential (and less influential) projects in the field, and I also have the feeling that the author's own experience could be developed in order to enrich the reflexive approach as well as the reader understanding of the "experience" that is at stake. Although there is no doubt the author is experienced, has strong expertise, and builds also on international experiences as for instance in ADHO, I would like to have a bit more of context.

The paper doesn't mention experiments, new approaches and notably in the publishing and infrastructuring area that may contribute to change the game and  highlight the work on datasets. The JDH for instance allows to publish datasets and articles in a multi-layered manner. The publication of datasets, repositories for datasets and other kinds of evolutions in the field of academia could probably also be part of the article.

Last but not least, I found that sometimes the argument was rather general, could apply to Digital Humanities more generally, and therefore lost some of the specificity of Computational History. This is something that from my perspective could be made clearer. Would the argument be really different if we were talking of literary studies for instance ?  

These are just a few comments that arose from this very stimulating reading and I sincerely thank the author for this paper  that will for sure become a must-read for colleagues as well as students. 

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided by all reviewers. I read the reviews as generally positive and supportive of the paper’s overall aims and argument. Rather than responding to each evaluative point individually, I therefore focus below on the concrete comments and suggestions raised in the reviews and describe the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript.

A recurring theme across the reviews was the request for more detailed discussion of the project examples mentioned in the paper. In response, I have elaborated on these examples, either in the main text or in footnotes, so that readers unfamiliar with the projects do not need to consult external sources to follow the argument. I also added a new section (4.) with a case study of mine to make it a bit more applied. 

2. General Qs
In line with the generally positive evaluation, I have focused on concrete revisions rather than responding point-by-point to all general questions.

Comment 1:
I was however surprised that born-digital sources are not considered and that the world of libraries and GLAMs remain rather absent from this paper (…) The publication of datasets, repositories for datasets and other kinds of evolutions in the field of academia could probably also be part of the article.

Response 1:
Thank you for raising this important point. I agree that born-digital sources, the role of libraries and other GLAM institutions, and developments in data publication and infrastructuring are highly relevant to the topic. In response, I have added a short section addressing the role of GLAM institutions in dataset creation and curation - some references relevant to this had already been in the original version but arguably not to actually be understandable to a reader who isn't deeply familiar with those papers.

I have, however, also chosen not to expand this discussion much further, as I am currently preparing a separate publication that focuses specifically on datasets. But the revised manuscript now more explicitly acknowledges these dimensions within the broader argument.

Comment 2:
While the article addresses many key issues, I was a bit frustrated that it remains rather general and sometimes abstract (…) I would have been interested in concrete examples of influential (and less influential) projects in the field, and I also have the feeling that the author's own experience could be developed.

Response 2:
Thank you for this comment. I agree that the argument benefits from more concrete grounding. In response, I have added project descriptions and contextual information, either in the main text or in footnotes, to make the examples more accessible to readers unfamiliar with them. I have also added a new section (4.) explaining my own experiences in some more detail. 

Comment 3:
Last but not least, I found that sometimes the argument was rather general and could apply to Digital Humanities more generally, and therefore lost some of the specificity of Computational History.

Response 3:
I appreciate this observation and agree that parts of the argument extend beyond computational history and are relevant to the digital humanities more broadly. In the revised version, I have made this overlap more explicit and thought about this a lot but the paper also explicitly refers to computational history so much that it would need to be rewritten completely to make it refer to computational humanities more generally (even though it all kind of applies to the larger field, which I now acknowledge somewhere). 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content of the article is interesting and relevant for the domain. Ideas are organized in a coherent way and the expression is concise, to the point. However, please clarify how the practical dimentiones of doing computational history will be examined. Methodologicaly what do you mean by examining? 

No details about distant reading and distant viewing as two examples of computational methods. Maybe a footnote at their first use at page 2 will help the reader undestand better  what computational methods actually do. However those two methods are used in digital history too. Maybe a footnote about the differences beetwen digital and computational will help too. 

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided by all reviewers. I read the reviews as generally positive and supportive of the paper’s overall aims and argument. Rather than responding to each evaluative point individually, I therefore focus below on the concrete comments and suggestions raised in the reviews and describe the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript.

A recurring theme across the reviews was the request for more detailed discussion of the project examples mentioned in the paper. In response, I have elaborated on these examples, either in the main text or in footnotes, so that readers unfamiliar with the projects do not need to consult external sources to follow the argument. I also added a new section (4.) with a case study of mine to make it a bit more applied. 

2. General Qs
In line with the generally positive evaluation, I have focused on concrete revisions rather than responding point-by-point to all general questions.

 

Comment 1:
The content of the article is interesting and relevant for the domain. Ideas are organized in a coherent way and the expression is concise, to the point. However, please clarify how the practical dimensions of doing computational history will be examined. Methodologically, what do you mean by examining?

Response 1:
Thank you for this encouraging assessment. Regarding the question of what is meant methodologically by “examining,” I would like to clarify that this paper is intended as a thesis-driven position paper rather than a methodologically formalised empirical study. The argument is developed through the discussion of selected examples that illustrate recurring practices and issues in computational history, rather than through a single, explicitly formalised method.

If a more formal methodological specification is expected for this type of contribution, I would welcome further clarification in order to address this appropriately.

Comment 2:
No details about distant reading and distant viewing as two examples of computational methods. Maybe a footnote at their first use at page 2 will help the reader understand better what computational methods actually do. However, those two methods are used in digital history too. Maybe a footnote about the differences between digital and computational will help too.

Response 2:
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I have added short explanatory footnotes at the first occurrence of “distant reading” and “distant viewing,” including brief descriptions and examples, to support readers who may be less familiar with these approaches. In addition, I have expanded the discussion in a footnote on the distinction between digital and computational approaches, while also acknowledging their overlaps.