And kind of upset. I thought the reviews were rather harsh. They seemed to misunderstand and downplay the humanistic payoff of the paper, instead discounting the piece for not following a (IMO stale) intro-methods-results-conclusion rubric, with heavy citation to related methods, as if I were only developing new tools rather than deriving new historical insights from them. I’m not familiar with this event but I thought this was more computational humanities than computational social science or computer science. What disciplinary backgrounds do the reviewers hail from?
Congratulations, though, to those accepted, and thanks to the organisers for putting this together. Sorry for being a bit petty: I’ve just been rejected from ADHO a few times now, I think for being a bit too pitched to a computational-heavy audience, and now rejected from CHR, for being a bit too pitched to a humanistic audience, and wondering where my work even belongs anymore. But I will work to improve the piece and submit elsewhere.