Assessing Annotated Corpora as Research Output

Language documentation 20 years on

“…He reports on proposals for a possible review procedure but recognizes that 'the question of what criteria to use in evaluating a corpus is more problematic' . For some suggestions for criteria see Thieberger (2012) and Thieberger et al (2012); again no action appears to have been taken to date to actually implement these Australian proposals.…”

Letter to the editor

“…This is not necessarily an exciting prospect for our community, however. First, -if researchers do lip-service to an administrative requirement rather than strive for high quality to satisfy peer-review standards the outcome will not be transparency of the research process and safeguarding of unique data‖ (31). Said differently, if we do not really feel strongly about the usefulness of data sharing, and only archive data because we are requested to comply with regulations imposed on us, the important tasks of data curation are unlikely to be carried out with a sufficient amount of care and attention.…”

52. Corpus linguistic methods

“…It therefore becomes urgent for linguists to embrace collaborative approaches to linguistic data compilation, 19 for example through the online annotation of open data, including through crowdsourcing. Such initiatives can be encouraged by taking into consideration the creation of a corpus in the career of a linguist, based on a set of quality standards and citations (see discussion in Thieberger et al 2015). Of course, providing access to the raw or annotated data on which corpus-based research relies raises ethical questions.…”