Questionnaires
Every RIDE review answers a structured questionnaire of criteria, drawn
from one of the IDE Criteria for Reviewing documents. Each criterion is
answered on a boolean scale (Yes / No), and some criteria offer several
options that a review may tick together (marked (multi) below). The
tables show, per criteria set and per question, how many reviews answered
the question and the share that answered Yes across the corpus. The rare
value="3" anomaly (used to mark “not in scope”) is excluded from the
denominators and counted separately under each table.
Where the Charts page aggregates at the top-level section,
this page breaks the same data down to the individual question. The raw
answers are also available as machine-readable JSON in the
full corpus dump under questionnaires per review, and
the underlying TEI lives in the
GitHub mirror.
Criteria for Reviewing Digital Editions (1.1) (76 reviews)
| Question | Yes | Answered | Yes-rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documentation | |||
| Bibliographic description | 66 | 77 | 86% |
| Contributors | 68 | 77 | 88% |
| Contacts | 60 | 77 | 78% |
| Selection | 68 | 77 | 88% |
| Reasonability of the selection | 76 | 77 | 99% |
| Archiving of data | 36 | 77 | 47% |
| Aims | 74 | 77 | 96% |
| Methods | 62 | 77 | 81% |
| Data model | 46 | 77 | 60% |
| Help | 59 | 77 | 77% |
| Citation | 55 | 77 | 71% |
| Completion | 30 | 77 | 39% |
| Institutional curation | 51 | 77 | 66% |
| Contents | |||
| Previous edition | 57 | 77 | 74% |
| Materials used (multi) | 69 | 77 | 90% |
| Introduction | 62 | 77 | 81% |
| Bibliography | 55 | 77 | 71% |
| Commentary | 46 | 77 | 60% |
| Contexts | 41 | 77 | 53% |
| Images | 71 | 77 | 92% |
| Image quality (multi) | 71 | 77 | 92% |
| Transcriptions | 71 | 77 | 92% |
| Text quality | 75 | 77 | 97% |
| Indices | 57 | 77 | 74% |
| Types of documents (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| Document era (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| Subject (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| Spin-Offs (multi) | 76 | 76 | 100% |
| Access modes | |||
| Browse by (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| Simple search | 59 | 77 | 77% |
| Advanced search | 47 | 77 | 61% |
| Wildcard search (multi) | 55 | 77 | 71% |
| Index (multi) | 53 | 77 | 69% |
| Suggest functionalities (multi) | 26 | 77 | 34% |
| Help texts (multi) | 53 | 77 | 69% |
| Aims and methods | |||
| Audience (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| Typology (multi) | 75 | 75 | 100% |
| Critical editing (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| XML | 58 | 77 | 75% |
| Standardized data model | 52 | 77 | 68% |
| Types of text (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| Technical accessability | |||
| Persistent identification (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
| Interfaces (multi) | 76 | 76 | 100% |
| Open Access | 73 | 77 | 95% |
| Accessability of the basic data | 36 | 77 | 47% |
| Download | 25 | 77 | 32% |
| Reuse | 40 | 77 | 52% |
| Declaration of rights | 54 | 77 | 70% |
| License (multi) | 77 | 77 | 100% |
Criteria for Reviewing Tools and Environments (1.0) (15 reviews)
| Question | Yes | Answered | Yes-rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| General information | |||
| Software type (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Identification of the environment (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Purpose (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Funding (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Maturity (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Methods and implementation | |||
| Programming Language (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Reuse | 8 | 17 | 47% |
| Input format (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Output format (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Encoding (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Encoding preprocessing | 8 | 17 | 47% |
| Dependencies (multi) | 13 | 17 | 76% |
| Dependencies installation (multi) | 7 | 17 | 41% |
| Documentation and support | |||
| Documentation | 16 | 17 | 94% |
| Documentation format (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Documentation parts (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Documentation language (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Support | 16 | 17 | 94% |
| From of support (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Issue tracker | 11 | 17 | 65% |
| Usability and sustainability | |||
| Build and install (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Tests | 5 | 17 | 29% |
| Portability and interoperability (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Devices (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Browsers (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Plugins (multi) | 4 | 17 | 24% |
| API | 7 | 17 | 41% |
| Code | 12 | 17 | 71% |
| License (multi) | 16 | 16 | 100% |
| Credits | 13 | 17 | 76% |
| Registered | 10 | 17 | 59% |
| Possible contribution (multi) | 15 | 17 | 88% |
| Analysability, extensibility, reusability of the code | |||
| Analysability (multi) | 15 | 17 | 88% |
| Extensibility (multi) | 16 | 17 | 94% |
| Reusability (multi) | 14 | 17 | 82% |
| Security and privacy | 7 | 17 | 41% |
| Supportability and maintenance | 6 | 17 | 35% |
| Citability | 4 | 17 | 24% |
| User interaction, GUI and visualization | |||
| User profile (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| User interaction (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| User Interface (multi) | 17 | 17 | 100% |
| Visualization | 8 | 17 | 47% |
| User empowerment | 12 | 17 | 71% |
| Accessibility | 3 | 17 | 18% |
Criteria for Reviewing Text Collections (1.0) (20 reviews)
| Question | Yes | Answered | Yes-rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| general_information | |||
| Can the text collection be identified in terms similar to traditional bibliographic descriptions (title, responsible editors, institution, date(s) of publication, identifier/address)? | 18 | 20 | 90% |
| Are the contributors (editors, institutions, associates) of the project documented? | 17 | 20 | 85% |
| Is contact information given? | 17 | 20 | 85% |
| aims | |||
| Is there a description of the aims and contents of the text collection? | 19 | 20 | 95% |
| What is the purpose of the text collection? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| What kind of research does the collection allow to conduct primarily? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| How does the text collection classify itself (e.g. in its title or documentation)? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| To which field(s) of research does the text collection contribute? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| content | |||
| What era(s) do the texts belong to? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| What languages are the texts in? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| What kind of texts are in the collection? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| What kind of information is published in addition to the texts? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| composition | |||
| Are the principles and decisions regarding the design of the text collection, its composition and the selection of texts documented? | 12 | 20 | 60% |
| What selection criteria have been chosen for the text collection? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| How large is the text collection in number of texts/records? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| How large is the text collection in number of tokens? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| Does the text collection have identifiable sub-collections or components? | 18 | 20 | 90% |
| acquisition (multi) | 12 | 12 | 100% |
| Has the quality of the data (transcriptions, metadata, annotations, etc.) been checked? | 15 | 16 | 94% |
| Considering aims and methods of the text collection, how would you classify it further? For definitions please consider the help-texts. (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| data_modelling | |||
| How are the textual sources represented in the digital collection? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| In which basic format are the texts encoded? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| With what information are the texts further enriched? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| How are the annotations linked to the texts themselves? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| What kind of metadata are included in the text collection? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| On which level are the metadata included? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| What kind of data/metadata/annotation schemas are used for the text collection? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| Which standards for text encoding, metadata and annotation are used in the text collection? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| provision | |||
| Is the textual data accessible in a source format (e.g. XML, TXT)? | 12 | 20 | 60% |
| Can the entire raw data of the project be downloaded (as a whole)? | 9 | 20 | 45% |
| Are there technical interfaces which allow the reuse of the data of the text collection in other contexts? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| Besides the textual data, does the project provide analytical data (e.g. statistics) to download or harvest? | 5 | 20 | 25% |
| Can you use the data with other tools useful for this kind of content? | 14 | 20 | 70% |
| user_interface | |||
| Does the text collection have a dedicated user interface designed for the collection at hand in which the texts of the collection are represented and/or in which the data is analyzable? | 16 | 20 | 80% |
| user_interface_sub (multi) | 14 | 14 | 100% |
| preservation | |||
| Does the text collection provide sufficient documentation about the project in general as well as about the aims, contents and methods of the text collection? | 12 | 20 | 60% |
| Is the text collection Open Access? | 17 | 20 | 85% |
| rights (multi) | 18 | 18 | 100% |
| Are there persistent identifiers and an addressing system for the text collection and/or parts/objects of it and which mechanism is used to that end? (multi) | 20 | 20 | 100% |
| Does the text collection supply citation guidelines? | 10 | 20 | 50% |
| Does the documentation include information about the long term sustainability of the basic data (archiving of the data)? | 3 | 20 | 15% |
| Does the project provide information about institutional support for the curation and sustainability of the project? | 10 | 20 | 50% |
| Is the text collection completed? | 6 | 17 | 35% |
7 answers carried value="3" and were excluded from the denominators.
Last updated: 2026-07-17