Open Science has become a central framework for promoting transparency, accessibility, and inclusiveness in scholarly research. While the Digital Humanities (DH) community has long embraced openness in terms of research outputs, less attention seems to have been paid to the openness of the methodological and evaluative processes underlying knowledge production. This paper presents an exploratory study that investigates the current state of openness in DH research practices, focusing specifically on research data management documentation and peer review processes. In particular, this study addresses two research questions: (1) to what extent DH publications that describe data explicitly reference external documentation detailing data creation and management processes; and (2) how widely open peer review practices are adopted across DH conferences and journals. The results revealed a limited adoption of open methodological practices. Only a small fraction of the analysed articles provided explicit, reusable documentation of data creation workflows, and no references to data management plans or formal research data management documentation were found. An even more critical picture emerges from the analysis of peer review practices: the vast majority of DH venues continue to rely on traditional single- or double-blind review models, with open peer review adopted in only a few isolated cases.

翻译：开放科学已成为促进学术研究透明度、可及性与包容性的核心框架。尽管数字人文界长期以来在研究产出层面倡导开放性，但其知识生产所涉及的方法论与评估环节的开放程度似乎未获足够重视。本文开展探索性研究，聚焦研究数据管理文档与同行评审流程，考察数字人文研究实践中的开放现状。具体而言，本研究围绕两个问题展开：（1）明确提及数据的数字人文出版物在何种程度上引用了详述数据创建与管理流程的外部文档；（2）数字人文会议与期刊对开放同行评审实践的采纳范围如何。结果显示，开放方法论实践的应用十分有限：仅极少数被分析文章提供了可复用的数据创建流程显式文档，未发现任何对数据管理计划或正式研究数据管理文档的引用。对同行评审实践的分析揭示了更为严峻的局面：绝大多数数字人文平台仍沿用传统单盲或双盲评审模式，仅个别案例采纳了开放同行评审。