I think these two comments by Patti and Dieter are very important. And indeed, are a founding goal of the whole DM project. Tools development and discipline-wide cooperation requires that those contributing to the development of the tools, techniques, or methods be rewarded in a currency the rest of the humanities understands. A major goal of our journal is to provide a clearly peer-reviewed outlet for reporting and disseminating this kind of work. And we name accepting referees on the article page as a way of exploiting the one real resource we have: the willingness of top people in the various disciplines to devote time to reading and criticising submissions. Our hope is that one will be able to take DM articles (and ultimately monographs/editions) and show them to a dean and/or hiring or promotion committee and have the real work that goes into this kind of work recognised.
Another project I am working on with a couple members of the executive involves wikis and "commons" type exchanges, which don't work IMO in their purest form for professional scholars because there is no reward built in.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to remind members
a) that we are always eager to read contributions on digital tools, techniques, methods (as well as theory or less practically focussed work) for DM. And if you know of somebody doing something interesting (even if it isn't medieval), encourage them to submit. Our rule is that the work should be of interest to digitally active medievalists: not that it need involve directly work by medievalists.
b) that our wiki is available for (non-refereed) accounts of projects, tools, conferences, and the like.
-d