Giving credit where credit is due: evaluating, publishing, and rewarding 3D scholarship

Research assessment has yet to reckon with 3D scholarship systematically. Through a mixed-methods approach that combines an online survey, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups with researchers, publishers, and reviewers, we examine current publishing practices and stakeholder perspectives on the evaluation of 3D scholarly outputs. Our findings reveal four parameters that contribute to the persistent undervaluation of 3D scholarship: publication fragmentation resulting from inadequate and unstable infrastructures; the lack of standardised, purpose-dependent evaluation criteria; concerns about reviewer expertise; and institutional reward systems that continue to privilege traditional, text-based outputs, often resulting in expectations of 'double publication'. Based on these findings, we designed and implemented an evaluation framework within the PURE3D infrastructure for 3D Scholarly Editions (3DSEs), featuring dual criteria (research value and user experience) and a multi-stage peer review workflow. This framework demonstrates rigorous assessment of 3D scholarship in its native digital medium, accounting for both the unique possibilities and limitations of the form. Even though the framework is developed for PURE3D, the proposed model provides a blueprint for journals, institutions, and infrastructures seeking to recognise non-typical outputs within existing assessment systems.