Never had scholars had to write so many applications and so many reviews as nowadays. Peer-review has been institutionalized as the central regulation mechanism of the two core activities that are formulating a research question and its workflow on the one hand and criticizing its results on the other hand. Still, most scholars are deeply unsatisfied by a system in which they feel like they never really get to “do” research, but are rather stuck in a vicious circle of unproductive evaluations. While evaluation is perceived by scholars as more and more disconnected from research itself, the datajournal model developed by DARIAH in the context of the episcience platform is aiming at re-harmonizing research and evaluation, allowing to integrate peer reviews as a contribution to the research and development process of an online resource, in a continuous (virtuous) feedback loop. In this session, I will begin with a short introduction on the role of journals in the research workflow, on the different forms of peer review and their impact, and on the general principles of datajournals. In the main part of the session, the participants will be given the opportunity to work with the episcience sandbox dedicated to the datajournal model. They will be asked to outline a datajournal prototype in a field of research they can define themselves (this can be realised individually or in small groups and will take about 15mn of creative brainstorming). The session will allow to address both benefits and challenges of datajournals, aiming more widely at initiating a constructive dialogue on publication and evaluation structures in the digital age.