1 / 18

UKSG Conference Edinburgh, 12-14 April, 2010

This presentation explores the need for a European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) as a tool for research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences. It discusses the methodology for including different formats and the challenges and criticisms faced by ERIH.

dougherty
Download Presentation

UKSG Conference Edinburgh, 12-14 April, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UKSG ConferenceEdinburgh, 12-14 April, 2010 Research Assessment in the Humanities and the ESF-ERIH (European Reference Index for the Humanities) project Alain PEYRAUBE CNRS & EHESS, Paris, France

  2. ESF-SCH workshop in 2001 • We have reached a situation where we can no longer allow ourselves the indulgence of attributing the lack of appropriate tools to a peculiarity of the Humanities and Social Sciences • Specialists in the Humanities need to take into consideration more & more its special characteristics and develop the corresponding tools • It is essential for the future of the Humanities to furnish itself with reliable reference tools, following the example of other scientific disciplines.

  3. ESF-SCH workshop in 2001 (2) • AHCI (ISI-Thomson Scientific Web of Knowledge) is not appropriate • Urgent need for a European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) as an additional tool for research evaluation, and not the exclusive means • Request the ESF-SCH to go ahead and try to compile lists of reference journals (Stage 1) • Develop methodology for including other formats: monographs, book chapters, edited volumes, etc. (Stage 2)

  4. ESF-SCH > ERIH Steering Committee • Overall responsibility with the ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities (SCH) • SCH nominated ERIH Steering Committee in Spring 2004, responsible for:  Identification of the disciplinary structure  Definition of methodology including the definition of categories of journals  Approval of membership of Expert Panels (members suggested by MO’s, SCH, ERIH StComm) Validation of journal lists proposed by Expert Panels • F. Kiefer (HU), G. Mirdal (DK), A. Mustajoki (FI), A. Peyraube (FR, Chair), Michael Worton (UK) [Gudrun Gersmann (DE), Marc Waelkens (BE)]

  5. ERIH: current disciplinary structure Archaeology Art and Art History Classical Studies Anthropology Gender Studies History Hist. & Phil. of Science Linguistics Literarature Musicology Oriental & African Studies Pedagogical & Educ. Research Philosophy Psychology Religious Studies & Theology • Disciplines under considertation • Archives, Library & Museum Studies • Film, Media & Cultural Studies • Area Studies 5

  6. Peer review: the basis of methodology • Peer review recognised as the only practicable method of evaluation in basic research (standard method used in evaluation of scientific production)  nomination of panel members • ESF Mos approached – with guidelines – to provide lists of reference journals discipline by discipline

  7. ERIH – Journal categories: A category (expected: 5-20% of all titles): • High-ranking, international level publications; • Very strong reputation among researchers in the field; • Regularly cited all over the world B category: • Standard, international level publications; • Good reputation among researchers in the field in different countries, occasionally cited all over the world

  8. ERIH – Journal categories (2): • C category: • Important local / regional level publication; • Mainly local / regional readership, but occasionally cited outside the publishing country • Only European publications are considered in this group

  9. Process of accreditation • Input: National panels / scientific communities provide lists of journals • Selection: Expert Panels define scope, analyse and assess input, produce lists • Consultation: MOs, subject associations (European level and some national), specialist research centres • Calibration/harmonisation: ERIH Steering Committee; • After approval by ESF-SCH, publication of ‘initial lists’ took place in 2007 • Open feedback process via on-line questionnaire for editors and publishers • ‘Revised lists’ to be published in 2010

  10. Some examples • Anthropology: 752 journals proposed by Mos  242 journals selected: 40 A (16.5%), 112 B (46.3%), 90 C (37.2%) • Archaeology: 1312 (Mos)  425: 91 A (21.4%), 170 B (40%), 164 C (38.6%) • History: 1419 (Mos)  934: 135 A (14.45%), 380 B (40.7%), 419 C (44.9%) • Linguistics: 1093 (Mos)  585: 96 A (16.4%), 92 B (36.5%), 275 C (47%)

  11. Some examples (2) • Literature: 1453 (Mos)  976: 255 A (26.1%), 481 B (49.2%), 240 C (24.6%) • Music and musicology: 300 (Mos)  166: 21 A (12.6%), 86 B (51.8%), 59 C (35.5% • Philosophy: 658 (Mos)  305: 44A (14.4%), 130 B (42.6%), 131 C (42.9%) • Relig. Stud. &Theology: 745 (Mos)  371: 76 A (20.5%), 203 B (54.7%), 92 C (24.8%)

  12. ERIH: challenges and criticism Misunderstandings about the character of the currently used A/B/C categories: ranking or assessment ofaudience, distribution and reach? Misunderstandings around category C seen as ‘low quality’ when the purpose is to identify quality European journals with, mostly linguistically, limited circulation;identification of quality national journals is the main innovation of ERIH Following discussions in the research community, process of renaming ERIH categories is underway 12

  13. More misunderstandings • Some research councils and research organisations have used ERIH as a tool for assessment of individual research production / productivity • ERIH “initial lists” were used when they were still under revision

  14. New categorization of Journal categories • National Journals (former category C): European publications with a recognised scholarly significance among researchers in their respective research domains in a particular (mostly linguistically circumscribed) readership group in Europe; occasionally cited outside the publishing country, though their main target group is the domestic academic community • International Journals(former categories A and B): both European and non-European publications with an internationally recognised scholarly significance among researchers in their respective research domains, and which are regularly cited worldwide

  15. New Journal categories (2) Differentiation between current categories A and B based on a combination of two criteria: influence and scope: Category A • international publications with high visibility and a very strong reputation and influence among researchers in the various research domains in different countries Category B • international publications with significant visibility and a good reputation and influence in the various research domains in different countries.

  16. From 2008 to 2010 • Reorganisation of the expert panels by using a panel rotation mechanism and inclusion of new experts • Expert Panel meetings revising ‘initial lists’ based on received feedback (adding in new journals, eliminate some journals, changing and revising categories) • Consolidation of the lists in 2009 (First update) > New lists (Revised lists) to be published in 2010 • Workplan for inclusion of other publications (monographs, edited books, proceedings, etc.)

  17. ERIH - contact www.esf.org/erih

  18. Merci Thank you 谢谢

More Related