1 / 18

Journals in the arts and humanities: their role and evaluation

Journals in the arts and humanities: their role and evaluation. Professor Geoffrey Crossick Warden Goldsmiths, University of London. Distinctive place of journals in arts & humanities research.

macon
Download Presentation

Journals in the arts and humanities: their role and evaluation

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. Journals in the arts and humanities: their role and evaluation Professor Geoffrey Crossick Warden Goldsmiths, University of London

  2. Distinctive place of journals in arts & humanities research • Diversity of output monographs, edited collections edited texts, journal articles practice outputs • No clear hierarchy of esteem amongst as well as within each challenge for RAE and promotion panels esp problems for practice outputs

  3. Why do we want to know about journals? Explore the terms • Use of journals to indicate:activity and productivity impact - relevance and use quality - peer judgment

  4. Measurements and proxies Activity & Productivity ImpactQuality Quantitative Tangible & Qualitative methods & intangible methods & data data evidence & data Increasing use of proxy metrics to infer impact and quality Especially in context of changes to RAE

  5. Why is it so hard to rank journals or use citation data? • Rank according to what criteria? • Impact factors very difficult • Citation behaviour is very different not cumulative cf science old work remains highly cited [See ISI list] critical discourses as mode of research citation not clear sign of quality/influence the culture of the footnote • Diverse outputs - not just paper-based • Print output different arts & humanities • Lower % paper outputs in ISI-Journals

  6. Highest citations in ISI humanities journals 2000 1 Karl Marx 2 Lenin 3 Shakespeare 4 Aristotle 5 The Bible 6 Plato 7 Freud 8 Chomsky 9 Hegel 10 Cicero

  7. RAE submissions 1996 & 2001Humanities, Languages and Arts • Journal articles? 1996 - 33% 2001 - 37%sciences 90% 96% engineering 57% 78% social sciences 42% 54% • Books? 1996 - 51% 2001 - 52%sciences 6% 3% engineering 8% 5% social sciences 32% 28% • Book chapters 1996 - 4% 2001 - 3% • Other 1996 - 11% 2001 – 9%

  8. Journal publication & RAE qualityJournal articles as % outputs to RAE2001 by discipline

  9. ISI journals & the arts & humanities • Publication in ISI journals often small % overall outputs RAE 2001 • Philosophy highest at 52% • Library & information management 40% • Most other subjects in 20%-29% range • English & French just 21% • Below 20% in Italian, Theology, Art & Design and Middle Eastern & African Studies

  10. Current projects on quality & journals • Issue of evaluating quality very current • So too is assessing standing of journals • But they’re not the same thing at all • And decreasingly so arts & humanities • Reflect on these: • RAE and metrics • European Science Foundation’s ERIH • Humanities Indicators Project

  11. RAE metrics • Metrics-driven RAE • ‘Neither citations nor RC income’ • AHRC expert group • outputs but no proxies for their quality • Post-2008: STEM cf rest of disciplines • ‘robust indicators’ being sought – for STEM • primarily HESA and bibliometric data • arts & humanities 2013+? earlier impact • consultation non-science 2009-10 • national bibliometrics consortium

  12. European Reference Index for the Humanities • European Science Foundation “The ERIH lists will help to identify excellence in Humanities scholarship & should prove useful for the aggregate bench-marking of national research systems…in determining the international standing of the research activity in a given field in a country. However, as they stand, the lists are not a bibliometric tool”

  13. Methods & goals of ERIH • Expert Panels in 15 disciplinary areas • ESF member lists, iterative consultation • Categorisation (lists emerging this year) • A = high-ranking international level • B = standard international level • C = important local/regional level • Resistance to hierarchy: why? • Say above all to strengthen peer review • How, if at all, will it be used?

  14. Humanities Indicators Project • American Academy of Arts & Sciences • many variables on state of humanities • Publications element: • Focus is monograph publications data no quality indicators sought • No plans to look at journal publishing • Making humanities count: the importance of data

  15. Arts & humanities journals:the challenge of bibliometrics • Is there a challenge? • Does anyone want to do bibliometrics with arts & humanities journals? • Little interest UK or elsewhere • In many ways for good reasons set out here • Yet looming is RAE post-2013…. can we build ‘robust measures’ without them? can it be done with them?

More Related