Specific publication culture in the Humanities

1. Specific publication culture in the Humanities • Significant part of research output, in terms of numbers and importance, in national languages • Variety of formats for research output: monographs, chapters, edited volumes, journals, conference proceedings, critical editions, web-based content and data, outreach/’grey’ literature • Monographs - primary importance; publications in peer reviewed journals of lesser importance in many disciplines

2. Challenges for Humanities What tools to use to provide access to humanities research and to compare quality: • across all languages at supra-national (European) and global (world-wide) levels • vis-à-vis other research domains, especially ‘hard’ sciences Existing citation indices (e.g. SCOPUS, Web of Science, Publish or Perish) have unsatisfactory coverage of humanities research, especially in languages other than English (= in other European languages)

3. European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH): objectives • to enhance the global visibility of high-quality European research in the humanities across all languages • to encourage ’best practice’ in the publication of journals (peer review, active editorial board, openness to new authors, professional bibliographic information), and later books,in the humanities • To create a benchmarking tool for comparisons at aggregate (national, European) levels

4. ERIH: process • Overall responsibility with the ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities (SCH) • SCH nominates ERIH Steering Committee • ERIH Steering Committee responsible for: • Identification of the disciplinary structure • Definition of methodology including the definition of categories • Approval of membership of Expert Panels • Validation of journal lists proposed by Expert Panels • Peer review - the basis of methodology • Step 1: focus on journals; step 2: including other publication formats

5. Anthropology Archaeology Art and Art History Classical Studies Gender Studies History History & Philosophy of Science Linguistics Literature Musicology Oriental & African Studies Pedagogical & Educational Research Philosophy Psychology Religious Studies and Theology ERIH: current disciplinary structure 15 disciplinary Panels: • Disciplines under consideration • Archives, Library & Museum Studies • Film, Media & Cultural Studies • Area Studies

6. ERIH: criteria for inclusion All journals included have tomeet threshold standards ensuring consistently high-quality scholarly content: • Quality control policy governing selection of articles, normally through peer-review • Active operations of editorial board • Openness to unsolicited contributions • Publication on time and to an agreed schedule • ISSN number and other bibliographic requirements

7. ERIH:categories (1) • National Journals – NAT(ex category C): European publications with a recognised scholarly significance among researchers in the 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 – INT1 + INT 2(ex categories A and B): both European and non-European publications with an internationally recognised scholarly significance among researchers in the respective research domains, and which are regularly cited worldwide

8. ERIH:categories (2) Differentiation between categories INT1 and INT2 is based on a combination of two criteria: influence and scope: Category INT1 • international publications with high visibility and influence among researchers in the various research domains in different countries, regularly cited all over the world. Category INT2 • international publications with significant visibility and influence in the various research domains in different countries.

9. ERIH: a pilot project (2001-2010) Focus on journals 2007/2008 - publication of ‘initial lists’ • - publication of ‘revised lists’ Conclusions from the pilot phase: • ERIH journal lists are a first step toward a bibliographic tool: they provide information on thousands of Europan journalsenhancing their visibility • ERIH lists are not a bibliometric tool: they should not be used for assessment • Identification of quality NATional journals is the main innovation of ERIH(excategory C)

10. ERIH lists: reactions (1) • Criticism from research communities: national, disciplinary (e.g. German historians; philosophers of science; Gaelic studies community in Ireland) regarding categorisation and missing journals; • Response: a need for a sustainable mechanism for regularly updating ERIH lists • revising categorisation • including missing journals • including newly established journals

11. ERIH lists: reactions (2) • Expectations of research funders: creation of urgently needed evaluation tools/indicators in humanities corresponding to tools/indicators used in ‘hard’ sciences; • Response 1: ERIH lists are already used in some countries for this purpose against intentions of ESF SCH

12. ERIH lists: reactions (3) • Response 2:a number of funding councils: ESRC/AHRC (UK), ANR (F), DFG (DE), NWO (NL) fund a report Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities: A European Scoping Project; • Report published in March 2010 • Project leader: Prof. Ben Martin, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK Recommendation of the report:to create a bibliometric database for the Humanities and Social Sciences

13. Beyond the pilot project • Representatives of 26 ESF Member Organisations , majority of which funded ERIH, meet on 31 March 2010 to discuss the future of ERIH • Working group created and given a task to prepare a report outlining the future of ERIH • Members: Gunnar Siversten (Norway, Chair), Istvan Kenesei (Hungary), Nigel Vincent (UK), Sir Roderick Floud (Chair of SCSS), Milena Žic Fuchs (Chair of SCH) • Report to be released soon

14. Beyond ERIH: Recommendations of the meeting • ERIH focused on humanities; include social sciences • Develop ERIH from lists of journals into a database including references and supported by underlying bibliographic data • Build upon institutional repositories (universities) and national data bases (e.g. Croatia, Norway, Slovenia) • Consider a centralised, or distributed, or mixed model of operating • Consider ERIH as European Research Infrastructure

15. Beyond ERIH: Recommendations of the meeting • Liaise with the outcomes of the European Scoping Project • Explore collaboration with commercial providers • Implement European coordination of quality assurance under the responsibility of ESF • Note importance of ERIH for raising standards of scholarly publishing in the humanities (peer review) • Enhance communication with researchers