www.esf.org/erih Evaluation, Quality and Impact of Open Access Publications • Chair: Julianne Nyhan (European Science Foundation) • Susan Murray (Director, African Journals online) • Christiane Fritze (Berlin- Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
• Difficulty to identify and compare Humanities excellence- vis-à-vis other sciences- across all languages at a supra-national (European) level
• Poor international visibility of research output in national languages(considered as necessary vehicles for Humanities research)
• Multiplicity of formats for research output (monographs, edited volumes, journals [less than 1/3 !], conference proceedings, web-based content and data, outreach)
www.esf.org/erih4
ERIH – the origins
SCH Workshop on evaluation of scientific production in Humanities (Budapest 2001):
• Existing citation indices (AHCI, SSCI) have unsatisfactory coverage of European Humanities research
• Need for a European citation index for the Humanities as additional tool for research assessment
• ESF requested to compile lists of reference journals in the first instance
www.esf.org/erih5
ERIH – objectives / methods
• Benchmarking tool for comparisons at aggregate level
• Focus on format used in other sciences (journals)> achieve a degree of initial comparabilityBUT: methodology needed for other formats
• Encourage ’best practice’ in the publication of journals in the HumanitesPeer-review: discursive identification of excellence> across all fields of the Humanities> across Europe < national consultations
• European Research Area:Improve access to European Humanities research across all languages (basis for VLE?)
ERIH as a tool for the strengthening of Humanities scholarship in Europe created by scholars for scholars
www.esf.org/erih6
ERIH – process
Set up Steering Committee• Define the first 15 disciplines to be included• Define categories of journals: A, B, C• Compile guidelines for inter/national panels • Approves Expert Panels (members suggested by
MO’s, SCH, StComm, in the future: ENCoPs)• Validates work of expert panels
Produce and process material• Input from ESF MO’s (national panels / reference
tools) according to guidelines • Initially 15 international panels who compile
categorised lists of good peer-reviewed research journals in 15 disciplines
www.esf.org/erih7
ERIH – current coverage
Index Coverage (publication criteria):Peer-reviewed journals; ISSN; bibliographic datafor cited references; author data
Index coverage (discipline criteria):15 subject groups defined, some covering areasbetween Humanities and Social Sciences(anthropology; education; psychology)
Index coverage (internationality criteria):Cat. A (<25%)/B: international journals (defined by status:
reputation, readership, authors, citations),Cat. C: important European journals with more regional
circulation (ESF MO Europe: not Russia)
All journals included – whether A-B-C - to be considered good research journals
www.esf.org/erih8
ERIH – categories
Precision of criteria for international journals• a genuine, varied and regular international cohort of
contributors and readership• a consistently high-quality scholarly content• a broad consensus within the field concerning international
status and visibility, insofar as possible• a quality control mechanism, normally through peer-review
Plus some, not necessarily all, of the following characteristics:• Active international advisory board• Openness to unsolicited contributions• Highly discriminating and selective in the choice of articles
published• Publication on time and to an agreed schedule
Degree to which these characteristics are applied could be added to the criteria distinguishing journals in categories ‘A’ and ‘B’
www.esf.org/erih9
ERIH – current disciplines/panels
• ANTHROPOLOGY• Archaeology• Art and Art History• Classical Studies• Gender Studies• History• History & Philosophy
• 2007 / 2008: Publication of the lists in three batches • 2008: Update / feedback
Online form (quantitative information): contact publishers, editors, European subject associations, national subject associations (through ENCoPs)
www.esf.org/erih11
Peer review at work…
Layers:• Input: National panels / scientific communities• Selection: Expert Panels define scope, analyse and
assess input, produce lists• Consultation: MOs, subject associations (European
level and some national), specialist research centres• Calibrate/harmonise: ERIH Steering Committee• Feedback: open process leading to updates in 2008Challenges:• Wide differences in quality of lists received from MOs• Domain-specific (e.g.: cult./soc./evol. anthropology;
philosophy and ethics)• Language (e.g.: “forum languages” in art history;
“international languages” in Oriental & African studies
• Some panels more reluctant to overrule authority of (own) national panels
• Outside peer pressure during consultation phases
www.esf.org/erih12
ERIH insights – quality through peer review?
• Peer review recognised as the only practicable method in basic research (standard method used in scientific communications themselves)
• Peer review can overrule weight of numbers for better (detect originality) or for worse (defend conservatism)
• Peer review introduces comparability into discussions of national discourses in Humanities scholarship
www.esf.org/erih13
Evolution of ERIH Lists
1st batch of published initial lists are highlighted in yellow