FW: Journals under Threat: A Joint Response from History of Science, Technology and Medicine Editors
Loet Leydesdorff
loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET
Wed Oct 1 17:04:28 EDT 2008
Is 66% reliability convincing? It is not Russian roulette, but not nice in
terms of the odds if tenure decisions are based on it.
Best, Loet
________________________________
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Armbruster, Chris
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:47 PM
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] FW: Journals under Threat: A Joint
> Response from History of Science, Technology and Medicine Editors
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> If I am not mistaken, then ERIH is based on peer judgement,
> not metrics. National research councils were asked to
> nominate experts. Because it was a European project, some
> form of "national proportional representation" was
> maintained. Furthermore, ERIH seems a response to the rise of
> research evaluation and the 'feeling' that the Humanities
> must also offer something. Initially, the ERIH A, B and C
> classification was not meant as a ranking, but as a
> differentiation that was meant to value category C as a
> collection of important regional and national journals. But
> this is not how it turned out. A, B and C is understood as
> ranking. Interestingly, ISI has shown that there is a 66%
> overlap between the ISI list and category A, but little
> overlap with category B and C. On the one hand, ERIH hands
> power to editors and publishers (one would expect steep price
> rises for category A). On the other hand, ERIH offers some
> sort of guidance in terms of the quality of journals...
>
> Maybe the main problem with ERIH is that it so rudimentary.....
>
> Chris Armbruster
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of
> David E. Wojick
> Sent: Wed 10/1/2008 20:08
> To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] FW: Journals under Threat: A Joint
> Response from History of Science, Technology and Medicine Editors
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> An interesting fight. They start off by suggesting that the
> new grading system is based on some sort of metiric but never
> say what it is. Rather they attack the committee as though
> the rankings are subjective. They also claim that funding of
> research will be based on these journal rankings, without
> evidence. But if the rankings are well founded then perhaps
> funding decisions should be influenced by them.
>
> All in all it sounds like they just do not want to be
> measured. No one does but it is often important to do so.
>
> David Wojick
>
> >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> >http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> >
> >Fyi. Loet
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: H-NET List on the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology
> >[mailto:H-SCI-MED-TECH at H-NET.MSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Christophe Lecuyer
> >(h-sci-med-tech)
> >Sent: 30 September 2008 11:33 PM
> >
> >From: Finn Arne Jørgensen <finn.arne.jorgensen at gmail.com>
> >Date: Tue, September 30, 2008 2:31 pm
> >
> >Journals under Threat: A Joint Response from History of Science,
> >Technology and Medicine Editors
> >
> >We live in an age of metrics. All around us, things are being
> >standardized, quantified, measured. Scholars concerned with
> the work of
> >science and technology must regard this as a fascinating and crucial
> >practical, cultural and intellectual phenomenon. Analysis
> of the roots
> >and meaning of metrics and metrology has been a
> preoccupation of much of
> >the best work in our field for the past quarter century at least. As
> >practitioners of the interconnected disciplines that make up
> the field of
> >science studies we understand how significant, contingent
> and uncertain
> >can be the process of rendering nature and society in
> grades, classes and
> >numbers. We now confront a situation in which our own
> research work is
> >being subjected to putatively precise accountancy by arbitrary and
> >unaccountable agencies. Some may already be aware of the
> proposed European
> >Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), an initiative
> originating with
> >the European Science Foundation. The ERIH is an attempt to
> grade journals
> >in the humanities - including "history and philosophy of
> science". The
> >initiative proposes a league table of academic journals,
> with premier,
> >second and third divisions. According to the European
> Science Foundation,
> >ERIH "aims initially to identify, and gain more visibility for,
> >top-quality European Humanities research published in
> academic journals
> >in, potentially, all European languages". It is hoped "that
> ERIH will form
> >the backbone of a fully-fledged research information system for the
> >Humanities". What is meant, however, is that ERIH will
> provide funding
> >bodies and other agencies in Europe and elsewhere with an
> allegedly exact
> >measure of research quality. In short, if research is published in a
> >premier league journal it will be recognized as first rate;
> if it appears
> >somewhere in the lower divisions, it will be rated(and not funded)
> >accordingly. This initiative is entirely defective in
> conception and
> >execution. Consider the major issues of accountability and
> transparency.
> >The process of producing the graded list of journals in
> science studies
> >was overseen by a committee of four (the membership is
> >currently listed at
> http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/research-
> >infrastructures-including-erih/erih-governance-and-panels/eri
> h-expert-
> >panels.html). This committee cannot be considered
> representative. It was
> >not selected in consultation with any of the various disciplinary
> >organizations that currently represent our field such as the European
> >Association for the History of Medicine and Health, the
> Society for the
> >Social History of Medicine, the British Society for the History of
> >Science, the History of Science Society, the Philosophy of Science
> >Association, the Society for the History of Technology or
> the Society for
> >Social Studies of Science. Journal editors were only
> belatedly informed of
> >the process and its relevant criteria or asked to provide
> any information
> >regarding their publications. No indication was given of the
> means through
> >which the list was compiled; nor how it might be maintained in the
> >future. The ERIH depends on a fundamental misunderstanding
> of conduct and
> >publication of research in our field, and in the humanities
> in general.
> >Journals' quality cannot be separated from their contents
> and their review
> >processes. Great research may be published anywhere and in
> any language.
> >Truly ground-breaking work may be more likely to appear from
> marginal,
> >dissident or unexpected sources, rather than from a
> well-established and
> >entrenched mainstream journal. Our journals are various,
> heterogeneous and
> >distinct. Some are aimed at a broad, general and
> international readership,
> >others are more specialized in their content and implied
> audience. Their
> >scope and readership say nothing about the quality of their
> intellectual
> >content. The ERIH, on the other hand, confuses internationality with
> >quality in a way that is particularly prejudicial to specialist and
> >non-English language journals. In a recent report, the
> British Academy,
> >with judicious understatement, concludes that "the European Reference
> >Index for the Humanities as presently conceived does not represent a
> >reliable way in which metrics of peer-reviewed publications can be
> >constructed" (Peer Review: the Challenges for the Humanities
> and Social
> >Sciences, September 2007:
> http://www.britac.ac.uk/reports/peer-review).
> >Such exercises as ERIH can become self- fulfilling
> prophecies. If such
> >measures as ERIH are adopted as metrics by funding and other
> agencies,
> >then many in our field will conclude that they have little
> choice other
> >than to limit their publications to journals in the premier
> division. We
> >will sustain fewer journals, much less diversity and impoverish our
> >discipline. Along with many others in our field, this Journal has
> >concluded that we want no part of this dangerous and
> misguided exercise.
> >This joint Editorial is being published in journals across
> the fields of
> >history of science and science studies as an expression of
> our collective
> >dissent and our refusal to allow our field to be managed and
> appraised in
> >this fashion. We have asked the compilers of the ERIH to remove our
> >journals' titles from their lists.
> >
> >Hanne Andersen (Centaurus)
> >Roger Ariew & Moti Feingold (Perspectives on Science)
> >A. K. Bag (Indian Journal of History of Science)
> >June Barrow-Green & Benno van Dalen (Historia mathematica)
> >Keith Benson (History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences)
> >Marco Beretta (Nuncius)
> >Michel Blay (Revue d'Histoire des Sciences)
> >Cornelius Borck (Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte)
> >Geof Bowker and Susan Leigh Star (Science, Technology and
> Human Values)
> >Massimo Bucciantini & Michele Camerota (Galilaeana: Journal
> of Galilean
> >Studies)
> >Jed Buchwald and Jeremy Gray (Archive for History of Exacft Sciences)
> >Vincenzo Cappelletti & Guido Cimino (Physis)
> >Roger Cline (International Journal for the History of Engineering &
> >Technology)
> >Stephen Clucas & Stephen Gaukroger (Intellectual History Review)
> >Hal Cook & Anne Hardy (Medical History)
> >Leo Corry, Alexandre Métraux & Jürgen Renn (Science in Context)
> >D.Diecks & J.Uffink (Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern
> >Physics)
> >Brian Dolan & Bill Luckin (Social History of Medicine)
> >Hilmar Duerbeck & Wayne Orchiston (Journal of Astronomical History &
> >Heritage)
> >Moritz Epple, Mikael Hård, Hans-Jörg Rheinberger & Volker
> Roelcke (NTM:
> >Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin)
> >Steven French (Metascience)
> >Willem Hackmann (Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society)
> >Bosse Holmqvist (Lychnos)
> >Paul Farber (Journal of the History of Biology)
> >Mary Fissell & Randall Packard (Bulletin of the History of Medicine)
> >Robert Fox (Notes & Records of the Royal Society)
> >Jim Good (History of the Human Sciences)
> >Michael Hoskin (Journal for the History of Astronomy)
> >Ian Inkster (History of Technology)
> >Marina Frasca Spada (Studies in History and Philosophy of Science)
> >Nick Jardine (Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and
> >Biomedical Sciences)
> >Trevor Levere (Annals of Science)
> >Bernard Lightman (Isis)
> >Christoph Lüthy (Early Science and Medicine)
> >Michael Lynch (Social Studies of Science)
> >Stephen McCluskey & Clive Ruggles (Archaeostronomy: the Journal of
> >Astronomy in Culture)
> >Peter Morris (Ambix)
> >E. Charles Nelson (Archives of Natural History)
> >Ian Nicholson (Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences)
> >Iwan Rhys Morus (History of Science)
> >John Rigden & Roger H Stuewer (Physics in Perspective)
> >Simon Schaffer (British Journal for the History of Science)
> >Paul Unschuld (Sudhoffs Archiv)
> >Peter Weingart (Minerva)
> >Stefan Zamecki (Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >H-SCI-MED-TECH
> >The H-Net list for the History of Science, Medicine and Technology
> >Email address for postings: h-sci-med-tech at h-net.msu.edu
> >Homepage: http://www.h-net.org/~smt/
> >To unsubscribe or change your subscription options, please use the
> >Web Interface: http://www.h-net.org/lists/manage.cgi
>
> --
>
> "David E. Wojick, PhD" <WojickD at osti.gov>
> Senior Consultant for Innovation
> Office of Scientific and Technical Information
> US Department of Energy
> http://www.osti.gov/innovation/
> 391 Flickertail Lane, Star Tannery, VA 22654 USA
> 540-858-3136
>
> http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/resume.html provides my
> bio and past client list.
> http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/Mathematics_Philosophy_Sci
> ence/ presents some of my own research on information
> structure and dynamics.
>
More information about the SIGMETRICS
mailing list