tirsdag den 7. oktober 2008

Endnu flere ledende humanistiske tidskrifter boycotter den europæiske tidskriftsrankingspolitik

For et par måneder siden fortalte jeg om at ti redaktører for de ledende tidsskrifter inden for videnskabsistorie og videnskabsfilosofi havde lavet en fælles deklaration mod European Science Foundation's initiativ til at oprette et europæisk rankingsystem for humanistiske tidsskrifter (ERIH).

Nu har stort sett alle redaktører for tidskrifter på dette område skrevet under på udtalelsen (i alfabetisk rækkef'ølge):

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 Matraux & Jörgen 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 Lathy (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)

Dvs. næsten alle tidskrifter indenfor dette veletablerede humanistiske forskningsområde tager afstand fra det europæiske forskningsbyråkratiske scientometriske projekt.

3 kommentarer:

Claus Emmeche sagde ...

Her er mere nyt om sagen:
- - -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Webster (ajw25 [at] york.ac.uk)
Date: 23/10/2008 10.28
Subject: FW: Re: Journals under threat
To: SATSUNET [at] jiscmail.ac.uk

Apologies for any cross-posting
-----Original Message-----
From: ar24 [ at ] york.ac.uk
Sent: 22 October 2008 15:40
Subject: Fwd: Re: Journals under threat

Dear Colleagues,

Following on from Phil Hurst’s message earlier in the week on Mersenne (see below), I would like to further add that the British Society for the History of Science together with other learned societies (or subject associations as the AHRC like to call them) has been actively campaigning against the journal rankings being imposed by European Science Foundation. The rankings can be found at the rather long address pasted below. In a letter of 8 May 2008 that I wrote as President of the BSHS to Professor Philip Esler, chief executive of the AHRC (which purports to ‘champion’ arts and humanities research in this country), I gave him details of a statistical analysis that I had undertaken on the list entitled ‘History and Philosophy of Science’.

I pointed out that of the 166 journals ranked in this list, 94 are in the area of History of Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine and Mathematics (HSTEMM), 67 in philosophy of science and 5 were general journals which are not especially connected with either the history or the philosophy of science, but which usually contain some material on the subjects. Of the 94 HSTEMM journals 14.4% were graded A while 27.6% of the 67 philosophy of science journals received the same grade. I asked whether AHRC endorsed the view that the overall quality of the philosophy of science journals was significantly superior to HSTEMM journals, but Esler refused to engage with this question. I also pointed out that those who compiled these rankings (listed below - none of whom are members of the BSHS) were entirely out of touch with the development of HSTEMM in recent years. I also noted my surprise that such a ‘forward looking and innovatory organisation’ as the AHRC should support outdated disciplinary definitions. Again Esler, as champion of arts and humanities research in this country, chose not to engage with the issue.

In line with the editorial in more than 50 HSTEMM journals which has begun to be published, I urge the community to have nothing whatsoever to do with these rankings as it will only lead to the destruction of journals and restrict the free dissemination of the results of our collective scholarly endeavour.

I would like to conclude with the observation that for nearly 30 years we have lived under a regime that believed that these kind of evaluations, audits etc had a beneficial value despite the considerable evidence to the contrary. That regime is now bankrupt in all senses of the word and I see this as an opportunity to bring these exercises in controlling academia to a halt.

Please do feel free to forward this to other lists.

Frank James


These are the people responsible for drawing up the History and Philosophy of Science journal rankings

Maria Carla Galavotti (Chair), Universitá di Bologna

Christopher Cullen, Needham Research Institute, Cambridge

Jaroslav Folta, National Technical Museum, Prague

Juho Sihvola, University of Helsinki


The rankings can be found at:



Frank A.J.L. James

Professor of the History of Science

The Royal Institution,
21 Albemarle Street,
W1S 4BS,
Direct line 020 7670 2924
Switchboard 020 7409 2992
Mobile 07957 172 123
E-mail: fjames [at] ri.ac.uk

From: Promoting discussion in the science studies community [mailto:MERSENNE [at] JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hurst, Phil
Sent: 20 October 2008 14:12
Subject: Journals under threat

Notes and Records of the Royal Society, has just published an editorial (see http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/x503128311743u02 for details) with text that has been agreed upon by the editors of over fifty journals of the history of science, technology, and medicine across the world. It is to appear in each of the journals as a protest against the European Science Foundation’s initiative for a European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH).

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. What is implied is: 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.

The editors who have signed ‘journals under threat’ believe that such a process is unnecessary and potentially damaging to the interests of scholarship. Along with many others in our field, Notes and Records has concluded that we want no part of this dangerous and misguided exercise.

What do you think of a ‘league table’ of history of science journals? Please comment via our ‘have your say forum’ at http://publishing.royalsociety.org/notes


Phil Hurst


Notes and Records

tel +44 (0)20 7451 2630

fax +44 (0)20 7976 1837

web royalsociety.org

The Royal Society

6-9 Carlton House Terrace

London SW1Y 5AG

twenty ten and beyond | 350 years of excellence in science

Notes and Records, the Royal Society's journal in the history of science, offers rapid publication, quality peer review and an international audience. Visit http://publishing.royalsociety.org for further details.


This email is sent on behalf of The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG, United Kingdom.

- - -

Claus Emmeche sagde ...

Læs også Benny Lautrups kommentarer til brug af citationer i Ingeniøren 24/10:

"»Forskning udgør på mange måder et verdensomspændende evolutionært system i lighed med livet på Jorden. Derfor vil den formodentlig være tættere på optimal, når den overlades til sig selv, end hvis den er politisk reguleret, som den er ved at blive det i dag. Politikerne ved nemlig ikke et kuk om, hvor forskningen er på vej hen, og det ved forskerne ligesom arterne faktisk heller ikke,« siger Benny Lautrup.
»Hvis Helge Sander havde været minister for forskning i 1913 er det ikke sikkert, vi ville have udviklet kvantemekanikken i 20erne. Dengang gik der en flok unge, vidtløftige herrer rundt på det, der blev til Niels Bohr Institutet og tænkte frie tanker. Havde vi haft det nuværende politiske klima dengang, var disse tanker blevet droppet med det samme. Hvad skulle de nytte? Var der nogen penge i atomer? Nej, ikke på den korte bane, og det var umuligt at sige, hvad det kunne bruges til. I dag, 100 år senere, ved vi, at det var vigtig og rigtig forskning, og at der senere var masser af penge i det,« siger Lautrup."
(Læs hele interviewet her).

På HOPOS-listen skrev den hollandske videnskabsforsker Loet Leydesdorf i går:

"Dear colleagues,
I provided arguments against these practices in a recent paper entitled Caveats for the Use of Citation Indicators in Research and Journal Evaluations (here), Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(2), 278-287, 2008. pdf-version of preprint"

Hans artikel slutter med en udtalelse, der (som Lautrup) implicerer sammenligningen mellem forskningens udvikling og den biologiske evolutionen af arter begge som open-ended systems med selektion og variation men intet på forhånd definerbart stabilt fitness landskab med optimale punkter som planlæggere kan styre efter:

"Where does this leave us with respect to political and managerial incentives for evaluations? Scientometric evaluations have obtained a function in public policy and the management of R&D. Policy makers and management may be inclined to opt for choices based on relevant information—and probably one should. Indicators can function to inform the various discourses. However, one should be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater on the basis of normative assumptions like the expected scale-effects of large-scale concentrations of R&D on productivity (Adams & Smith, 2003; Von Tunzelman et al., 2003). More often than not, one is able to generate evidence which points in another direction. The emerging knowledge-based economy may have more need to stimulate variation than to increase selection pressures (Ashby, 1958; Bruckner et al., 1994; Leydesdorff, 2006b)."

Curt Hansen sagde ...

Campus (fra ÅU) bringer i sit seneste nummer nogle gode kommentarer fra en dansk redaktør, Hanne Andersen, om sagen, se her.