[csaa-forum] ERA rankings

[Andrew Murphie]

all this is well argued Greg. The other obvious problem lurking here is the
usual one. The humanities are seen as the same as the sciences, to all
intensive purposed. Even in Europe, where "science" is often a broader
category, the differences between disciplines is thought through much more
carefully. To put this bluntly, science is much more likely to have a few
journals in which everyone publishes. And everyone does know what those
journals are. For the humanities, there are no such constraints on quality
journals, for all kinds of reasons. Indeed, we are currently seeing a
"thousand flowers bloom", by which I mean a proliferation of quality
journals - mostly but not only online.

Somewhat ironically, all the talk of quality etc here, when you take the
percentage cut offs into account, masks what is essentially a move against
this proliferation of interesting, often high quality discussion. The
central problem should be of interest then to Cultural Studies. It is
precisely not that of quality, but first up, that of maintaining traditional
(or newer neoliberal) hierarchies in the face of intellectual life
increasingly escaping them.

And I guess I think there might be a much louder and longer protest against
not only the complete lack of both quality and thoughtful, fair process in
the whole situation (as you demonstrate in your email via comparison with
Europe). There needs to be a much louder and longer protest again many of
its basic assumptions. Such a protest will only be ignored as long as
everyone is concerned about this or that journal (and I can't excuse myself
in this respect).

Unfortunately, however, the only places from which such a protest might have
some reasonable effect, if it were to be made, are probably those
institutions and organizations who are more "traditional" and have some
vested interest in the status quo (old or new). Still, as we know many of
these organizations have intelligent and sensitive humanities scholars
working with them, we live in hope.

best, Andrew

2008/7/8 Greg Hainge <g.hainge at uq.edu.au>:

>  For information, I just wanted to make one more point in regards to the
> rankings of journals in response to Jon's comments that, potentially, "B is
> considered dodgy and C, forget it" and his observation that these exercises
> can become self-fulfilling as they drive people away from lower ranked
> journals. This is all probably spot on and of course for that reason very
> worrying, especially when you look at the descriptors for the different
> ranks. These are the descriptors found in the guidelines on the ERA process:
>
>
> Tiers for the Australian Ranking of Journals
> *Overall criterion:  Quality of the papers*
>
> *A* (top 5%)*
>
> Typically an A* journal would be one of the best in its field or subfield
> in which to publish and would typically cover the entire field/subfield.
> Virtually all papers they publish will be of a very high quality.  These are
> journals where most of the work is important (it will really shape the
> field) and where researchers boast about getting accepted.  Acceptance rates
> would typically be low and the editorial board would be dominated by field
> leaders, including many from top institutions.
>
> *A (next 15%)*
>
> The majority of papers in a Tier A journal will be of very high quality.
> Publishing in an A journal would enhance the author's standing, showing they
> have real engagement with the global research community and that they have
> something to say about problems of some significance.  Typical signs of an A
> journal are lowish acceptance rates and an editorial board which includes a
> reasonable fraction of well known researchers from top institutions.
>
> *B (next 30%)*
>
> Tier B covers journals with a solid, though not outstanding, reputation.
> Generally, in a Tier B journal, one would expect only a few papers of very
> high quality. They are often important outlets for the work of PhD students
> and early career researchers.  Typical examples would be regional journals
> with high acceptance rates, and editorial boards that have few leading
> researchers from top international institutions.
>
> *C (next 50%)*
>
> Tier C includes quality, peer reviewed, journals that do not meet the
> criteria of the higher tiers.
>
>
>
> One would think from this that in fact A* A and B would be very good
> journals, whilst C might be the only dodgy category. As this drives changes
> in publication amongst researchers independently or at the behest of
> institutions will this be how the B category is considered? Who knows.
>
>
>
> What I find particularly worrying about these descriptors and their
> respective percentile bands, however, is that 50% of journals are expected
> to be in category C, in other words below standard (if you take it that the
> descriptor for category B really describes an academic journal showing
> acceptable quality control, with a level of integrity and process and a
> range of contributing authors). This seems to me to show an extraordinary
> lack of faith in the academic community's ability to self-regulate. Are 50%
> of journals out there really below the standards laid out in B?
>
>
>
> Now contrast this to the equivalent paragraph from the European Reference
> Index for the Humanities guidelines (that drew up procedure for the European
> Science Foundation's equivalent exercise). Look carefully at the amount of
> attention given to the possibility of difference from one discipline to
> another, the emphasis on ensuring that even C journals are considered
> reputable, the careful differentiation of category A and B and the flexible
> percentile bands given (10-25% in the A and B category, with no hard line on
> the split between those two). Little wonder that their lists (yes that's
> right, individual lists drawn up by different discipline areas!) seem
> somehow much much better than the one we're currently trying to stick band
> aids all over. (and if you want to see their lists, be they final or
> initial, see here:
> http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/research-infrastructures-including-erih/erih-initial-lists.html)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Standards :
>
> All journals included must fulfil normal international academic standards,
> i.e. selection of articles is based on an objective review policy. This
> quality control is normally through peerreview, and it is expected that
> journals would depart from peer review only where there is another system
> ensuring quality control. In some scholarly traditions peer-review is an
> unfamiliar procedure. It is one aim of ERIH to encourage top-journals to
> adopt a coherent peer-review system. The journals must fulfil basic publishing
> standards ( i.e. ISSN, timeliness of publication, complete bibliographic
> information for all cited references, full address information for every
> author).
>
> ERIH strives only to list "good scientific journals". The only way to avoid
> category "C" being perceived as a residual category is to apply this
> principle thoroughly also to category "C". Only journals that fall into the
> following three categories should be included.
>
> Categories :
>
> 1) Journals category A: i.e. high-ranking international publications with
> a very strong
>
> reputation among researchers of the field in different countries, regularly
> cited all over
>
> the world.
>
> 2) Journals category B: i.e. standard international publications with a
> good reputation
>
> among researchers of the field in different countries.
>
> 3) Journals category C: research journals with an important local /
> regional significance
>
> in Europe, occasionally cited outside the publishing country though their
> main target
>
> group is the domestic academic community.
>
> Nota bene:
>
> 6 For categories A and B, journals published in the whole world can be
> considered
>
> 6 For category C, only European journals must be considered.
>
> 6 It is recommended that in category A, only 10 to 25% of the total list
> should appear;
>
> this percentage target will differ from one discipline to another.
>
>
>
> 2
>
> "International journals":
>
> 1) A journal is international (Categories A and B) when the following
> requirements are
>
> fulfilled in addition to those that apply to all journals:
>
> • A genuine, varied and regular international cohort of contributors and
> readership
>
> • Consistently high-quality scholarly content
>
> • Broad consensus within the field concerning international status and
> visibility
>
>
>
> 2) In addition, they will have some, though not necessarily all, of the
> following characteristics:
>
> • Active international advisory board
>
> • Open to unsolicited contributions
>
> • Highly discriminating and selective in the choice of articles published
>
> • Published on time and to an agreed schedule
>
> The difference between category 'A' and category 'B' journals is likely to
> be the degree to which they conform to 1) above, and both the number of
> characteristics under 2) to which they conform as well as the degree of
> conformity. Generally, 'A' journals should conform to more of these
> characteristics, and to a greater extent, than 'B' journals. Language : Main
> international languages in this context are English, French, German, Spanish
> and Russian. However, journals in other languages can also be
> "international", when they are being used as "forum language" for specific
> research communities. Similarly, there may be non-European journals, that
> are international in character, in languages other than European languages,
> which can be included in categories A and B. Process
>
> • ESF (SCH) Member Organisations provide initial lists of journals in 15
> disciplines,
>
> and contribute through further consultation
>
> • 15 ERIH Expert Panels analyse, harmonise and finalise lists of graded
> journals in
>
> categories A, B and C.
>
> • ERIH Steering Committee supervises and unifies methodology ("bottom up")
> and
>
> reports to Standing Committee for the Humanities, and through ESF / SCH to
> HERA
>
> / European Commissions
>
> • ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities approves final reference lists
> and
>
> ensures acceptance
>
> • They develop a financial continuity plan and make recommendations on
> future
>
> development of ERIH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the hope that this further informs deliberations
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Dr Greg Hainge, Senior Lecturer in French, French Coordinator,
> School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, University of
> Queensland, Qld 4072, Australia.
> tel: (Int. + 61) (07) 3365 2282  fax: 3365 6799
> personal web page: geocities.com/ghainge/
>                     ******
> President of the Australian Society for French Studies
>                     ******
> _Culture Theory and Critique_ Editorial Board.
>                     ******
> _Contemporary French Civilization_ Editorial Board.
>                     ******
> _Etudes Celiniennes_ Editorial Board.
>                     ******
> Australia and NZ Representative of the Société d'Études Céliniennes
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> CRICOS Provider No:00025B
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)and contains
> information that may be confidential and/or copyright.  If you are not the
> intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately
> delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone
> other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No
> representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of
> viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the
> recipient.
>
> _______________________________________
>
> csaa-forum
> discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>
> www.csaa.asn.au
>
> change your subscription details at
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>



-- 
"Take me to the operator, I want to ask some questions" - Barbara
Morgenstern

"A traveller, who has lost his way, should not ask, Where am I? What he
really wants to know is, Where are the other places" - Alfred North
Whitehead

"I thought I had reached port; but I seemed to be cast back again into the
open sea" (Deleuze and Guattari, after Leibniz)

Andrew Murphie - Associate Professor
School of English, Media and Performing Arts, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia, 2052
Editor - The Fibreculture Journal http://journal.fibreculture.org/>
web:
http://www.andrewmurphie.org/
http://www.andrewmurphie.org/blog/
http://www.last.fm/user/andersand/
http://researchhub.cofa.unsw.edu.au/ccap/

fax:612 93856812 tlf:612 93855548 email: a.murphie at unsw.edu.au
room 311H, Webster Building
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://bronzewing.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20080708/7ec46de9/attachment.html