[csaa-forum] ERA rankings

[Ned Rossiter]

Ultimately, this strikes me as only position to take: refusal.  The  
ranking system is deeply flawed and self-serving, as many of you have  
pointed out.

The ERA is a primitive elaboration of a metrics system with a facade  
of quality. That journals internationally renowned for high  
analytical and scholarly rigour like Boundary 2, Public Culture,  
Theory Culture & Society and South Atlantic Quarterly rank lower than  
Media International Australia or International Journal of Cultural  
Studies should be enough to alert most academics to the national and  
local interests at play here.  It wouldn't take much to join the dots.

How to organize a protest? That seems pretty simple to me: don't  
publish in A* and A journals, and perhaps B.  Even better, don't  
publish in any subscription based journals that expropriate copyright  
from authors and charge crazy fees back to institutions (and  
individuals) wishing to access them. The welfarism of the traditional  
publishing industry, which the ERA clearly supports, would soon  
enough be brought into crisis, if it isn't already.

Ned

On 8 Jul 2008, at 10:32, Andrew Murphie wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________
>
> 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