1 Specific publication culture in the Humanities Significant part of research output, in terms of numbers and importance, in national languages Variety of formats for research output: monographs, chapters, edited volumes, journals, conference proceedings, critical editions, web-based content and data, outreach/’grey’ literature Monographs - primary importance; publications in peer reviewed journals of lesser importance in many disciplines

2 Challenges for Humanities What tools to use to provide access to humanities research and to compare quality: across all languages at supra-national (European) and global (world-wide) levels vis- à -vis other research domains, especially ‘hard’ sciences Existing citation indices (e.g. SCOPUS, Web of Science, Publish or Perish) have unsatisfactory coverage of humanities research, especially in languages other than English (= in other European languages)

3 European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH): objectives to enhance the global visibility of high- quality European research in the humanities across all languages to encourage ’best practice’ in the publication of journals (peer review, active editorial board, openness to new authors, professional bibliographic information),and later books, in the humanities To create a benchmarking tool for comparisons at aggregate (national, European) levels

4 ERIH: process Overall responsibility with the ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities (SCH) SCH nominates ERIH Steering Committee ERIH Steering Committee responsible for: –Identification of the disciplinary structure –Definition of methodology including the definition of categories –Approval of membership of Expert Panels –Validation of journal lists proposed by Expert Panels Peer review - the basis of methodology Step 1: focus on journals; step 2: including other publication formats

5 ERIH: current disciplinary structure Anthropology Archaeology Art and Art History Classical Studies Gender Studies History History & Philosophy of Science Linguistics Literature Musicology Oriental & African Studies Pedagogical & Educational Research Philosophy Psychology Religious Studies and Theology Disciplines under consideration Archives, Library & Museum Studies Film, Media & Cultural Studies Area Studies 15 disciplinary Panels:

6 ERIH: criteria for inclusion All journals included have to meet threshold standards ensuring consistently high-quality scholarly content: Quality control policy governing selection of articles, normally through peer-review Active operations of editorial board Openness to unsolicited contributions Publication on time and to an agreed schedule ISSN number and other bibliographic requirements

7 ERIH: categories (1) National Journals – NAT (ex category C): European publications with a recognised scholarly significance among researchers in the respective research domains in a particular (mostly linguistically circumscribed) readership group in Europe; occasionally cited outside the publishing country, though their main target group is the domestic academic community International Journals – INT1 + INT 2 (ex categories A and B): both European and non- European publications with an internationally recognised scholarly significance among researchers in the respective research domains, and which are regularly cited worldwide

8 ERIH: categories (2) Differentiation between categories INT1 and INT2 is based on a combination of two criteria: influence and scope: Category INT1 international publications with high visibility and influence among researchers in the various research domains in different countries, regularly cited all over the world. Category INT2 international publications with significant visibility and influence in the various research domains in different countries.

ERIH: a pilot project ( ) Focus on journals 2007/ publication of ‘initial lists’ publication of ‘revised lists’ Conclusions from the pilot phase: ERIH journal lists are a first step toward a bibliographic tool: they provide information on thousands of Europan journals enhancing their visibility ERIH lists are not a bibliometric tool: they should not be used for assessment Identification of quality NATional journals is the main innovation of ERIH (ex category C) 9

10 ERIH lists: reactions (1) Criticism from research communities: national, disciplinary (e.g. German historians; philosophers of science; Gaelic studies community in Ireland) regarding categorisation and missing journals; Response: a need for a sustainable mechanism for regularly updating ERIH lists 1.revising categorisation 2.including missing journals 3.including newly established journals

11 ERIH lists: reactions (2) Expectations of research funders: creation of urgently needed evaluation tools/indicators in humanities corresponding to tools/indicators used in ‘hard’ sciences; Response 1: ERIH lists are already used in some countries for this purpose against intentions of ESF SCH

12 ERIH lists: reactions (3) Response 2: a number of funding councils: ESRC/AHRC (UK), ANR (F), DFG (DE), NWO (NL) fund a report Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities: A European Scoping Project; Report published in March 2010 Project leader: Prof. Ben Martin, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK Recommendation of the report: to create a bibliometric database for the Humanities and Social Sciences

13 Beyond the pilot project Representatives of 26 ESF Member Organisations, majority of which funded ERIH, meet on 31 March 2010 to discuss the future of ERIH Working group created and given a task to prepare a report outlining the future of ERIH Members: Gunnar Siversten (Norway, Chair), Istvan Kenesei (Hungary), Nigel Vincent (UK), Sir Roderick Floud (Chair of SCSS), Milena Žic Fuchs (Chair of SCH) Report to be released soon

14 Beyond ERIH: Recommendations of the meeting ERIH focused on humanities; include social sciences Develop ERIH from lists of journals into a database including references and supported by underlying bibliographic data Build upon institutional repositories (universities) and national data bases (e.g. Croatia, Norway, Slovenia) Consider a centralised, or distributed, or mixed model of operating Consider ERIH as European Research Infrastructure

15 Beyond ERIH: Recommendations of the meeting Liaise with the outcomes of the European Scoping Project Explore collaboration with commercial providers Implement European coordination of quality assurance under the responsibility of ESF Note importance of ERIH for raising standards of scholarly publishing in the humanities (peer review) Enhance communication with researchers