Increasing visibility for a multifaceted Humanities research in Europe - the ERIH approach Dr. Nina Kancewicz-Hoffman HEAD OF THE HUMANITIES UNIT Vienna, 16 December 2008

2 Challenges What tools to use to provide access to Humanities research and to compare quality: vis- à -vis other research domains, especially ‘hard’ sciences across all languages at a supra-national (European) and global (world-wide) levels Starting point - ESF SCH workshop (2001): Existing citation indices (AHCI, SSCI) have unsatisfactory coverage of European Humanities research

3 Specific publication culture Multiplicity of formats for research output: monographs, edited volumes, journals, conference proceedings, web- based content and data, outreach Specific hierarchy of importance: monographs - primary importance; peer reviewed journal articles - less than 1/3 of outputs Significant, in terms of numbers and importance, part of research output in national languages Standard bibliometric tools not appropriate for Humanities research

4 European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) – objectives Improve access to / facilitate diffusion of European Humanities research across all languages (e.g. through Virtual Learning Environment, VLE) Encourage ’best practice’ in the publication of journals in the Humanities (peer review, international boards, openness to new authors) Benchmarking tool for comparisons at aggregate (national, European) level Shifting of objectives from focus on a bibliometric tool to an access/diffusion and evaluation tool

5 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 disciplines to be included –Definition of methodology including the definition of categories of journals: A, B, C –Approval of membership of Expert Panels (members suggested by MO’s, SCH, ERIH StComm) –Validation of lists proposed by Expert Panels

6 ERIH – current disciplines/panels Anthropology Archaeology Art and Art History Classical Studies Gender Studies History History & Philosophy of Science Linguistics Literary Studies Musicology Oriental & African Studies Pedagogical & Educational Research Philosophy Psychology Religious Studies & Theology Disciplines under considertation Archives, Library & Museum Studies Film, Media & Cultural Studies

7 Peer review – the basis of methodology Peer review recognised as the only practicable method in basic research (standard method used in scientific communications themselves) Peer review introduces comparability into discussions of national discourses in Humanities scholarship Peer review can overrule weight of numbers for better (detect originality) or for worse (defend conservatism)

8 ERIH – criteria for inclusion Consistently high-quality scholarly content Quality control mechanism, normally through peer-review Openness to unsolicited contributions Publication on time and to an agreed schedule All journals included – whether A, B or C - to be considered good research journals

9 ERIH – categories 1.International journals (incl. worldwide) Cat. A (<25%)/B A genuine, varied and regular international cohort of contributors and readership Active international advisory board Difference between A and B: degree to which the above characteristics are applied 2. Important European journals with more regional circulationCat. C

10 ERIH – peer review at work Phase 1: Focus on format used in other research domains (journals) to achieve a degree of initial comparability BUT: methodology needed for other formats Layers: Input: National panels / scientific communities Selection: Expert Panels define scope, analyse and assess input, produce lists Consultation: MOs, subject associations (European level and some national), specialist research centres Calibrate/harmonise: ERIH Steering Committee Feedback: open process leading to updates in 2008

11 ERIH – peer review at work Challenges: Wide differences in quality of lists received from MOs Domain-specific differences (e.g.: cult./soc./evol. anthropology; philosophy and ethics) Some panels more reluctant to overrule authority of (own) national panels Outside peer pressure during consultation phases

12 ERIH – towards the « initial lists » 2003/04: MO’s provide input based on previous national consultation (panels; reference tools) 2005/II: Expert Panels work - define field / remit (“scope notes”), - analyse and assess input received, - suggest circles of consultation, - consult where gaps are identified (eliminate / add), - discuss categories (multiple listing; single listing), - produce draft list, explain methods and problems (mid): Wide consultation of - ESF MO’s, - (European) subject associations, - specialist research centres 2007: Publication of the lists in three batches 2008: feedback / update

13 Evolution of ERIH Lists – open process 1st batch of published initial lists are highlighted in yellow Discipline Initial submission 1st draft listsConsultation 1aConsultation 1bInitial lists Mar-Apr 2006Spring 2006Summer Anthropology (social and evolutionary) Archaeology Art and Art History Classical Studies Gender Studies History History and Philosophy of Science Linguistics Literature Music and Musicology204n/a Oriental and African Studies Pedagogical and Educational Research Philosophy Psychology Religious Studies and Theology745n/a

14 Language and place of publication: « Initial List » Anthropology

15 « Initial list » History – does ERIH make a difference? 1419 titles suggested from MO’s 874 titles incl. in 1 st draft for consultation 579 comments received 907 titles included in “initial list” A: 15% - B: 40% - C: 45% Important percentage “category C” 27% multilingual, 41% non-English Compare: ISI Thomson 179 ISI titles included, <30% non-English 61 ISI titles (mainly US) not in ERIH

16 ERIH – categories: challenges and criticism Misunderstandings about the character of A-B-C categories: ranking or definition of scope? Misunderstandings around category C seen as ‘low quality’ when the idea is to identify quality European journals with limited circulation; this is the most innovative element of ERIH Rethinking the categorisation - the challenge: differentiate between issues of quality and of scope and audience

17 ERIH – categories: challenges and criticism More misunderstandings: Some research council and research performing organisations using ERIH as a tool for assessment of individual research production / productivity ERIH „initial list” are used when they are still under revision A better information and communication campaign needed

18 ERIH – Update 2008/2009 Recomposition of Expert panels: panel rotation mechanism and inclusion of new experts, document setting out methodology of recomposition Online form (quantitative information): contact publishers, editors, European subject associations, national subject associations (through ENCoPs) Updating of ERIH “initial Lists” using ERIH Guidelines and feedback submitted via ERIH feedback form Panel meetings to take place from November 2008 – May ERIH Lists to be published incrementally in 2009