[Robert Leonard pointed out that the original message was poorly formatted and difficult to read so I am sending it again. Sorry for the inconvenience. HB]
Colleagues,
A few weeks ago on this list, Roy Weintraub drew attention to the revolt
amongst editors of journals in history and philosophy of science against the
ranking exercise of the European Science Foundation. HES members concerned with
this issue may be interested in the latest contribution to the debate from
Professor Frank James of the Royal Institution, London, former President of the
British Society for the History of Science. It appeared on both the MERSENNE
(UK history of science) and HOPOS (history of philosophy of science)
discussion lists, and was in response to a message from P. Hurst of the
Royal Society. Both the James and Hurst letters appear below.
Robert Leonard
------ Forwarded Message
From: Frank James <FJames at RI.AC.UK>Reply-To: Frank James <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:26:45 +0100
To: <MERSENNE at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Conversation: Journals under threat
Subject: 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), Universit?? 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:
http://www.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/be_user/r
esearch_areas/HUM/Documents/ERIH/IL-Scope_notes_Merged/Hist%20and%20philo%20
of%20Sc%20M.pdf&t=1224753574&hash=11c9f7103706b71b30231c0214204994
<http://www.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/
be_user/research_areas/HUM/Documents/ERIH/IL-Scope_notes_Merged/Hist%20and%2
0philo%20of%20Sc%20M.pdf&t=1224753574&hash=11c9f7103706b71b30231c021
4204994>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
New:
Volume 5 of Faraday's correspondence has now been published. Further
details from
http://www.theiet.org/publishing/books/history/faraday-correspondence-vol5.cfm
Frank A.J.L. James
Professor of the History of Science
The Royal Institution,
21 Albemarle Street,
London,
W1S 4BS,
England.
Direct line 020 7670 2924
Switchboard 020 7409 2992
Mobile 07957 172 123
E-mail: fjames at ri.ac.uk <mailto:fjames at ri.ac.uk>
Registered charity number 227938
From: Promoting discussion in the science studies community[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hurst, Phil
Sent: 20 October 2008 14:12
To: MERSENNE at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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
Phil Hurst
Publisher
Notes and Records
tel +44 (0)20 7451 2630
fax +44 (0)20 7976 1837
web royalsociety.org <http://royalsociety.org/>
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG
Registered Charity No 207043
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
<http://publishing.royalsociety.org/> for further details.
|
