[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.