Under the headline \u00e2\u20ac\u009dJournals under Threat: A Joint Response from HSTM Editors\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the editors of some of the leading international journals for history and philosophy of science and social studies of science have issued a joint declaration that I received by email and that I am reprinting here to give it a larger audience.<\/p>\n
\nWe live in an age of metrics. All around us, things are being standardized,
\nquantified, measured. Scholars concerned with the work of science and
\ntechnology must regard this as a fascinating and crucial practical,
\ncultural and intellectual phenomenon. Analysis of the roots and meaning
\nof metrics and metrology has been a preoccupation of much of the best work
\nin our field for the past quarter century at least. As practitioners of
\nthe
\ninterconnected disciplines that make up the field of science studies we
\nunderstand how significant, contingent and uncertain can be the process of
\nrendering nature and society in grades, classes and numbers. We now
\nconfront a situation in which our own research work is being subjected to
\nputatively precise accountancy by arbitrary and unaccountable agencies.
\nSome may already be aware of the proposed European Reference Index for the
\nHumanities (ERIH), an initiative originating with the European Science
\nFoundation. The ERIH is an attempt to grade journals in the humanities –
\nincluding “history and philosophy of science”. The initiative proposes a
\nleague table of academic journals, with premier, second and third divisions.
\nAccording to the European Science Foundation, ERIH “aims initially to
\nidentify, and gain more visibility for, top-quality European Humanities
\nresearch published in academic journals in, potentially, all European
\nlanguages”. It is hoped “that ERIH will form the backbone of a
\nfully-fledged research information system for the Humanities”. What is
\nmeant, however, is that ERIH will provide funding bodies and other
\nagencies in Europe and elsewhere with an allegedly exact measure of
\nresearch quality. In short, if research is published in a premier league
\njournal it will be recognized as first rate; if it appears somewhere in
\nthe lower divisions, it will be rated (and not funded) accordingly. This
\ninitiative is entirely defective in conception and execution. Consider the
\nmajor issues of accountability and transparency. The process of producing
\nthe graded list of journals in science studies was overseen by a
\ncommittee of four (the membership is currently listed at
\nhttp:\/\/www.esf.org\/research-areas\/humanities\/research-
\ninfrastructures-including-erih\/erih-governance-and-panels\/erih-expert-panels
\n.html). This committee cannot be considered representative. It was not
\nselected in consultation with any of the various disciplinary
\norganizations that currently represent our field such as the European
\nAssociation for the History of Medicine and Health, the Society for the
\nSocial History of Medicine, the British Society for the History of
\nScience, the History of Science Society, the Philosophy of Science
\nAssociation, the Society for the History of Technology or the Society for
\nSocial Studies of Science. Journal editors were only belatedly informed
\nof the process and its relevant criteria or asked to provide any
\ninformation regarding their publications.
\nNo indication hgiven of the means through which the list was compiled; nor
\nhow it might be maintained in the future. The ERIH depends on a
\nfundamental misunderstanding of conduct and publication of research in our
\nfield, and in the humanities in general. Journals’ quality cannot be
\nseparated from their contents and their review processes. Great research
\nmay be published anywhere and in any language. Truly ground-breaking work
\nmay be more likely to appear from marginal, dissident or unexpected
\nsources, rather than from a well-established and entrenched mainstream.
\nOur journals are various, heterogeneous and distinct. Some are aimed at a
\nbroad, general and international readership, others are more specialized
\nin their content and implied audience. Their scope and readership say
\nnothing about the quality of their intellectual content. The ERIH, on the
\nother hand, confuses internationality with quality in a way that is
\nparticularly prejudicial to specialist and non-English language journals.
\nIn a recent report, the British Academy, with judicious understatement,
\nconcludes that “the European Reference Index for the Humanities as
\npresently conceived does not represent a reliable way in which metrics of
\npeer-reviewed publications can be constructed” (Peer Review: the
\nChallenges for the Humanities and Social Sciences, September 2007:
\nhttp:\/\/www.britac.ac.uk\/reports\/peer-review). Such exercises as ERIH can
\nbecome self- fulfilling prophecies. If such measures as ERIH are adopted
\nas metrics by funding and other agencies, then many in our field will
\nconclude that they have little choice other than to limit their
\npublications to journals in the premier division. We will sustain fewer
\njournals, much less diversity and impoverish our discipline. Along with
\nmany others in our field, this Journal has concluded that we want no part
\nof this dangerous and misguided exercise. This joint Editorial is being
\npublished in journals across the fields of history of science and science
\nstudies as an expression of our collective dissent and our refusal to
\nallow our field to be managed and appraised in this fashion. We have asked
\nthe compilers of the ERIH to remove our journals’ titles from their lists.<\/p>\nThe declaration is signed by:
\n * Neil Barton (Transactions of the Newcomen Society)
\n * Robert Fox (Notes & Records of the Royal Society)
\n * Michael Hoskin (Journal for the History of Astronomy)
\n * Nick Jardine (Studies in History and Philosophy of Science)
\n * Trevor Levere (Annals of Science)
\n * Bernie Lightman (Isis)
\n * Michael Lynch (Social Studies of Science)
\n * Peter Morris (Ambix)
\n * Iwan Rhys Morus (History of Science)
\n * Simon Schaffer (British Journal for the History of Science)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nI would like a similar response in the biomedical field where everybody hunts for impact “we want no part of this dangerous and misguided exercise”.<\/p>\n\n
<\/p>\n
\n CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 03.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Under the headline \u00e2\u20ac\u009dJournals under Threat: A Joint Response from HSTM Editors\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the editors of some of the leading international journals for history and philosophy of science and social studies of science have issued a joint declaration that I received by email and that I am reprinting here to give it a larger audience. We … Continue reading Journals under Threat<\/span>