European academics are outraged by a new attempt to categorise arts and humanities journals
When new lists categorising European arts and humanities journals were first published in 2007, UK academics were – to put in politely – incensed. We want "no part" in such a "dangerous and misguided exercise", said a plethora of journal editors. A special arts and humanities user group was even formed by UK subject associations to provide a co‑ordinated opposition. It was a successful campaign: in 2009, the architects of the so-called European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) announced they were heading back to the drawing board.
Now their labours have borne fruit. Earlier this month, three years after the initial lists, revised ERIH lists for nine subjects were published (another five are expected to follow by the end of the year). The European Science Foundation – which has overseen the lists – is due to begin publicising them this week. The revised lists see journals categorised in a new way that ostensibly scraps the controversial letter "grades"' that caused so much angst.
Yet academics remain bitterly opposed, and the new lists are promising to be just as controversial as the original.
The ERIH previously classified arts and humanities journals by assigning them a category A, B or C, depending on whether they were "high-ranking international publications" (A), "standard international publications" (B) or those with important "local/regional significance" (C).
Under the revised version, journals are now divided into whether they are targeted at a "national" academic audience (Nat) or a worldwide "international" audience (Int). International journals are then split into Int1 and Int2 journals, depending on their "influence and scope".
The revised lists also include a stern warning: the ERIH is not intended to assess individual candidates for positions, promotions or research grant awards.
"[The earlier grades] were like a red rag to a bull," admits Michael Worton, vice-provost at University College London and one of the five members that make up the ERIH's steering committee. "People got very upset and said it was all about hierarchies and rankings. We kept saying no ... You could call it bananas, oranges and apples; it is just to signal differentiation [in the nature of the journals] ... but consultations with the community were revealing that people didn't understand."
The aim has never been to create a ranking tool, says Worton. Rather it is to make high-quality non-English language journals (often overshadowed by English ones) more visible. He sees the revised lists both as useful in making scholars aware of the wide range of arts and humanities journals that exist across Europe, but also helpful for young scholars looking to get on the publication ladder. Young scholars, for example, might want to start trying to publish in Nat journals first, he suggests. "We are trying to do some shorthand evaluation to help with the development of younger scholars."
But others fail to see any difference in the new system and say it is the same hierarchical ranking all over again.
"The revised categorisation has not changed things one iota," says Robin Osborne, professor of ancient history at Cambridge and chairman of the Council of University Classical Departments, who was instrumental in galvanising early opposition to the index.
"To name things as Int1 and Int2, and to claim that the names imply no hierarchy is preposterous ... [and] Int will be seen to rank above Nat," he adds.
Judi Loach, an architectural historian at the University of Cardiff, who edits the journal Architectural History, agrees. "It is just fiddling on the surface ... you are going to be graded better if your article comes out in Int1, than in Int2, than in Nat."
The academics' point – as with the initial lists – is that the system amounts to a ranking of journals' quality and, therefore, it could be used to grade people. Decisions about promotions and appointments could be made, and research assessed, not by peer review but by the journal in which work appears.
"There is a tool out there, which – even if they say, 'We are not intending it to be used by people to grade people' – is going to be used," says Loach, adding that she fears it is already happening.
Another residual concern, notes Osborne, is the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework. While Hefce makes clear that REF panels "will not make any use of journal rankings in the assessment", it can't be ruled out that universities might use the ERIH ranking in preparing their submissions to panels.
The Australian government – which initially embraced journal rankings with gusto, including them in its own research assessment – announced at the end of last month that it was dropping them after determining they were being deployed "inappropriately" by universities.
The only hierarchy as far as Worton sees it is whether a journal is on the list or not. "The point that very few people seem to get is that being on the list, you already have got your gold star – you are a really good journal," he says, adding that of the 14,000 journals considered by the process so far, more than 50% have failed to make it on because they do not meet standards of "good editorial processes".
Both the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the British Academy, the UK's national academy for the humanities and social sciences, also distance themselves from the revised index. While the Arts and Humanities Research Council was among the European agencies that supported its development initially, the council now says it has had "no engagement" with the recent development of the index and "no plans" to get involved.
"We remain concerned at the low level of confidence in it in the UK arts and humanities research community," it says. The British Academy is equally dismissive about the index: "[We] consider the revised lists/new categories to be just as flawed as before."
Worton says the lists are now "part of the landscape" and "being used all over the world". He acknowledges that academics will want to be in Int1 rather than Int2 journals "because they have greater impact", but said it was up to the community to make sure the lists are not used improperly.
Milena Žic Fuchs, a Croatian linguist who chairs the ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities, which has overall responsibility for the index, says the lists are "not set in stone" and the categories could be revised again if researchers felt it necessary. She may be hearing from a delegation of UK academics soon.