Journals under threat: a joint response from history of science, technology and medicine editors

Abstract

We live in an age of metrics. All around us, things are being standardized, quantifi ed, measured. Scholars concerned with the work of science and technology must regard this as a fascinating and crucial practical, cultural and intellectual phenomenon. Analysis of the roots and meaning of metrics and metrology has been a preoccupation of much of the best work in our fi eld for the past quarter century at least. As practitioners of the interconnected disciplines that make up the fi eld of science studies we understand how signifi cant, contingent and uncertain can be the process of rendering nature and society in grades, classes and numbers. We now confront a situation in which our own research work is being subjected to putatively precise accountancy by arbitrary and unaccountable agencies. Some may already be aware of the proposed European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), an initiative originating with the European Science Foundation. The 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. According to the European Science Foundation, ERIH ‘aims initially to identify, and gain more visibility for, top-quality European Humanities research published in academic journals in, potentially, all European languages’. It is hoped ‘that ERIH will form the backbone of a fully fl edged research information system for the Humanities’. What is meant, however, is that ERIH will provide funding bodies and other agencies in Europe and elsewhere with an allegedly exact measure of research quality. In short, if research is published in a premier league journal it will be recognized as fi rst rate; if it appears somewhere in the lower divisions, it will be rated (and not funded) accordingly. This initiative is entirely defective in conception and execution. Consider the major issues of accountability and transparency. The process of producing the graded list of journals in science studies was overseen by a committee of four (the membership is currently listed at http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/ research-infrastructures-including-erih/erih-governance-and-panels/erih-expertpanels.html). This committee cannot be considered representative. It was not selected in consultation with any of the various disciplinary organizations that currently represent our fi eld such as the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health, the Society for the Social History of Medicine, the British Society for the History of Science, the History of Science Society, the Philosophy of Science