In a growing number of countries, governments and public agencies seek to systematically assess the scientific outputs of their universities and research institutions. Bibliometrics indicators and peer review are regularly used for this purpose, and their advantages and biases are discussed in a wide range of literature. This article examines how three different national organisations (AERES, ERA, ERIH) produce journal ratings as an alternative assessment tool, which is particularly targeted for social sciences and humanities. After setting out the organisational context in which these journal ratings emerged, the analysis highlights the main steps of their production, the criticism they received after publication, especially from journals, and the changes made during the ensuing revision process. The particular tensions of a tool designed as both a political instrument and a scientific apparatus are also discussed.
In a growing number of countries, governments and public agencies seek to systematically assess the scientific outputs of their universities and research institutions. Bibliometrics indicators and peer review are regularly used for this purpose, and their advantages and biases are discussed in a wide range of literature. This article examines how three different national organisations (AERES, ERA, ERIH) produce journal ratings as an alternative assessment tool, which is particularly targeted for social sciences and humanities. After setting out the organisational context in which these journal ratings emerged, the analysis highlights the main steps of their production, the criticism they received after publication, especially from journals, and the changes made during the ensuing revision process. The particular tensions of a tool designed as both a political instrument and a scientific apparatus are also discussed.
Titre
en
The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities
Auteur(s)
David Pontille1, 2
, Didier Torny3
1
Anthropologie de l'écriture
( 57575 )
- 105 bd Raspail 75006 Paris
- France
Institut interdisciplinaire d'anthropologie du contemporain UMR8177 ( 13175 )
;
École des hautes études en sciences sociales ( 99539 )
;
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UMR8177 ( 441569 )
2
IIAC -
Institut interdisciplinaire d'anthropologie du contemporain
( 13175 )
- 54, boulevard Raspail - 75006 Paris
- France
École des hautes études en sciences sociales ( 99539 )
;
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UMR8177 ( 441569 )
3
RiTME -
Risques, Travail, Marchés, Etat
( 185961 )
- 65 Bld de Brandebourg 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine
- France
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique UR1323 ( 92114 )
Page/Identifiant
347-360
Numéro
5
Volume
19
Comité de lecture
Oui
Audience
Internationale
Date de publication
2010-12
Nom de la revue
Research Evaluation
(ISSN : 0958-2029, ISSN électronique : 1471-5449)
Publié par Oxford University Press (OUP)
Revue non référencée dans Sherpa-Romeo
Vulgarisation
Non
Date de production/écriture
2010-12-01
Langue du document
Français
Localisation géographique du document
UAR 1005 Unité des services collectifs d'Ivry, Centre de recherche de Paris, 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine, FRA (PAR.TOR.2010)
Public visé
Scientifique
Version du document
version éditeur
Domaine(s)
Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Histoire, Philosophie et Sociologie des sciences
Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Sociologie
Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Sciences de l'information et de la communication
David Pontille, Didier Torny. The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 2010, 19 (5), pp.347-360. ⟨10.3152/095820210X12809191250889⟩. ⟨halshs-00568746v2⟩