The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities

Abstract : 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.
Type de document :
Article dans des revues
Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy F - Oxford Open Option D, 2010, 19 (5), pp.347-360. <10.3152/095820210X12809191250889>


https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00568746
Contributeur : Didier Torny <>
Soumis le : lundi 14 mars 2011 - 17:42:09
Dernière modification le : lundi 30 mai 2011 - 14:17:00

Fichier

DPDT_2010_Research_Evaluation_...
Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)

Identifiants

Collections

Citation

David Pontille, Didier Torny. The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy F - Oxford Open Option D, 2010, 19 (5), pp.347-360. <10.3152/095820210X12809191250889>. <halshs-00568746v2>

Exporter

Partager

Métriques

Consultation de
la notice

1562

Téléchargement du document

428