Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

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

David Pontille 1, 2 Didier Torny 3 
1 Anthropologie de l'Ecriture/Equipe IIAC
EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales, CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique : UMR8177
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.
Complete list of metadata

Cited literature [63 references]  Display  Hide  Download
Contributor : Didier Torny Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Monday, March 14, 2011 - 5:42:09 PM
Last modification on : Wednesday, April 27, 2022 - 9:14:06 AM


Files produced by the author(s)




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



Record views


Files downloads