IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v19y2010i5p347-360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • David Pontille
  • Didier Torny

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 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. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • David Pontille & Didier Torny, 2010. "The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 347-360, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:5:p:347-360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820210X12809191250889
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jerome K. Vanclay & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: a critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 751-771, June.
    2. Tindaro Cicero & Marco Malgarini, 2020. "On the use of journal classification in social sciences and humanities: evidence from an Italian database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1689-1708, November.
    3. Ballestar, María Teresa & Doncel, Luis Miguel & Sainz, Jorge & Ortigosa-Blanch, Arturo, 2019. "A novel machine learning approach for evaluation of public policies: An application in relation to the performance of university researchers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Václav Linkov & Kieran O’Doherty & Eunsoo Choi & Gyuseog Han, 2021. "Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    5. Yi-Ching Liaw & Te-Yi Chan & Chin-Yuan Fan & Cheng-Hsin Chiang, 2014. "Can the technological impact of academic journals be evaluated? The practice of non-patent reference (NPR) analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 17-37, October.
    6. Vanessa Sandoval-Romero & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 99-126, January.
    7. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    8. Nicky Agate & Rebecca Kennison & Stacy Konkiel & Christopher P. Long & Jason Rhody & Simone Sacchi & Penelope Weber, 2020. "The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Franc Mali, 2013. "Why an Unbiased External R&D Evaluation System is Important for the Progress of Social Sciences—the Case of a Small Social Science Community," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Paul Benneworth, 2015. "Between certainty and comprehensiveness in evaluating the societal impact of humanities research," CHEPS Working Papers 201502, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    11. Hans P. W. Bauer & Gabriel Schui & Alexander Eye & Günter Krampen, 2013. "How does scientific success relate to individual and organizational characteristics? A scientometric study of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 523-539, February.
    12. Pajić, Dejan, 2015. "On the stability of citation-based journal rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 990-1006.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:5:p:347-360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.