New Guide to Web 2.0/Social Media for Arts and Humanities

Chances are, if you are reading this post, then you are already familiar with Web 2.0 tools that can facilitate you in your research. But if not, you might like to check out Web 2.0 for arts and humanities researchers which is a resource created by Newcastle University Library to show academic researchers (particularly in arts and humanities) how web 2.0 (or 'social media') can help at all stages of the research process. The site contains brief web tutorials illustrated with real-life examples. Worth a look!

Open Access for the Humanities?

This is International Open Access week (19-23 October 2009) with many events taking place to raise awareness of this mode of scholarly communication. However, to date, Open Access has achieved most success in the science and technology fields where the dissemination of written knowledge has traditionally taken place via journal articles and conference proceedings.

If you are interested in finding out how this model of publishing can be applied to the Humanities, where the monograph is the preferred method of scholarly communication, take a look at the OAPEN project. A new resources page has recently been added covering the latest new in Open Access book publishing.

High Cost of Publishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences

It costs more to publish an article in a humanities or social sciences (HSS) journal than to publish one in a science, technical, or medical (STM) journal – over three times as much, according to a report soon to be released by the National Humanities Alliance in the United States.

The full report is to be released as soon as possible, according to NHA committee chairman William E. Davis. In the meantime, a summary by Jennifer Howard in July 20th's Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription required] has been generating much discussion and comment.

Given the high reported cost - an average $9,994 per article in HSS to an average $2,670 in STM - most conclude that the author-pays open access model that serves STM publications will not be feasible for HSS researchers, for whom less grant money is available in the first place to cover such costs. Nevertheless, the NHA chairman says that he and other HSS publishers will figure out some alternative open access model that will suit HSS. “We will,” Mr Davis said, “because we have to.”

Also mentioned in the report is the finding that acceptance rates are significantly lower for articles submitted to HSS journals - 11% for HSS, to STM's 42%. HSS researchers are thus further disadvantaged in an environment where numbers of publications are used as a measure of success.

It is on this last finding that Kathleen Fitzpatrick focuses on the MediaCommons blog. Fitzpatrick suggests that, as the pre-publication filtering needs of HSS publications are so strong and therefore so expensive, and as we are no longer constrained by the bounds of what we can print and ship, it might be better to eliminate all but the most functional pre-publication print review. A journal's editorial staff could look over each article to ensure that it is basically appropriate, then post it online and allow the readers to do the peer review. The Houghton report in the UK, summarised here, analysed and costed this model and concluded that "Open access self-archiving with overlay services would result in a saving of over 50% on subscription publishing."

An interesting alternative response to the report comes from Cathy Davidson, co-founder of the Humanities, Arts, Science & Technology Advanced Collaboratory. Davidson suggests in this blog post that "Perhaps universities simply need to consider the cost of running humanities and social science publishing as one of the intrinsic costs of these fields, offset by the enormous number of students we teach ... and the lower equipment and technology costs".

Assessing Research Impact in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

“If we wish to resist the mechanical imposition of standardised citation measures then we need to suggest reasonable grounds for exempting certain fields from metric assessment and propose alternatives.”

So writes Professor Tom Lodge, Assistant Dean Research AHSS, UL, in a memorandum which urges Social Sciences and Humanities researchers to publish, where possible, in formats that lend themselves to comparable, if not statistical, indications of impact. Professor Lodge goes on to outline some of the alternative measures that might be used to indicate the standing and quality of published work in AHSS, including:

Books
o Consider the status of the publisher, perhaps compiling lists of top ten publishers in various fields
o Pay attention to review coverage, noting the standing of the reviewing journals as well as the content of the reviews
o Distinguish between refereed and non-refereed books
o Consider a book’s publishing history e.g. reprints and second subsequent editions may be considered to signal impact
o Consider a book’s sales figures, allowing for adjustments where a publication is in a very specialised field

Journals not indexed by Web of Science
o Consider using Publish or Perish, a citation analysis tool which analyses Google Scholar
o Refer to the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) for journal ratings
o Gather information from publishers

Other
o Consider work that shapes public policy debates
o Consider the status of conferences, and ranking of conference participation

Professor Lodge’s full memorandum can be accessed here, or on the library webpage (www.ul.ie/library) under Supporting Research -> Research Publication and Dissemination -> Citation Analysis.

Don't devalue the insight or 'What are the humanities for?'

John Armstrong, philosopher in residence at the Melbourne Business School, argues that the answering of the question in the title above has serious implications for how the humanities are studied, how they are funded and how their success – or failure – is measured.
While the choice politically often seems to be whether to a) honour (and fund) the humanities for their own sake or b) demand that the humanities contribute something more tangible to society, Armstrong suggests that both sides have something to offer.
The mistake, says Armstrong, has been to look for a side benefit (e.g. studying Latin helps you to deal with abstractions) and then to try to justify a whole discipline on that slender basis.
Instead we should look to life's most difficult practical questions - 'What are we really trying to accomplish and why, in the long run, would it be so good to do that?’ - and at how a discipline helps us to answer those questions. What is it that is of intrinsic benefit?
The humanities, Armstrong concludes, become more practical not by disavowing their core concerns but by understanding them more clearly and by seeing them as being in the service of life, not in the service of academics.

Link to the full The Australian article