Dear Martin,
Yes, the MHRA (Modern Humanities Research Association) considered this
issue, with Robin Osborne's letter before us, at our meeting on
Saturday. We had some doubts about the argument and the rhetoric in
para. 2 of the letter. But we share the fear that the distinction
between 'A' and 'B'-rated journals will be interpreted as meaning that
the latter are inferior, and we have no confidence in the process by
which journals have been assigned to one or the other category.
Yours
Ritchie
Martin Durrell wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Following Beate Müller's circular about ERIH, I was wondering to what
> extent germanists or modern linguists have actually been involved in
> the controversy surrounding the ERIH list of publications. Checking
> back, I see that there was a meeting of subject associations at the
> AHRC on 27 February, at which no modern language association appears
> to have been represented. I am not sure, either, whether the list to
> which Beate gives a link is the original list from 2007 or the revised
> one (which was expected to be 'forthcoming' in July). One of the
> problems is that 'modern languages' is not identified as a 'subject'
> by the ESF, but split between various 'fields'.
>
> A number of Arts & Humanities subject associations (and, especially,
> journal editors) have been extermely alarmed at the arbitrary nature
> of this list and the potential danger in the uses to which it will
> inevitably be put. Robin Osborne, Professor of Ancient History in
> Cambridge, set up a group earlier this year called AHRRG ('Arts &
> Humanities Rapid Response Group') to coordinate resistance and lean on
> AHRC (although even if resistance is ultimately useless, the worst
> excesses might be alleviated). This has since morphed into A-HUG
> ('Arts & Humanities Users Group') whose views on the exercise are
> given in the draft letter to Prof. Esler at AHRC appended below my
> signature (the mailbase does not permit attachments).
>
> Given this, I wonder whether completing the feedback form might give a
> credibility to the exercise which many colleagues in Arts & Humanities
> subjects would deny it, and that some kind of coordinated response (by
> CUTG?) with colleagues in other subject areas might be a preferable
> alternative.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Martin
>
|