[Humanist] 26.348 kinds of publication

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Thu Oct 4 09:46:48 CEST 2012


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 348.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:00:03 +0100
        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
        Subject: kinds of publication

With our Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) looming here in the U.K. 
there is much talk about what will count to what extent in the metrics 
of importance. It is commonplace to hear that one should *not* publish 
in edited collections, the reputation of which, it seems, is tainted by 
the belief that getting in is more a matter of who you know than of 
scholarly merit. I for one am ignoring this word-to-the-wise advice and 
would be pleased to hear that others are as well. I do so because I 
depend myself to a high degree on such collections, often finding 
treasures in them; because I hear from respected colleagues that much of 
what they've published has been in such venues; and because I suspect 
that by its current nature our field and edited collections suit each 
other very well indeed. What for the spread of understanding and 
acceptance could be better than publishing in a collection centred on a 
topic dear to one of our disciplinary relations?

For the first of my reasons (rhetorically stated as a cause) I cite G.C. 
Bunn, A.D. Lovie and G.D. Richards, eds., Psychology in Britain: 
Historical essays and personal reflections (Leicester: British 
Psychological Society, 2001), in which I discovered the following:

Rhodri Hayward, "'Our friends electric': mechanical models of mind in 
postwar Britain";
Margaret A. Boden, "Purpose, personality, creativity: A computational 
adventure";
Richard L. Gregory, "Adventures of a maverick"

Hayward's was the reason for opening the book; Boden's, Gregory's (and 
perhaps others, later on today) have been unexpectedly rewarding. 
Boden's, which I just finished, is quite inspiring.

I suspect that some here will be forced by circumstances to defend the 
indefensible as far as publishing metrically understood is concerned. 
But let it be widely recognized that the indefensible *is* indefensible. 
And let it be asked, what sort of good will we be in the long term to
society if we go along passively with such dictates?

Comments?

Yours,
WM
-- 
Willard McCarty, FRAI / Professor of Humanities Computing & Director of
the Doctoral Programme, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College
London; Professor, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics,
University of Western Sydney; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
(www.isr-journal.org); Editor, Humanist
(www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/); www.mccarty.org.uk/




More information about the Humanist mailing list