[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
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
Margaret A. Boden, "Purpose, personality, creativity: A computational
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?
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
More information about the Humanist