Menu

ENRESSH Deliverables

By 5 September 2017

On this page you will find the main ENRESSH deliverables. Please note that all deliverables of ENRESSH are under a Creative commons license, CC_BY_NC_ND_SA.

The ENRESSH Manifesto in English and other languages:

Challenges of the evaluation of social sciences and humanities research (SSH) ENRESSH – European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH: Guidelines_SSH_final

Translations

Good practice manual on databases for research output

In this manual of good practices for the maintenance of national bibliographic databases for research output, we outline several aspects that we regard as especially important for databases that are used for evaluation and funding allocation purposes.

Recommendations for evaluation agencies on the construction of national labelled lists of journals and publishers, classification of journals and publishers

This paper presents an overview of different kinds of lists of scholarly publication channels and of experiences related to construction and maintenance of national lists supporting performance-based research finding systems. It also contributes with a set of recommendations for the construction and maintenance of national lists of journals and book publishers.

List of institutions: Updated April 2019

Who evaluates the SSH? ENRESSH participants have put together a list of institutions, organisations, and bodies involved, in each country, in SSH research evaluation. While information about certain countries is still missing, this is the first time a global picture is put together about the variety of agents concerned with the subject, and the variety of evaluative activities they perform, at different levels.
The list is published, in this updated version, in an excel format. ENRESSH is actually studying the feasibility of transforming it into a database, and gathers short descriptions of each of the institutions mentioned in this document. The document can be found here.

Report of WG1 on Projects on SSH Scholars’ Notions of Research Quality in Participating Countries

What does research quality mean? This question becomes important when research is evaluated but remains largely unanswered, especially regarding the social sciences and humanities (SSH). This report gives an overview on empirical projects that explicitly investigate the notions of research quality of SSH scholars. Such projects are scarce and often not much known, yet are of great importance, as only with knowledge on what is to be measured, we can find adequate indicators for research quality.

Final report of WG1 on Peer Review Practices in the SSH

This report identifies the challenges particularly relevant for the SSH, such as different
and thus often conflicting research paradigms or epistemological styles of reviewers
and applicants or authors; difficulty in many SSH disciplines to define and evaluate research
methodology compared to STEM disciplines; the lack of the idea of linear progress
and a much longer time span necessary to evaluate academic impact of publications; the
diversity of publication outputs and specific importance of books or monographs; the importance
of local languages; challenges related to recent developments in research and its
evaluation related to growing interdisciplinarity and Open Science turn. To this, the general
challenges of peer review are added, such as the risk of gender bias, conservative bias,
work load for all parties involved.

Report of WG3 on databases

This document provides an overview of European databases and repositories for research output within the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The focus is on national databases that are currently in use.

This overview is a result of a survey conducted within the framework of European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities (ENRESSH, www.enresshcost.eu).

2017_ENRESSH_European_Databases

Report on VIRTA Pilot and Proof of Concept

We have succeeded in setting up an experimental database integrating metadata of publications from six different universities in four countries. This is an important step towards realizing the enormous potential of a publication information service at the European level. Such a service can provide institutions with feedback and benchmark indicators regarding their publications. All of this was possible thanks to the initiative of dr. Hanna-Mari Puuska from the CSC – IT Center for Science, Finland.

DescriptionoftheVIRTApilotprocess

Documents from the Prague Stakeholder Meeting

The first ENRESSH stakeholder meeting too place in Prague on the 19th to 20th January 2017.

ENRESSH has numerous stakeholders, this meeting addressed policy makers at national level in European countries. Details of the event can be found on the specific meeting page SSH Evaluation: Reconciling needs and methods

Below you will find the support slides and other documents from the meeting as they become available.

Opening speech by Dr. Ioana Galleron, chair of the action, and Professor Geoffrey Williams, Work Group four leader: CA15137_Prague_2017.19.01_Introduction

State of the Art from the work groups presented by Dr. Michael Oschsner (Work Group 1), Dr. Reetta Muhonen (Work Group 2) and Dr. Tim Engels (Work Group 3): Prague_state_of_the_art_final

The KeyNote was provided by Dr. Erik Arnold of Technopolis Group: KeyNote_Erik_Arnold

ENRESSH Bibliographical database

The ENRESSH bibliographical database is now available on Zotero. ENRESSH members can contact either the workgroup leaders or specifically the Work Group 4 leader, Professor Geoffrey Williams for any texts that think might need to be added. Work on more detailed reference and tagging is underway.

ENRESSH Policy Briefs

Spring 2020: Better Adapted Procedures for Research Evaluation in the SSH

An adequate research evaluation in the SSH (and beyond) corresponds to the research practices, makes its policy goals explicit, involves all stakeholders, ensures diversity of evaluation practices by respecting research’s local and international embeddedness, uses a broad range of explicit quality criteria adequate for the discipline(s) under evaluation, evaluates each criterion separately, is based on informed peer review combining qualitative judgement and quantitative information, respects interdisciplinarity and does not prioritise some fields over others. Download the full policy brief here.

Autumn 2018: Communication, evaluation and impact of Social Sciences and Humanities

ENRESSH argues that societal impact should be evaluated in its context to stimulate societally relevant research . Disciplinary and national differences should be acknowledged to allow for optimal communication with peers and stakeholders. Communicating with the right stakeholders in the most suitable ways is key to achieving impacts. The brief was circulated among all participants of the Pathways to Impact from SSH Research conference in Vienna (28/29 November 2018) and can be downloaded here.

 

Recommendation and guidelines for proof-based impact narratives

Good impact evaluation should match with how scientists themselves define “good impact”, reinforcing it as a widely accepted norm for what good scientists do. Guidelines for evidence-led evaluation of research impact in the SSH can be downloaded here.

 

Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication

ENRESSH is one of the founding signatories of the Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication. Policy-makers, leaders, universities, research institutions, research funders, libraries, and researchers are invited to sign the Helsinki Initiative to promote multilingualism in scholarly communication.

ENRESSH supports the Helsinki Initiative with its statement “Balanced Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication”, which is available in multiple languages:

ENRESSH Publications

ENRESSH proofs to be a fertile ground for research collaborations. Many of these collaborations involve members from three or more countries. These are the papers resulting from such multi-country collaborations:

  1. Emanuel Kulczycki, Raf Guns, Janne Pölönen, Tim C. E. Engels, Ewa A. Rozkosz, Alesia A. Zuccala, Kasper Bruun, Olli Eskola, Andreja Istenič Starčič, Michal Petr and Gunnar Sivertsen (2020). ‘Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Seven‐Country European Study’ in ASIS&T (Open Access).
  2. Marc Vanholsbeeck, Theodosia Demetriou, Agne Girkontaite, Andreja Istenic Starcic, Ville Keiski, Emanuel Kulczycki, Elena Papanastasiou, Janne Pölönen, Hulda Proppe and Maja Vehovec (2019). ‘Senior academics as key negotiators in the implementation of impact policies in the social sciences and humanities.‘ in fteval Journal for Science and Technology Policy Evaluation (Open Access), 48, pp 72-79.
  3. Emmanuel Kulczycki, Ewa A. Rozkosz, Tim. C.E. Engels, Raf Guns, Marek Hołowiecki & Janne Pölönen (2019). ‘How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing.’ In: PlosOne (Open Access).
  4. Muhonen Reetta, Benneworth Paul & Julia Olmos-Peñuela (2019). ‘From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact.‘ In: Research Evaluation, 1–14.
  5. Engels, T. C., Istenič Starčič, A., Kulczycki, E., Pölönen, J., & Sivertsen, G. (2018). ‘Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities?’ In: Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 592-607.
  6. Pölönen, J., Auranen, O., Engels, T., & Kulczycki, E. (2018, September). ‘Taking national language publications into account: the case of the Finnish performance-based research funding system’. In: 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), September 12-14, 2018, Leiden, The Netherlands. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).
  7. Puuska, H. M., Guns, R., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., & Engels, T. (2018). ‘Proof of concept of a European database for social sciences and humanities publications: description of the VIRTA-ENRESSH pilot.’
  8. Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T. C., Guns, R., Kulczycki, E., Ochsner, M., … & Zuccala, A. A. (2019). ‘Taking scholarly books into account, part II: A comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding.’ Scientometrics, 1-19.
  9. Ochsner, M., Kulczycki, E., & Gedutis, A. (2018, September). ‘The Diversity of European Research Evaluation Systems.’ In: 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018), September 12-14, 2018, Leiden, The Netherlands. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).
  10. Sīle, L., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Guns, R., Engels, T. C., Arefiev, P., … & Macan, B. (2018). ‘Comprehensiveness of national bibliographic databases for social sciences and humanities: Findings from a European survey’. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 310-322.
  11. Ribeiro, B., Bengtsson, L., Benneworth, P., Bührer, S., Castro-Martínez, E., Hansen, M., … & Shapira, P. (2018). ‘Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation.’ Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(3), 316-331.
  12. Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., … & Zuccala, A. (2018). ‘Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries.’ Scientometrics, 1-24.
  13. Galleron, I., Ochsner, M., Spaapen, J., & Williams, G. (2017). ‘Valorizing SSH research: towards a new approach to evaluate SSH research’s value for society.’ fteval Journal for Science and Technology Policy Evaluation, 44, 34-40.
  14. Galleron, I., Ochsner, M., Spaapen, J., & Williams, G. (2017). ‘Evaluating to valorise: the societal value of SSH research and the ENRESSH COST Action.’ fteval Journal for Science and Technology Policy Evaluation, 43 (Proceedings of the Open Evaluation 2016 conference in Vienna), 175-177.

Please, take a look at the full list of papers resulting from the work of ENRESSH members. This list includes papers written by members from a single or two countries as well.

Proceedings RESSH

Final report of the Action

This Final report of the Action sums up the outcomes of activities, conferences, short-term scientific missions, highlights potential follow-on activities of the ENRESSH.

273044443088396