Heritage Science A New Journal Richard Brereton [email protected]

Heritage ScienceA New Journal

Richard [email protected]

A new journal

• First approved in Summer 2012• First launched in April 2013• Interdisciplinary– Scientific methods applied to our heritage eg• Conservation of buildings, climate change• Provenance of paintings, imaging techniques• Conservation of books, preservation in libraries

Richard BreretonSlide 2

The need

• The profile of Heritage Science is being lifted in the scientific community.

• Significant grants• But Faculty members will be compared e.g. if they

publish in low impact journals they may be compared with others in high impact journals, at present relatively low impact and slow publishing conservation journals plus core science journals

• For grants, PhDs, promotions, need reasonably rapid publication rates.


Editorial Board

• Important first action– Geographically diverse.– 29 people, 3 from US, 2 from UK, France, Italy, 1

from elsewhere– Important to get members from Asian countries

and South America– Cultural studies are very regional and unique to

different parts of the world


Editorial Board Activities

• Essential to get active EB• After 1.5 years 5 members asked to retire. Of

the remaining 25– 16 have submitted papers– 9 are co-ordinating initiatives (thematic issues) in

UK, China, Denmark, Chile, US, Czech Republic, Italy, Austria, mainly conference organisations


Editorial Board Rejuvenation

• 25 out of the original 29 have been active e.g. as authors, referees, conference organisers

• Small number of dormant members, replacing by colleagues identified eg by previous record of publishing papers

• Don’t expand it – because the close editorial association is lost


Structure

• Keep it simple.• Initially submissions will be modest.• No point complex structure (many editors,

very large EB) until the volume of papers is increased.

• Relatively modest EB means quite personalised interaction with editor and publisher.


Initial papers

• Very few unsolicited papers.• Need to acquire papers.• Launch in April 2013. Majority of papers from

EB or personally invited from myself. Two transferred from CCJ (parent journal).

• Conferences / meetings main source.


Thematic issues

• Main source of papers.• Many people in this area publish in

conferences.• Do deals with conference organisers.• EB members very active in organising

meetings.• Modest meetings, typically 5 to 15 papers.


Meetings

• Do not yet aim for large ones.• Some quite small and specialist seminars are

very strong.• For large meetings sift papers so that only a

small number are submitted– Problems in large meetings in this area that many

papers are routine, lots of very routine conservation studies, need papers with innovation in techniques.


Success

• 47 papers published within a year of launch– 36 in 2013– 12 so far in 2014

• Very rapid indexing in Scopus• Ten thematic issues (mainly but not exclusively

meetings) under discussion, most agreed and some already published, keeps critical mass until 2015.


Success• Already getting reasonable citations in Scopus and Google Scholar for

initial papers, remember only a year in the system


Problems : Web of Knowledge

• Indexing in Web of Knowledge important.• Takes several years, have not yet submitted for

consideration.• Some countries, e.g. UK, Japan, are more experienced

in assessing research– WoK and IFs not so important and hence will not be put off

• In other countries they are not so experienced and rely very much on bibliometric indices are will be reluctant to submit.

• Aim to apply to WoK either this year or in 2015.Richard BreretonSlide 13

Problems : Refereeing

• Refereeing speeds often slow in the heritage area, yet modern grant aided research requires high speeds.

• Typical grant– 3 years; Year 1 setting up, Year 2 first results, Year

3 submitting papers.– Grant is assessed and graded after 3.5 years, need

good strong publications by that point.


Problems : Museums

• Museums are a key, most cultural artefacts are in museums.

• The pressure for publication is lower; they do publish outstanding monographs etc. but at a slow speed.

• There is a lot of “grey literature” .• But they are going to be major readers, and

need their involvement.


Problems : Standards

• Too high threshold and not enough papers, need a minimum ca 24 pa for indexing in WoK, so cannot reject too many.

• Too low and low citations.• Many very routine papers in conservation, which

don’t have much scientific innovation.• Several EB members have commented about this

but then they or their colleagues need to submit the high quality papers to keep the volume up.


Problems : Funding

• This area is conservative– There is a huge desire for OA publishing because many

small institutes such as museums and conservation institutes do not have much money for subscriptions to journals.

• But it takes time for funding bodies to accept OA publishing. In some countries it is getting accepted and people are slowly coming on board.

• In other countries rich in cultural gems, funding for research is less strong so harder to convince people.


Problems : The Double Whammy

• Not yet an IF.• Cost for publishing.

Overcoming this.• Getting indexed is important especially by

WoK.• Selective fee waivers in initial periods.• Excellent EB dedicated to this initiative.


Projections

• Once an IF is announced it is thought that the journal will get very strong.

• Despite a huge increase in strength with both financial and academic consequences, a big increase in acceptances is not felt appropriate, increase standards instead.

• Prevent oscillation, huge increase in papers then lower standards and citations and lowering of IF, so increase rejection rate.

• Projections based on acquiring a 2015 IF announced in 2016, it could be earlier (under discussion).


Projections summary


Year IF No of papers 2014 - 40 2015 - 50 2016 1 – 1.5 60 2017 2 - 3 80

Note : Impact Factor announced in 2016 would be for 2015 (announced ca May or June 2016)

Note : Preliminary citations for launch issue appear better (from Scopus) but a few volume filling papers later in 2013 may reduce this, so conservative predictions

Conclusions

• New area.• Often different problems to most journal

published by biomed central / chemistry central.

• Successful first year.• Needs plan and strategy.• EB members and thematic issues vital.• Future listing in WoK essential.


Acknowledgements

• Jan Kuras (Chemistry Central)• Bailey Fallon (Formerly Chemistry Central)• Charlotte Hollingworth (Chemistry Central)• Many active EB members


Documents

Heritage Science A New Journal Richard Brereton [email protected]