1. Heritage Science A New Journal Richard Brereton heritage.science.journal@gmail.com

2. 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

3. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 3

4. 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 Richard BreretonSlide 4

5. 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 Richard BreretonSlide 5

6. 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 Richard BreretonSlide 6

7. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 7

8. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 8

9. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 9

10. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 10

11. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 11

12. Success Already getting reasonable citations in Scopus and Google Scholar for initial papers, remember only a year in the system Richard BreretonSlide 12

13. 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

14. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 14

15. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 15

16. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 16

17. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 17

18. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 18

19. 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). Richard BreretonSlide 19

20. Projections summary Richard BreretonSlide 20

21. 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. Richard BreretonSlide 21

22. Acknowledgements Jan Kuras (Chemistry Central) Bailey Fallon (Formerly Chemistry Central) Charlotte Hollingworth (Chemistry Central) Many active EB members Richard BreretonSlide 22