When my friends in the natural sciences talk about academic journals, they can easily spout off the top journals (Science, Nature), and the top journals in their subfields (I do not really pay attention when my friends are speaking, so I do not have any handy examples of that). I think there might be something similar, though perhaps not as strong, for social science journals--ways to rank or sort journals by their impact or their prestige. I do not think this exists for the Humanities. There are top journals, and a miasma of everything else, without any sort of rhyme or reason.
This came up the other day as I was talking to a historian, who is the only historian at a branch campus of a large state university system. That branch campus concentrates on agriculture and technical skills, and has many more "instructors" teaching courses instead of doctorate-level professors because of the structure and goals of the campus.
To gain tenure, he is expected to publish 6 articles in 6-7 years. I first thought, as a historian, that this was strange. No book? Besides, producing a good article every year is a tall order for historians who spend their time sitting in dark lounges wearing corduroy jackets with patches on their elbows.
But then, he suggested that *any* academic publications counted, be it a small State Historical Society journal, or the Journal of American History. Then, it made even less sense to me.
is there a more nuanced Humanities journals ranking that I am unaware of? Does it make sense that *any* publications count--I know that is definitely not true at Research 1 level institutions? Should we be insistent that we publish any and everything, or should we do better, especially in the humanities, with prizing quality over quantity?