Problematizing Digital Research Evaluation using DOIs in Practice-Based Arts, Humanities and Social Science Research [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5dy]

This paper explores emerging practices in research data management in the arts, humanities and social sciences (AHSS). It will do so vis-à-vis current citation conventions and impact measurement for research in AHSS. Case study findings on research data inventoried at Goldsmiths’, University of London will be presented. Goldsmiths is a UK research-intensive higher education institution which specialises in arts, humanities and social science research. The paper’s aim is to raise awareness of the subject-specific needs of AHSS scholars to help inform the design of future digital tools for impact analysis in AHSS. Firstly, I shall explore the definition of research data and how it is currently understood by AHSS researchers. I will show why many researchers choose not to engage with digital dissemination techniques and ORCID. This discussion must necessarily include the idea that practice-based and applied AHSS research are processes which are not easily captured in numerical ‘sets’ and cannot be labelled electronically without giving careful consideration to what a group or data item ‘represents’ as part of the academic enquiry, and therefore how it should be cited and analysed as part of any impact assessment. Then, the paper will explore: the role of the monograph and arts catalogue in AHSS scholarship; how citation practices and digital impact measurement in AHSS currently operate in relation to authorship and how digital identifiers may hypothetically impact on metrics, intellectual property (IP), copyright and research integrity issues in AHSS. I will also show that, if we are to be truly interdisciplinary, as research funders and strategic thinkers say we should, it is necessary to revise the way we think about digital research dissemination. This will involve breaking down the boundaries between AHSS and other types of research