Norwegians Grade Archaeology Journals

The other day I took a look at how the European Science Foundation’s ERIH project grades journals in Scandy archaeology. Dear Reader Ismene pointed me to a corresponding list put out by the NDS, “Norwegian Data Support for the Social Sciences”. While ERIH recognises three impact grades plus ungraded journals, the NDS has only two grades plus ungraded. Here’s the list of relevant journals.

Grade 2

  • Acta Archaeologica

  • Fennoscandia Archaeologica
  • Norwegian Archaeological Review

Grade 1

  • Current Swedish Archaeology

  • Fornvännen
  • Journal of Danish Archaeology
  • Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science
  • Kuml — Årbog for Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab
  • Meta — Medeltidsarkeologisk tidskrift Defunct!
  • Primitive tider
  • Viking

ERIH and the NDS agree upon the top importance of Acta Archaeologica and N.A.R. But the NDS has a higher opinion of Fennoscandia Archaeologica and Meta than does ERIH. Conversely, while ERIH finds Hikuin and Iskos and L.A.R. to be important journals, the NDS seems entirely unaware of them. The fact that Primitive Tider and JoNAS are missing from the ERIH list is probably due do their subscription number requirement (>=200).

Anybody here read the Norwegian Archaeological Review? It’s apparently globally important on the level of Antiquity! Please tell me what I’m missing.

Comments

  1. #1 ArchAsa
    November 2, 2008

    I actually concur that NAR should have a top grade – it is a prestigious publication that is quite picky about its contributors. But more importantly, the “Current Anthropology”-style debates with many researchers discussing a topic is one of the few truly interesting contributions from Scandinavia IMO.

    I had no idea Acta A was still so highly regarded, and Fennoscandia… seriously? Why is FA on a higher pedestal than Fornvännen or J o Danish A!? And no Iskos!? The norwegians better shape up pronto.

  2. #2 Martin R
    November 2, 2008

    I don’t think I’ve ever even seen a copy of Fennoscandia.

    What have those N.A.R. debates been about lately? I look forward to being asked to contribute.

  3. #3 ArchAsa
    November 4, 2008

    Don’t we all :D
    I did find the critique of K Kristiansen’s and T B Larsson’s Bronze Age publication interesting, as well as the debate between Bergman and Knutsson on the concept of historicity. To name a few recent contributions.

    Don’t you have an annoying article or book you can critique? How about approaching them with a suggestion?

  4. #4 Martin R
    November 4, 2008

    I try not to read the annoying stuff. Too much good stuff to keep up with!

  5. #5 DianaGainer
    November 11, 2008

    If these lists are anything like the lists I’ve seen in the U.S., who stands where is all politics anyway. Don’t trouble yourself! 100 years from now nobody will know or care one bit who was on either list. All that will be remembered will be the important articles, wherever they were published — whether in Big Name Journal or off in East Podunk Publishes the Back of Beyond.

  6. #6 Martin R
    November 11, 2008

    Yeah, and also 100 years from now nobody will remember whether I published in big-name journals and got tenure or failed to do so and became a bus driver…