Navigation – Plan du site

The scientific project and editorial practices of the Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances

The Editorial Board
Traduction de Bernadette Goth
Cet article est une traduction de :
Projet scientifique et pratiques éditoriales de la Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances [fr]
Autre(s) traduction(s) de cet article :
Proyecto científico y prácticas editoriales de la Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances [es]

Résumé

This article retraces the scientific and editorial project behind the Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances (RAC), launched in 2007, and in particular the convergence of multiple disciplines that promoted the founding of the journal. It then presents the editorial policy, practices and choices having fashioned it and whose procedures are no less important than its content and epistemic focus. These procedures concern reviewing work but also choice of media (online electronic access), article format, publication language, dissemination (open access to readers) and business model.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Multiple disciplines converge to create the review

  • 1 Conception outlined in the articles of the SAC, which is in charge of publishing the current Revue (...)

1When the Société d’Anthropologie des Connaissances (Anthropology of Knowledge Society, abbreviated to SAC in French) was created, we defined it broadly1 as an organisation devoted to the multidisciplinary study of knowledge produced as discourse, practices or technical devices; and the study of the conditions under which such knowledge is produced, used, transmitted and, more widely, used by groups of human beings.

2Whether the knowledge considered is ordinary or specialised, notably scientific, the objective was to encourage dialogue between research undertaken by several disciplines focusing on cognitive forms and associated human and technical processes. The choice of a multidisciplinary approach also resulted from the meeting up of three groups of researchers prior to the creation of the SAC:

  • a group of researchers specialising in sociology and other human sciences, brought together by the psycho-sociologist Jean-Pierre Poitou, who at the time published the Technologies, Idéologies, Practiques review, already subheaded Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances;

  • the French-language community of researchers focusing on the social studies of science, technology and innovation that had developed in the 2000’s as part of a Working Group and then as a Research Committee of the Association Internationale des Sociologues de Langue Française (International Association of French-Language Sociologists, abbreviated to AISLF in French);

  • and, finally, researchers in psychology and ergonomics working on practices that were alternative to the rising wave of the cognitive sciences.

3Thus, Jean-Pierre Poitou2 created the Technologies, Idéologies, Pratiques (TIP) journal in 1979,3 which, as of 1998, bore the subheading Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances and was looking to be taken over. TIP published articles exploring the psychological, social, technical, economic and political dimensions of knowledge. Its objective was to push beyond disciplinary boundaries, notably those of the sociology of knowledge. It took a particular interest in technical objects as it strove to identify the practices and skills needed by people in order to assimilate and use knowledge, as well as the associated forms of labour division. Each edition shed light on a particular technical field, notably graphic design, artificial intelligence, transport, agriculture, and the role of technical knowledge in the political economy. The last editions addressed technical thinking, work and skills, learning and memory, design work, expertise and new production models. Some of the authors involved in editing specific theme-based publications and belonging to the Editorial board4 helped to launch the Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances (RAC) (notably Rigas Arvanitis, Christian Brassac, Blandine Brill and Jean-Pierre Darré), or have since contributed to it by writing for it (notably Jacques Theureau) or serving the RAC as referee.

4The second group, containing more potential authors, was made up of researchers in social studies of science and technology. This group had the opportunity of coming together during the congress of the International Association of French Language Sociologists (AISLF) organised in Montreal in 2000 and in Tours in 2004 as well as during the study days in Dijon in 2003, and in Grenoble in 2006 organised by a Working Group and then as a Research Committee for the Association. The Research Committee had expressed the need for a high-quality academic publication in the French language. This was then transformed into the idea of creating a new journal, promoted notably by Dominique Vinck within this committee. It seemed necessary to capitalise on research that took into account not only conventions, organisations and social dynamics but also knowledge content, institutions, cultures, corporeality, materials and instruments. The idea was also to provide a space where the youngest researchers could publish their work.

5The third group comprised researchers in psychology and ergonomics, in particular Christian Brassac and Béatrice Cahour, who were developing alternative approaches to the rising movement of the cognitive sciences, which tended to decontextualise knowledge production processes. Inspired notably by the works of Edwin Hutchins (1994) and his notion of distributed cognition and those of Lucy Suchman (1987) with her notion of situated action, they considered that the rigorous protocols of experimental psychology or the neurosciences were not enough to gain a deep understanding of knowledge-related activities and processes (memory, analysis, calculation, evaluation, learning, judgement, etc.), since these also depend on the interactions between individuals and objects and instruments.

The last editions of TIP before the handover to RAC

The last editions of TIP reported on the close articulation between the importance awarded to technical objects and the question of knowledge. The 1998 edition focused on shipbuilding and addressed the simultaneous changes to design and building techniques seen as institutionalised processes. It notably called on contributions from archaeologists, historians and sociologists. The 1999 edition explored the articulations between memory and technique. That of 2000 studied production activities, the importance of innovation and the management of knowledge in the context of corporate competitiveness and collective knowledge by fostering dialogue between economists and sociologists. The 2002 edition focused on technical skills by returning to the work of the great anthropologists Marcel Mauss and André Leroi-Gourhan and turning its attention to ergonomics in order to engage a dialogue between the human sciences and life sciences. This dialogue explored the mechanisms used to control gesture, together with its associated biomechanical constraints, the way a skill is taught or learnt, its cultural variations and innovations, and the way it is adapted in order to fill a gap. Finally, the last edition of TIP, in 2004, before the handover to RAC, explored technical thinking and work in classical antiquity as it followed the path blazed by the works of the historian, philologist and philosopher Jean-Pierre Vernant.

6The idea to found a scholarly society and a high-quality scientific journal dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of cognitive processes and products without reducing these through simplistic explanations, whether these be sociological, epistemological, psychological or material, stemmed from the meeting between these three groups and their common references to the works produced by the tradition of cognitive anthropology and sociology (D’Andrade, 1995) and their meticulous descriptions of thinking as it occurs in-situ and within specific groups (Traweek, 1988; Hutchins, 1994, 1995; Conein and Jacopin, 1994; Goodwin, 1995; Quéré, 2003). Indeed, the ambition was to report on the arrangements of logic, mental processes, social dynamics and artefacts as well as on how problems and cognition are transformed as all sorts of components (individuals, content, instruments, etc.) progressively emerge and jostle with each other. The idea was also to act as a counterweight to the dominant trends in epistemology and neurosciences (neurobiology, brain imagery and computer simulation), which tended to present themselves as the ultimate explanatory authority on what should be said about scientific knowledge or cognition. Since both these disciplines had put the social sciences to one side in the statements they constructed, they had entirely decontextualised knowledge production processes.

7As it brought together three schools of thought, this scientific project led us to adopt the term “anthropology” in the broad sense of a multidisciplinary study of practices and behaviours, representations and ideologies, professions, organisations and institutions, techniques and productions according to their specific historical features.

  • 5 See also the article by the philologist David Bouvier (RAC, 2014, 8(4), 605-724) entitled “Le Web d (...)

8The first edition of the Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances (RAC) reflected the project as outlined above through five articles. The first, written by Jean-Pierre Poitou, develops thinking about the management of knowledge, arguing that it is a constitutive dimension of any cognitive activity, far beyond managerial ideology and the tool box of best practices. This component of cognition has its own history5 in which economic and technical aspects are linked. Cognitive anthropology therefore involves the study of production as a cognitive activity geared to the collective organisation of mental activities and the creation of shared cultural heritages, especially technical heritages, on which cooperation between individuals and efficient action are founded. The second article by Rémi Barbier and Jean-Yves Trepos puts forward a fresh view of action and actor theories, endowing actors with an ordinary sense of objectivity linked to their engagement possibilities in relation to the diversity of styles in which objects exist socially. The authors describe how this ordinary sense of objectivity is equipped faced with the world’s assemblages, whose political dimension they emphasise. The third article by Nicolas Veyrat, Eric Blanco and Pascale Trompette, focuses on the coupling of objects with humans, notably the dissolving of the boundary separating them. Retracing the history of the transformation of the sociotechnical configurations of spectacles as instruments engaged in world knowledge, the article questions the modern human being as a “hybrid being”. The analysis sheds light on the variety of forms of coupling between subjects, technical artefacts and situations of use. The fourth article by Béatrice Cahour, Christian Brassac, Pierre Vermersch, Jean-Léon Bouraoui, Bernard Pachoud and Pascal Salembier, appraises the use of new communication technologies as it focuses on both the cognitive processes and emotional processes involved in the use of a video and audio communication tool for remote mobile interactions and the dissymmetry generated by the tool. Finally, the last text by Christian Brassac, a social psychologist specialising in collaborative cognitive processes, discusses the work of the geographer Ash Amin and the economist Patrick Cohendet (2004). Both think of knowledge as a practice (knowing) that updates itself within communities mediated by artefacts. Thus, this first edition launched the multidisciplinary debate about how to address objects of knowledge in order to understand cognitive processes, which are seen as assemblages whose transformations should be explored.

9In this article of the anniversary record, we take stock of what has effectively been produced over the last 10 years and compare this to the initial project.

A journal and its editorial practices

10In the first part of this article, we have exclusively addressed the scientific project behind the RAC. However, a journal is not only made up of scientific community and content. It is also fashioned by practices and choices reflecting editorial policy. The procedures adopted are normally no less important than the epistemic focus and content.

Choices and procedures for the evaluation of articles

11Thus, the RAC opted to be a high-quality academic journal and as such set up the appropriate procedures. Its founders and the General Assembly of the SAC decided to engage many reviewers whose opinions were to be provided anonymously (at least two external reviewers). They also determined never to make any mechanical decisions based on anonymous external views. After a short period of hesitation, the RAC also decided to have two in-depth reviews performed by the Editorial board (one reviewer in charge of a specific article and a second in charge of all general articles submitted or articles belonging to a theme-based edition). These reviews were to be backed up by the opinion of guest editors in the case of theme-based editions. Hence, the RAC has engaged in an especially thorough assessment procedure since each article gives rise to four argued and written reviews, at least two of which are external (and kept anonymous). These reviews led then to contradictory debates within the Editorial board (whose members are of course known), fuelled by the in-depth reviews provided by both internal and external reviewers (in the case of theme-based editions, the guest editors also supply their own appraisal, which is also taken into account).

12Furthermore, the RAC chose to set up a substantial Editorial board, made up of ten to twenty people, representing a variety of disciplines and research institutions. The founders of the RAC opted to base their decisions (assignment of articles to reviewers, acceptance, requests for revision, invitation to resubmit and refusal) on collegial deliberations. The decisions and overall recommendation with respect to each article are the responsibility of the Editorial board, which regularly meets and deliberates, based on the external and internal written reviews. The aim of deliberations is to ensure the quality of the works published as well as their interdisciplinary legibility. The deliberations lead to the formulation of an overall direction for a text’s revision together with comments and detailed suggestions. The board’s decision is addressed to authors together with the anonymous reviews of the four or five reviewers concerned. The same procedure applies to resubmitted articles, while articles being revised are only reviewed again internally. Over time, we have nevertheless added a pre-filtering operation, performed by the two internal reviewers. The aim here is to prevent external reviewers from being submerged with inappropriate articles (off topic or non-aligned with academic standards). The authors concerned are either rejected at the pre-filter stage or encouraged to rework their article with the aim of resubmitting. These board deliberations, which are often the scene of lively and, sometimes, heated debates, have also made it possible to set up a scientific group and ensure the relative consistency of the review in spite of the risks of dispersion linked to how open to different approaches the review has always aimed to be. Figure 1 shows the RAC editorial process until the publication.

Figure 1. RAC editorial process

Figure 1. RAC editorial process

13A retrospective look at the review’s evaluation activities offers some quantitative insights. The rejection rate is 60% for Varia items and 30% for theme-based special records. Although the latter figure may seem low, it should be noted that the theme-based special records attract authors with a confirmed interest in the subject matter of the theme. This 10-year review also reveals that, in all, over 600 reviewers have contributed to the evaluation work. A list of these reviewers can be found on the SAC website (http://www.socanco.org/​rubrique31.html) with our thanks.

Reflective editorial choices

14By instituting these procedures, the RAC made the deliberate decision to be open to and supportive of texts by young researchers and, consequently, to make a collective investment to assist authors so that promising texts might achieve top-level publication status, albeit perhaps after several revisions. Indeed, we have always refused to succumb to the pressures of our institutions, and specific international standards, and their belief that a good academic journal is a journal that rejects many articles. Having said this, after 10 years of scientifically rich, if exhausting, experience, we now realise that the majority of our authors are confirmed researchers. Indeed, we have come to wonder if the level of exactingness is not a little too high since it requires our authors to be experienced in research or to be accompanied by experienced researchers from either outside or within the RAC.

15One of the other choices made by the RAC was to maintain the rigour specific to an author’s discipline while at the same time ensuring that contributions could be read by multiple disciplines. This editorial policy has led to many discussions within the board whenever both formal and informal groups promoting a very specific approach have wanted to use the RAC as a channel for publishing their school of thought, regardless of the journal’s global and interdisciplinary project. These discussions have allowed the Editorial board to progressively shape a philosophy and shared conventions, while engaging in fruitful, although often difficult, exchanges with guest editors. With respect to some themes, this has also led to the failure to form an agreement between the Editorial board and the guest editors, resulting in the abandoning of several projects of special issue.

16These discussions about the scientific and disciplinary focus of the RAC have also been the opportunity to review the initial project and reassert its openness to approaches, schools of thought and disciplines, while staying within the initially determined field of the empirical and theoretical study of practices and behaviours, representations and ideologies, professions, organisations and institutions, techniques and productions according to their specific historical features. Nevertheless, from one deliberation to the next, the collective dynamic has sometimes led to the building of a shared vision and hence to the risk of another form of closing-off. Once rendered evident, these instances of internal drifting have always been the subject of discussion and, at times, negotiation to prevent them from prevailing and ensure the journal’s continued openness. This collective watchfulness is reflected in our concern to regularly rearrange the composition of the Editorial board, opening it up in particular to certain under-represented or absent disciplines.

Editorial choices in context: positioning the journal as the extension of the editorial policy

17In terms of types of article, the primary objective of the RAC was to publish empirical and theoretical articles, which may be considered a limiting factor given the diversity of possible formats in scientific publishing (debates and opinions, criticism and responses penned by authors, multimedia articles, interviews, controversial or explicitly engaged letters). This objective can be explained by the considerable amount of additional editorial work that would have required the support of a full-time editorial secretary. By first focusing on top-quality editorial work, i.e. the implementation of robust review procedures and in-depth revision of works submitted, the review’s commitment to publish a greater variety of formats has so far remained a subject of internal debate, a project for the future.

18Furthermore, aside from the request for the very first texts prior to its launch, the RAC chose to only publish articles submitted either as part of a standing open call for articles or as part of a specific call for articles for a special issue edition. The latter are proposed by potential guest editors as part of a standing open call for specific thematic sections. Whatever the case, the articles published have always been submitted by authors rather than being ordered by the Editorial board. The RAC has never given priority to one or other of its editions: general or special issue. Concretely, the influx of special issue articles, some of which have been drafted directly by members of the Editorial board, has been constant, so much so that the first 10 volumes of the RAC were largely based on these contributions. Indeed, their considerable success has led to some readers or institutions believing the review to have no general publications. This impression has been accentuated by web users’ focus on the articles belonging to a special issue section in an edition containing general articles which have at times gone unnoticed. This is why the Editorial board decided to publish specific editions made up exclusively of general articles.

19The RAC also made the risky decision to be a deliberately French language academic journal (all the articles are published in French), while providing metadata (titles, abstracts and key words) in three languages (French, English and Spanish). The substantial introductory articles, designed to report on the literature in a given field and situate the special issue section discussed in the edition, are also published in these three languages. Furthermore, authors can request that their article be published in another language as well as in French. Finally, to ensure that our non French-speaking colleagues do not suffer from the linguistic asymmetries we endure with Anglo-Saxon journals, we have opted to allow authors to submit their article in the language of their choice, accompanied by an extensive abstract in French. The Editorial board is in charge of reviewing the work and interacting with the authors based on the initial and intermediary versions in this chosen language. It is only once the final version has been validated by the Editorial board that the authors are asked to provide their article in perfect French.

20The RAC also chose to translate and publish good texts written by colleagues unfamiliar to the French-speaking academic world (from South America, Asia or Eastern Europe or other non French-speaking European countries), although this aim has rarely been fulfilled. The idea is not to call upon these colleagues to specifically write for the RAC, but rather to select some of their stimulating publications and have them translated and published in French.

Business model, consultation and referencing

Anchoring the RAC in the French scientific publishing landscape

21The Société d’Anthropologie des Connaissances (SAC) is in charge of publishing the RAC and financing its dissemination. It manages the journal’s business model and the costs of its distribution by CAIRN (https://www.cairn.info/​revue-anthropologie-des-connaissances.htm). In 2014, the association also took charge of the review’s paper edition within the framework of an author’s contract with EAC (http://www.archivescontemporaines.com/​#). In addition, the SAC has a website (http://www.socanco.org/​) edited by Rigas Arvanitis. The site keeps regularly updated information about the association’s activities and guides authors through the Publications management system (submission, evaluation, editing) via the Open Journal System (http://rac.inra-ifris.org/​index.php/​rac/​about/​submissions#onlineSubmissions).

22The SAC holds the transfer rights of the authors published in the review although the authors are under no financial obligation. While the SAC is entitled to distribute their work online via the CAIRN portal (as part of a dissemination contract), both authors and publishers of special issue records are free to distribute work electronically using the same dissemination format on condition they reference the original distribution URL and DOI.

23Thus, the SAC chose to promote free access to knowledge and hence to offer an open-access review to its readers (readers and their institutions do not have to subscribe to the journal or buy the articles). The aim here is above all to facilitate access to the knowledge published by researchers with fewer means in their institutions (PhD students, as well as researchers in certain regions of the world such as Africa and Latin America). Initially, the idea was to provide online publications via the private electronic CAIRN portal, alongside a large number of top-quality academic journals drawing considerable reader traffic which grew as the RAC gained recognition. However, this decision has been regularly discussed.

24Following some discussions among the founding members when the RAC was created, the SAC also chose not to require payment from authors. Until 2012, the existence and regular publishing of the journal depended on institutions and research organisations or labs, which had to be convinced to support our editorial project every year. It also means that the running of the journal is fully ensured by its members, notably Professors and Research Directors. This is not the best solution but one that is inevitable as long as the journal does not adhere to the dominant models and does not wish to depend on a specific institution with a full-time employee acting as an editorial secretary and community manager in charge of digital practices (the latter being an increasingly important role today).

25These financial questions have often been discussed by the members of the SAC. The scientific publishing sector is undergoing some deep-reaching transformations, the outcome of which is difficult to anticipate in spite of an evident concentration of publishing businesses on an international scale and a strong questioning of cognitive capitalism by many researchers from all disciplines. As of 2012, under the leadership of its president, Marc Barbier, the society decided to test a business model based on solidarity. According to this principle of solidarity, it is up to the review’s authors to embrace the review’s challenge and the editorial project by joining the SAC as members and/or by providing direct support from their resources (state subsidies, contracts, etc.) to finance the dissemination of the papers directly. The model is not therefore based on author payment and all transfer rights are free from any financial transaction with authors. Thus, with our guest editors, we strive to obtain ad-hoc financial support in relation to the themes addressed in the editions published, while we call on our authors to provide support, which is often covered by their laboratory, only once the decision to publish their article has been taken.

26Since 2013, the business model has also aimed to provide free and immediate access to the works published to ensure free dissemination of knowledge while involving the authors in the economics of this dissemination on a voluntary basis. The authors are invited to contribute financially to the electronic dissemination of their work, which is published whether or not they do. This means that, to date, only 50% of the production and dissemination costs are covered by the voluntary contributions of the authors and guest editors (see figure 2). Hence the dissemination of the RAC also relies on direct assistance in the form of subsidies from public institutions or laboratories that have supported the review since its creation: the PACTE unit, the INRA, the IRD, the IFRIS and the CNRS. Without this support, the RAC could not exist! In addition, it should not be forgotten that the work of the editorial board members also represents a substantial amount of hidden costs. Based on more than 1,600 article evaluations estimated from our OJS system, this “hidden” cost can be estimated at the hourly price of a researcher, which leads to an additional amount of 100,000 €. The working time of the board members would also be recorded at the rate of 5 meetings of the editorial board per year in addition to the work of editing and publishing, a total estimated at 300,000 € over ten years. In total the review would have cost about 400,000 €.

Figure 2. RAC revenue and expenditure in 2015

Figure 2. RAC revenue and expenditure in 2015

27Compared with the standard system of author payment by scientific publishers who sell the authors’ work back to the institutions that provide them with a salary, this model can be qualified as being based on economics and solidarity. The RAC thus offers an economical dissemination of authors’ works, in the sense that the costs incurred are only those required to cover dissemination, and depends on the voluntary contribution of institutions and authors, who are under no obligation. Hence, to publish any given edition, the cost is between 1500 and 1800 euros depending on the number of pages. It can be emphasized that the cost of dissemination is minimal in relation to the cost of scientific edition.

Analysis of article consultation

28The consultation of research disseminated on the Cairn portal is monitored based on the statistics provided online by Cairn (reading of abstracts and articles and number of consultations stemming from the fields of institutions recognised within the framework of Cairn offers).

29The dissemination of articles according to their total number of consultations follows a power law (figure 3). These data give an overview (table I) of the gross number of consultations of ABSTRACTS, ARTICLES, articles identified as belonging to an institution (INSTIT) and ratios: RES/ART, INST/ART and a ratio comparing the number of readings to the period during which the article is exposed (CONSULT RATIO). Compared with their exposure period, the 92 articles in the upper quartile are consulted between 692 and 2 645 a year. The 40 most read articles have a ratio of over 1000 readings a year.

Figure 3. Distribution of articles published according to consultation levels

Figure 3. Distribution of articles published according to consultation levels

Source: Cairn 1 Jan. 2017

Tableau 1. Overall consultation results

ABSTRACTS (RES)

ARTICLES

INSTIT.

RES/ART

INST/ART

RATIO OF CONSULT.

MEAN

772

2712

262

0,30

0,10

588

STANDARD DEVIATION

689

2544

304

0,14

0,06

372

MEDIAN

689

2072

187

0,28

0,10

488

UPPER QUARTILE

941

3297

324

0,39

0,14

692

Source: Cairn 1 Jan. 2017

30It is interesting to consider the consultation changes from one edition to another (figure 4), notably the INST/CONS ART ratio reflecting readings by CAIRN portal users who are recognised in a given institutional field. A considerable increase in this ratio can be seen for the last four editions. This upward trend can be interpreted as a sign of the journal’s growing recognition among academic readers. Concomitantly, the “consultation of abstracts to consultation of articles” ratio has dropped substantially, indicating the increasingly marked interest of portal users for direct access to the complete article rather than to its metadata: “curiosity” has been transformed into “interest”.

Figure 4. Consultation changes from one edition to another

Figure 4. Consultation changes from one edition to another

Referencing and positioning the RAC in the landscape of French-language reviews of the social and human sciences

31The RAC is referenced in several academic databases, including Scopus, which offers, since 2012, the benefit of comparative information, and, since 2016, the Web Of Science in the category of « Emerging Sources Citation Index ». In Scopus, the RAC is associated with 4 fields: Anthropology, Education, History and philosophy of sciences and Sociology and political sciences.

32Thanks to the data delivered by the SCImago6 interface, the RAC has progressed since 2008 since it is now part of the second quartile for three of these fields and its SJR index is clearly on the rise.7 It should also be noted that its self-citation rate has been stable, if not slightly up, over the last five years. Given all the limits inherent to the use of bibliometric indicators, it is useful to consider the change in the RAC’spositioning in terms of the value of the SJR in French review ranking. The indicators provided by SCImago placed the journal at the top of French journal rankings for Anthropology (3rd) and Sociology and political sciences (4th). The RAC has thus considerably gained in notoriety since 2010 (see table 2), which points to a certain level of success with respect to its editorial project and genuine interest on behalf of its readers.

Tableau 2. Changes in RAC ranking in the “Sociology and Political Sciences” category –SCImago data in the SCOPUS database

Title

Rank 2015

Rank 2014

Rank 2013

Rank 2012

Rank 2011

Revue Francaise de Science Politique

1

7

7

3

4

Societes Contemporaines

2

1

1

1

3

Revue Francaise de Sociologie

3

6

6

5

2

Politix

4

3

3

4

6

Geneses

5

4

4

6

1

Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances

6

5

5

10

10

Revue Francaise d'Administration Publique

7

11

11

11

9

Sociologie du Travail

8

2

2

2

5

Critique Internationale

9

9

9

7

13

La Revue du MAUSS

10

21

21

15

15

Droit et Societe

11

17

17

8

12

33These statistical improvements are highly encouraging although what the RAC actually means to its authors and readers cannot be summarised through indicators alone. Scientific knowledge dissemination and publication practices are undergoing substantial transformations offering broader opportunities for study and research in order to better understand what publishing and reading mean (Pontille & Torny, 2015). Whatever the case, these results are an invitation to pursue the journal’s project while renewing the composition of the editorial board, notably so that it includes more younger and more female members. This 10-year anniversary is the occasion for the SAC to confirm this renewal with eight new members and discussions on how to disseminate the research of the authors who have placed their trust in the review.

Much of what is published here is the fruit of 10 years of discussions within the Editorial board, to whom a large share of the credit is owed. Thanks are owed to all those who have taken on editorial responsibilities for the publication of records, varia and reading reports. The list of Editorial board members together with the latest changes can be found in the Appendix.
Thanks are also due to our guest editors for their involvement and to the many reviewers who have supported the
RAC with the implementation of its editorial project.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Ash, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of Knowledge: firms, capabilities, and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conein, B., & Jacopin, E. (1994). Action située et cognition : le savoir en place. Sociologie du travail, (4), 475-499.

D’Andrade, R. (1995). The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in Depth. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 237-274.

Hutchins, E. (1994). Comment le « cockpit » se souvient de ses vitesses. Sociologie du travail, (4), 451-474.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2015). From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review. Human Studies, 38(1), 57-79.

Quéré, L. (2003). La cognition comme action incarnée. In A. Borzeix, A. Bouvier & P. Pharo, Sociologie et connaissance. Nouvelles approches cognitives (pp. 143-164). Paris : CNRS Éditions.

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. The problems of human/machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and Lifetimes. The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Haut de page

Annexe

Peer raeviewing committee membres

Haut de page

Notes

1 Conception outlined in the articles of the SAC, which is in charge of publishing the current Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances.

2 Who died on Feb 22, 2017.

3  http://www.indexsavant.com/index.php?title=Technologies,_id%C3%A9ologies,_pratiques

4 TIP mentoring committee: C. Flament, M. Godelier, N. Ramognino, M. Vovelle, Reviewers: P. Bouffartigue, P. Cornu, J.-P. Durand, P. Fridenson, A. Geistdoerfer, J. Guillerme, A. d’Iribarne, N. Jerome, D. Linhart, P. Livet, M. Rébérioux, A. Rip, F. Rychener, Y. Schwartz, R. Vuarin, A. Wisner. Editorial Board: D. Bellan, C. Brassac, B. Conein, B. Grison, J.-P. Poitou, J. Riff, J. Theureau.

5 See also the article by the philologist David Bouvier (RAC, 2014, 8(4), 605-724) entitled “Le Web de Pénélope. Formes et économies du savoir en Grèce archaïque” (Penelope’s Web. Forms and Limitation of Knowledge in Archaic Greece).

6 http://www.scimagojr.com/

7 The detailed results can be consulted via the URL http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=17300154984&tip=sid&clean=0

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. RAC editorial process
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rac/docannexe/image/2029/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
Titre Figure 2. RAC revenue and expenditure in 2015
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rac/docannexe/image/2029/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
Titre Figure 3. Distribution of articles published according to consultation levels
Crédits Source: Cairn 1 Jan. 2017
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rac/docannexe/image/2029/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Titre Figure 4. Consultation changes from one edition to another
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rac/docannexe/image/2029/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rac/docannexe/image/2029/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 207k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

The Editorial Board, « The scientific project and editorial practices of the Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances »Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances [En ligne], 11-2 | 2017, mis en ligne le 01 juin 2017, consulté le 30 mars 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rac/2029

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Les contenus de la Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo Société d’anthropologie des connaissances
  • Logo DOAJ – Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Logo ERIH PLUS | NSD
  • OpenEdition Journals