How Hypotheses’ scientific board functions and its scope

General information

Hypotheses' scientific board is required to comply with the exemplary criteria drawn up by Ouvrir la science, including:

  • Clear definition of governance bodies, their objectives, relationships and ways of functioning
  • Establishment of scientific bodies (e.g. a scientific council) that are regularly renewed (with a limited term)
  • Governance with the widest possible geographical, linguistic and disciplinary diversity, at national, European and international level, depending on the vocation of the structure
  • If necessary, definition of membership criteria and processes and guarantee of their transparency
  • Openness in the procedures for appointing members of governance bodies

Hypotheses' scientific board acts under the delegated authority of OpenEdition’s scientific board.

The composition of Hypotheses' scientific board is approved by OpenEdition’s steering committee.

Additional information about OpenEdition’s scientific board and steering committee is available on this page: https://www.openedition.org/19221

Composition

  • Hypotheses’ scientific board is composed of 20 members at most
  • Its members represent the diversity of the humanities and social sciences in terms of discipline and professions
  • It includes representatives of Hypotheses’ language-specific scientific boards (one representative per language-specific board, appointed by that board for a term running, if possible, in tandem with the term of Hypotheses’ scientific board members. If the term of a language-specific scientific board member ends before their term as a member of Hypotheses’ scientific board, their appointment to Hypotheses’ board automatically ends and a new representative from the language-specific scientific board concerned will need to be appointed)
  • Gender parity is applied to its composition
  • Its members are experienced in scholarly blogging and keep at least one research blog on Hypotheses, alone or as part of a team of authors.
  • A list of the current members of Hypotheses’ scientific board can be found here: https://fr.hypotheses.org/conseil-scientifique

Goals

The scope of action of Hypotheses’ scientific board is as follows:

  • Reviewing applications for blogs that explore the scope of the Hypotheses platform
  • Reviewing editorial projects relating to active blogs that explore the scope of the Hypotheses platform
  • Examining specific issues related to the overall functioning of the Hypotheses platform
  • Thinking about and suggesting “best practices” that could be applied to scholarly blogging, as well as advice on keeping a blog on Hypotheses (see the living guidelines drawn up by the members of Hypotheses’ scientific board).
  • Thinking about and suggesting ideas for the editorial and scholarly scope of the Hypotheses platform
  • Overseeing events from a scholarly perspective, as was the case for the special event organized to celebrate Hypotheses’ 10th anniversary

Hypotheses’ scientific board is free to suggest additions to these roles.

In some exceptional cases, Hypotheses’ scientific board, with the help of the Hypotheses team, may call on external experts if expertise other than that provided by its own members is required.

How the board functions

  • The official language of Hypotheses’ scientific board is French. However, its members all understand written and spoken French and English. In some cases, members may speak in English if they are not proficient enough in French.
  • Everyday communication between the members of the board and the Hypotheses team is via a dedicated email discussion list created by the Hypotheses team. All OpenEdition members can access the discussions held via this list if they want. Other means of communication can be set up as and when required
  • Hypotheses’ scientific board convenes twice a year. Meetings are arranged and an agenda is drawn up on a case-by-case basis. The Hypotheses team is responsible for organizing the meetings. Additional meetings can be organized if necessary
  • The Hypotheses team requests input from the scientific board on matters within the board’s scope of action. However, if the board considers it appropriate, it can also decide to step in of its own accord where certain matters are concerned
  • The Hypotheses team notifies the scientific board of any changes to the Hypotheses platform, including when changes do not require a response from one of the board’s members (e.g. regular transfer of the list of new blogs added to OpenEdition’s catalogue)

Language-specific scientific boards

  • Hypotheses’ scientific board is supported in its role by several foreign language counterparts (German, Spanish), acting under the delegated authority of the Hypotheses’ scientific board.
  • The composition of these scientific boards and the way they function is determined by OpenEdition’s partners (Max Weber Foundation/German Historical Institute for the German board, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia for the Spanish board).
  • The language-specific scientific boards, alongside the Hypotheses team and OpenEdition’s partners, help process blog applications and manage any disputes that may arise. In any case, the language-specific scientific boards and OpenEdition’s partners work within a scope defined by OpenEdition and – exceptional circumstances aside – within the French legal framework

Terms and renewals

  • The term for Hypotheses’ scientific board members is three years, renewable once
  • The board is renewed following a call for expressions of interest (CFI) published by the Hypotheses team
  • Applicants are asked to submit a CV and cover letter
  • Members of the scientific board wishing to renew their term are asked to submit a written document expressing their wish to do so. Such members are free to choose the format of this document
  • At the end of the CFI’s submission period, the outgoing scientific board members, the director of OpenEdition, the deputy director in charge of OpenEdition’s publishing division, and the manager of research blogging at OpenEdition (representing the other members of this service) are asked to vote for candidates based on a table drawn up by the Hypotheses team and containing the following information for each candidate:
    • Discipline
    • Cultural area/speciality
    • Professional geographical location
    • Institution
    • Status
    • Blog(s) and experience in scholarly blogging
    • Open science knowledge and expertise
    • Gender
    • Other specific experience
  • The votes are expressed as: – – / – / + / ++
  • Reasons need to be given for each vote
  • Votes can be anonymous
  • The candidates with the highest scores (out of those who received more pluses than minuses) will be appointed to the scientific board in descending order, starting with the candidate who obtained the highest score, and within the twenty-seat limit
  • If the candidates for the last seat on the board have the same score, the director of OpenEdition has the final say on who is appointed
  • If seats remain vacant and some candidates obtained an equal number of pluses and minuses, the decision to appoint them lies with the director of OpenEdition

Candidates that have more minuses than pluses are not appointed to the board

Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us
Skip to content