摘要：First: historiography is about the writing of History; internationalization is about the boundaries of its writing, of its reading and of its usefulness. So, whatever other dimensions one may discuss of the internationalization of Portuguese historians or institutions, they should be seen as a means to an ultimate end, that of placing historical research carried out by Portuguese institutions under the gaze and in the minds of the international scholarly community. No amount of networking, project sharing and conference attending will do the trick unless it translates to frequent publications by Portuguese-based authors in widely accessible international scholarly media. Nor will (self) complacent remarks about the international quality of Portuguese historians, as long as we remain protected from international scrutiny behind the national and linguistic borders of the media that convey our writings. Second: historiography is a collective and a cumulative endeavour. The core issue is not about the personal experience of a few people or the ability of a few institutions to engage in the international game. This is not to deny their importance as parts of the collective effort (which certainly can use spearheads), only to give the question a precise meaning: whether there are collective results to speak of, whether in the end of the day there is evidence of collective effort in that direction. In a nutshell, I assume that aggregate outcomes, their institutional settings and the social incentive systems that inform the actors' decisions are the stuff of our discussion. The only readily available indicator for disciplinary internationalisation in the above sense is the number of publications in international academic journals by authors affiliated to Portuguese institutions. By international journals I mean those included in international academic reference databases. By this standard, a Portuguese journal may be international, while a journal published abroad may not.
