An evaluation of the Australian Research Council's journal ranking
arXiv:1009.3359 · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.12.001
Abstract
As part of its program of 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA), the Australian Research Council ranked journals into four categories (A*, A, B, C) in preparation for their performance evaluation of Australian universities. The ranking is important because it likely to have a major impact on publication choices and research dissemination in Australia. The ranking is problematic because it is evident that some disciplines have been treated very differently than others. This paper reveals weaknesses in the ERA journal ranking and highlights the poor correlation between ERA rankings and other acknowledged metrics of journal standing. It highlights the need for a reasonable representation of journals ranked as A* in each scientific discipline.
arXiv comment14 pages, 4 figures, 7 tables
References in corpus (3)
Cited by in corpus (3)
- Assessing evaluation procedures for individual researchers: the case of the Italian National Scientific Qualification
- Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: A critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative
- Publication patterns of award-winning forest scientists and implications for the ERA journal ranking