An evaluation of the Australian Research Council's journal ranking

TL;DR

This paper critically evaluates the Australian Research Council's journal ranking system, revealing significant disciplinary inconsistencies and weak correlations with other journal metrics, emphasizing the need for more balanced and representative rankings.

Contribution

It identifies weaknesses in the ERA journal ranking, especially the uneven representation of top-tier journals across disciplines, and compares it with other established journal metrics.

Findings

Disciplinary disparities in journal rankings

Weak correlation between ERA rankings and other metrics

Need for better representation of A* journals across fields

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.