(Although I’m guessing people here will just pretend they never read this and do nothing about it until 3 years later.)
[Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Minister Kim Carr] chastised the research community, saying: “There is clear and consistent evidence that the rankings were being deployed inappropriately within some quarters of the sector, in ways that could produce harmful outcomes, and based on a poor understanding of the actual role of the rankings.
“One common example was the setting of targets for publication in A and A* journals by institutional research managers.
“In light of these two factors — that ERA could work perfectly well without the rankings, and that their existence was focussing ill-informed undesirable behaviour in the management of research — I have made the decision to remove the rankings, based on the ARC’s expert advice.”
Australian Academy of Science Secretary for Science Policy Professor Bob Williamson has this to say:
“In our recent submission to the Australian Research Council, the Australian Academy of Science argued strongly that key areas such as interdisciplinary research and new research were seriously disadvantaged by journal ranking,” Professor Williamson said.
“This affected not only areas of science and technology, but also interactions between the sciences and the humanities.”
“It has been very distressing to see some universities using publications in highly ranked journals as the basis for funding, promotions, and even staff appointments.
“The ranking of a journal as A* does not mean every paper in it is first rate, and some very good papers may appear in smaller journals.
So how would the new ERA initiative include as changes? One proposed measure is to move more towards a peer review system. More comments from various experts here: interesting reads.
