The business of bized research rankings

The report on journal rankings commissioned by the Australian Business Deans Council (CMM August 28 2017) is circulating.

What’s proposed: Kim Langfield Smith (ex Monash U, now Nous Group) and Geoffrey Wood (Uni Essex) notably propose using expert peer review, “informed by journal citation metrics to rank journals, an indicator for “significant” regional journals and a new quality ranking A**, for journals “deemed to be the very best in the world.”

They also propose the ABDC think about a joint product with the UK Chartered Association of Business Schools, using its ranking, with additional input from experts here – a “hub and spokes model.” “It may be more powerful as well as efficient to have a single journal ranking list that has high standards of transparency, credibility and influence,” they write.

How it’s going down: The deans asked their research director colleagues what they thought and BARDSNet was generally positive. But they were ambivalent about a new elite ranking and disliked a regional indicator, lest it undermine the “coherence of a consolidated list and discriminate on the basis of geography rather than intrinsic quality”.

 As to working with the Brits – there is not a word although the BARDS made it plain they like an Australian and NZ list. Commenting on the idea of a regional indicator, their report states “on balance, we felt that an Australian Business Deans Council Journal List should by definition have an embedded Australian (and New Zealand) flavour.


to get daily updates on what's happening in the world of Australian Higher Education