The Australian Research Council is reviewing its two research metric schemes, Excellence for Research in Australia and Engagement & Impact

In their submission to the review accounting academics James Guthrie (Macquarie U) and Ann Sardesai CQU express firm views on ERA, including.

it’s a wasteful exercise: 76 000 “top scientists and scholars” graded 506 000 research outputs submitted to ERA 2018

differences in data: there is a dichotomy between ratings in fields measured by citation (high ratings grow) and peer review (they don’t)

antithetical to innovation: “Innovative work – the research that breaks moulds, shifts paradigms and redefines fields – may not even make it into the ERA because universities tailor their submissions to what they think ERA panels want, and ERA panels reflect disciplinary hierarchies”

enough already: “with universities losing the student fees and cross-subsidies to research, it is time to cut this costly exercise in data collection,” they advise the ARC.

Get the word out

The ARC plans to release submissions to the research metrics review after it is out, which seems a bit late for a debate. So, CMM will report and/or link to, as many submissions as it can – send them in people.