An uneven playing field: rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010
MetadataShow full item record
In the evaluation of research quality conducted under Excellence in Research for Australia 2010, the sub-disciplines of econometrics and theory were rated more highly than the sub-disciplines of applied economics and other economics. The rating in each sub-discipline was benchmarked against a world standard, so the results suggest that Australian economists produce relatively better econometric or theory research than applied or other economics research. However, closer examination of the processes on which the ratings were based suggests built-in biases that favour theory and econometric research over applied and other economics research, leaving the relative quality of research in the various sub-disciplines open to question.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Bloch, Harry (2012)In the evaluation of research quality conducted under ERA 2010 the sub-disciplines of econometrics and theory were rated more highly than the sub-disciplines of applied economics and other economics. The rating in each ...
Woodside, Arch (2016)Under the “Metrics” link, Google.com/scholar ranks the top twenty journals by impact in 16 subcategories of “business, economics, and management” (e.g., accounting and taxation, economics, finance, marketing, strategic ...
Releasing the death-grip of null hypothesis statistical testing (p < .05): Applying complexity theory and somewhat precise outcome testing (SPOT)Woodside, Arch (2017)Even though several scholars describe the telling weaknesses in such procedures, the dominating logic in research in the management sub-disciplines continues to rely on symmetric modeling using continuous variables and ...