An uneven playing field: Rankings and ratings for economics in ERA 2010
Access Status
Authors
Date
2012Type
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
School
Collection
Abstract
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 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.
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Bloch, Harry (2012)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 ...
-
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 ...
-
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 ...