Skip Navigation

ABDC 2016 Interim Journal Review

Interim Review Outcomes

This review, aided by public submissions, public consultation feedback, as well as qualitative and quantitative data, has produced the following:

Background

Leading up to the next full review of the ABDC Journal Quality List 2013 (anticipated to begin in the second half of 2017), the ABDC authorised a 2016 interim review that had a very narrow focus built around four tightly defined scenarios:

  1. Inclusion of new business-relevant journals – journals newly created since 1 January 2011;
  2. Removal of very low quality journals – e.g. deemed to be “predatory open access” journals;
  3. Switching FoR assignment of a journal; or
  4. Correction of factual errors in the ABDC database – e.g. incorrect journal title, incorrect web address.

The process was conducted fully online. On 21 April, ABDC called for submissions via custom-designed web portal forms up until COB 30 May 2016. An interim expert review panel then reviewed these submissions drawing on opinions from other well-respected academics in their individual Field of Research (FoR). During a public consultation period (3-17 August), eligible parties could provide feedback on the published review outcomes. The panel then reviewed this feedback and on 6 September, ABDC released a revised and online ABDC Journal Quality List 2016. 

Interim Review Panel

ABDC would like to thank the overall Review Chair, Professor Robert Faff and the following individual FOR Reviewers for their significant input, time and contribution to this review.
• 0806 Information Systems – Professor Julie Fisher (Monash)
• 1401-1499 Economics – Professor Ian King (UQ)
• 1501 Accounting – Professor Ken Trotman (UNSW)
• 1502 Finance – Professor Robert Faff (UQ)
• 1503 Management and 1599 – Professor Ingrid Nielsen (Deakin)
• 1504-07 Marketing/Tourism/Logistics – Professor Geoff Soutar (UWA)
• 1599 Other Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services – Professor Ingrid Nielsen (Deakin)
• 180105/180125 Business and Taxation Law – Professor Kerrie Sadiq (QUT)

PLEASE DO NOT contact any of the panel members directly or indirectly, if you have any further queries. ALL queries MUST be handled centrally through the ABDC office to ensure consistency and correctness in the advice given; and that such advice is conveyed in a timely fashion. Your compliance in this regard is greatly appreciated.

Underlying Philosophy and Indicative “Definitions” of the Four Research Quality Rating Categories

The ABDC Journal Quality List is based on four mutually exclusive (and collectively exhaustive) rating categories labelled: A*; A; B and C. These quality rating categories are defined as follows (note that the stated % are indicative only):

  • A*: this is the highest quality category, and indicatively represents approximately the top 5-7% of the journals assigned to the given primary FoR panel.
  • A: this is the second highest quality category, and indicatively represents approximately the next 15-25% of the journals assigned to the given primary FoR panel.
  • B: this is the third highest quality category, and indicatively represents approximately the next 35-40% of the journals assigned to the given primary FoR group.
  • C: this is the fourth highest quality category, and represents the remaining recognised quality journals assigned to the given primary FoR panel.

Key Considerations

Similar to previous reviews, the underlying philosophy of this review design took into account a range of key considerations around the scope, purpose and execution of the review as follows:

  • Recognition that the main purpose of the ABDC list is to best serve the interests of the business-related academic community located in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).  Thus, where multiple competing objectives of/uses for the list might lead to conflict, the over-riding ANZ focus will take precedence.
  • Achieve a transparent, efficient and effective review process for submitters and assessor panels to minimise irrelevant information and information overload
  • Recognition of the relevance of both quantitative and qualitative information that requires professional judgment in a complex multi-dimensional decision making setting (e.g. the rating exercise is not simply based on a trivial impact factor ranking)
  • Avoid overlap of lists – assign unique journal “ownership”
  • For any given journal, the QUALITY of submission(s) is far more important than the quantity of submissions.
  • The act of voluntarily making any submission to this review is deemed to be acceptance by the submitter of the mandatory condition that the FULL unedited contents of each and every submission will be made publicly available at the completion of the review process.

Eligibility

Eligibility: To be eligible, the submission must have been made through one of the official online forms and have emanated from one of the following Australia or New Zealand (ANZ) stakeholder groups:

  1. Business School/Faculty located in ANZ, or from a non-business school or faculty located in ANZ deemed to have a legitimate interest in the FoR codes covered by the ABDC list; or
  2. A relevant Peak Body representing ANZ academics (where such a body is primarily located in ANZ); or
  3. An individual academic with formal affiliation to a university based in ANZ (NB: must have a relevant minimum of 0.5 FTE position).

The basic logic for such eligibility criteria is that the core purpose of the list to serve relevant academic "needs" within the Australian and New Zealand setting (which won’t necessarily coincide with considerations relevant in other country settings) AND recognition of the critical need to keep the workload of each panel reasonable and manageable. All other submissions are ineligible.

Further Enquiries

If this FAQ listing does not adequately resolve your query, please contact the ABDC office by emailing journals@abdc.edu.au.