Skip Navigation

ABDC Journal Quality List

The Australian Business Deans Council is currently finalising the expert panel that will soon begin an independent review of the ABDC Journal Quality List.

The 2018 review follows three earlier list reviews undertaken with wide national consultation.

The review will provide external validation of the list and ensure it remains relevant in light of the Australian Government’s stronger focus on impact in its Excellence for Research for Australia (ERA) framework.

The list will remain a ranking of business journals to primarily serve the needs of the Australian and New Zealand business-related academic community. 

BACKGROUND

In 2007, ABDC established the ABDC Journal Quality List for use by its member business schools. Most universities adapt the list to suit individual university requirements. 

The initial list aimed to overcome the regional and discipline bias of international lists.  An independent chair and discipline-specific panels reviewed the ABDC Journal Quality List in 2013 and 2009.

In 2016, ABDC produced a revised list from an interim review that narrowly focused on:

  • New journals started since 1 January 2011
  • Removal of predatory open-access journal
  • Change of Field of Research (FoR) grouping 
  • Incorrect factual details 

The ABDC Journal Quality List 2013 comprised 2,767 different journal titles, divided into four categories of quality: 

  • A*: 6.9%
  • A: 20.8%
  • B: 28.4%
  • C: 43.9%. 

In each Field of Research (FoR) group, journals deemed NOT to reach the quality threshold level are not listed. 

See disaggregated summary across FoRs.
 

ABDC Journal Quality List 2016 

PLEASE NOTE: In the ABDC Journal Quality List there is considerable variability in the average quality between marginal journals at either end of each rating category.  Many journals legitimately crossover discipline areas but for pragmatic reasons are allocated to one FoR only. 

Journal lists should be a starting point only for assessing publication quality and should not constrain researchers to a particular domain.  There is no substitute for assessing individual articles on a case-by-case basis.