journal rank update

[zerotonin]

  
   A follow-up to my previous post re: the impact factor of the Nebula e-journal.

According to a list from the Australian Research Council (and since I'm angling for a place Down Under, their opinion is worth quite a bit to me), Nebula's actually very decent. Ranked A in a A*-A-B-C tiered system.ImageText, which was the unnamed journal I compared

Comments

[yasminke]

Okay, here's the thing. The journal listing was compiled by asking a bunch of us what the five most important journals in our fields were. We submitted the lists to the government and they went "thanks". IIRC, ERA is on a "pilot period" because we just got a new government and they want to not do what the old one did. Here's the link for the "official", i.e. the government's ranking of journals under the ERA Initiative: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list.htm... )

[zerotonin]

Wow, that was an awesomely detailed reply, and with a useful link to boot!

Yeah, the system does disadvantage the European articles. A more disproportionate reward for research than usual.

[yasminke]

Yeah, sorry about that. It pushed a button. The ARC is the official higher ed place. They give out the grants, destroy your ego, and all that tertiary stuff.

It certainly does. Any editorial board process is looked down upon. The emphasis here is on the bucks you bring to the uni. When you get to the point that you're compiling your CV for unis down here, it might be worthwhile dividing your publications into something like this: Books; Refereed Articles; Chapters in Books; Non-refereed articles; other publications. (I compiled the research data in our department for years and it was horrific. So bad that I've blocked out the categories, sorry.)

[tyopsqueene]

I will just echo this comment with a general warning about all ranking systems for journals; unless you know exactly how the ranking was done, and approve of the method, it is meaningless.

For EU humanities, and a big backlash, see here.