[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-595493-105":59,"doc-detail-595493-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","australian-universities-review-opinion-era-adverse-consequences","Australian Universities' Review - Opinion - ERA: adverse consequences","","Opinion piece examining adverse consequences of Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA). It argues that ERA’s measurement-driven, competition-focused design can weaken cooperation and intrinsic motivation, while producing misleading journal rankings and narratives. The article critiques how journal impact and rankings are used, how inputs such as grants are treated as outputs, and how the submission process wastes time. It also highlights disadvantages for interdisciplinary research and encourages artificial reporting incentives.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/australian-universities-review-opinion-era-adverse-consequences/595493/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/australian-universities-review-opinion-era-adverse-consequences/595493.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Well Done","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why does the author criticize ERA’s competition and measurement approach?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The author argues that emphasizing competition and measurement may undermine cooperation and intrinsic motivation that support research performance.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What are the problems with using journal rankings to assess research quality?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The author points to subjectivity in journal ranking panels, irregular publication practices in journals, and misleading assumptions that a journal’s ranking accurately reflects the quality of individual articles.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does ERA treat grant activity and why is that a concern?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The article states that grant monies are inputs to research, not outputs, yet ERA continues to emphasize grants as a measure of success.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},595493,1792894303,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":19,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":52,"preview_page_count":4},5909892210082,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/56001069da27c9f41e8?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1789614185077863061","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nOPINION  \nERA: adverse consequences  \nBrian Martin  \nUniversity of Wollongong  \nExcellence in Research for Australia has a number of limitations: inputs are counted as outputs, time is wasted, disciplinary research is favoured and public engagement is discouraged. Most importantly, by focusing on measurement and emphasising competition, ERA may actually undermine the cooperation and intrinsic motivation that underpin research performance.  \nExcellence in Research for Australia (ERA) has the laudable aim of improving the quality of Australian research. Its approach is straightforward: measure the quality and quantity of research in different fields, with the prospect of funding attached to good outcomes, and this will stimulate better outcomes. However, this approach has many adverse consequences.  \nMisleading journal rankings  \nIn the first ERA round, assessments of the quality of research teams were based, in part, on the quality of articles published in journals, assumed to correlate with the journal rankings ofA*, A, B or C. On 30 May 2011, Senator Kim Carr announced that these rankings would be dropped and replaced by ‘journal quality profiles.’ How ERA panels will use these profiles is not clear. In any case, it is worth reviewing shortcomings of journal rankings.  \nOn the surface, it seems sensible to judge the quality of research by the journals it is published in. However, trouble arises in the steps between journal rankingsand the quality of research.  \nThe first step is to establish a ranking for each journal, with expert panels relying on input from people in relevant disciplines. Inevitably, subjective factors are involved. For example, panel members might be inclined to rank highly a journal in which they had  \npublished and not so favourably inclined towards an unfamiliar journal.  \nThen there is the assumption of a unitary ranking of a journal. Many journals are less than regular in their treatment of submissions,due to invited articles (sometimes published without refereeing), guest editors and special issues filled with papers from conferences.  \nThe reputation of a journal often depends on its impact on the field, which in turn is due to a small number of articles that are widely known and cited. Other articles in the journal may be unexceptional. Another problem is that impact factors can be manipulated (Arnold and Fowler 2011) .  \nEven if journal rankings were accurate, this doesn’t translate into accurate quality ratings of articles, because journal standards only set minimums.An article’s quality does not go down just because it is submitted to a C or unranked journal rather than an A* journal. Judging quality by where an article appears is like judging a person’s wealth by their address. Moving to a lower-status suburb doesn’t reduce one’s income.  \nSimon Cooper and Anna Poletti (2011) argue that ERA’s journal-ranking process actually undermined the production of high quality research,by discouraging collegiality and international networking and by not recognising the way academics access materials digitally.  \nMany academics saw journal rankings as the most objectionable feature of ERA. Although dropping the  \nvol. 53, no. 2, 2011 ERA: adverse consequences, Brian Martin 99  \nA U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nrankings may give the impression that the rest of ERA is acceptable, there are plenty of other problems, some of them just as serious.  \nInputs counted as outputs  \nIn Australia, grant successes seem to be treated as a measure of research success more than most other countries (Allen 2010) . Peer review of grant applications is one measure of quality, but grant monies themselves are inputs to research, not outputs. ERA continues the emphasis on grants.  \nAn alternative would be to look at output/input ratios. Imagine a scholar who spends one-third of their time on research, valued at $30,000 .A scholar who has a $3","cbCaigAWhtmKNswh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigAWhtmKNswh","pdf",98392,"English","# ERA: adverse consequences\n## Misleading journal rankings\n## Inputs counted as outputs\n## Time wasted\n## Disciplines dominant\n## Misleading narratives","[{\"question\":\"Why does the author criticize ERA’s competition and measurement approach?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues that emphasizing competition and measurement may undermine cooperation and intrinsic motivation that support research performance.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the problems with using journal rankings to assess research quality?\",\"answer\":\"The author points to subjectivity in journal ranking panels, irregular publication practices in journals, and misleading assumptions that a journal’s ranking accurately reflects the quality of individual articles.\"},{\"question\":\"How does ERA treat grant activity and why is that a concern?\",\"answer\":\"The article states that grant monies are inputs to research, not outputs, yet ERA continues to emphasize grants as a measure of success.\"}]","Australian Universities' Review - Opinion - ERA: adverse consequences | PDF",1792081251]