1

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS COUNCIL

JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

Overall Report

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 2

Table of Contents
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………… 3
General Commentary ...……………………………………………………………….. 3
Panel-specific Commentary ..……………………………………….……………….. 6
D1: Information Systems (0806)…………………………………………... 6
D2: Economics (1401-1499) ……………………………………………….. 7
D3: Accounting (1501) …………………………………………………....... 8
D4: Finance (1502) …………………………………………………….……. 9
D5: Management (1503) ……………………………………………………. 10
D6: Marketing/Tourism/Logistics (1504-07) ……………………………. 11
D7: Business and Taxation Law (180105/1801025)……………….…… 12

Appendices 13
Appendix A. Panel Composition …….……………………………………………… 14
Appendix B. Instructions to Submitters…………………………….……………… 15
Appendix C. FORM Templates ……………………..……………………………….. 36
Appendix D. Panel Reports ……………………………………..…………………… 49
D1: Information Systems (0806)…………………………………………... 49
D2: Economics (1401-1499) ………………………………………………. 65
D3: Accounting (1501) …………………………………………………...... 91
D4: Finance (1502) …………………………………………………….…… 103
D5: Management (1503) …………………………………………………… 109
D6: Marketing/Tourism/Logistics (1504-07) …………………………… 120
D7: Business and Taxation Law (180105/1801025)……………….…… 129

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 3

Executive Summary

General Commentary
• The inaugural version of the ABDC Journal Quality List was released in 2008
and later updated in 2010.
• The aggregated 2010 ABDC list comprised 2,671 different journal titles, with
A*: 5.5%; A: 19.5%; B: 27.6%; and C: 47.4% journals.
• In 2012, BARDSNet agreed that the list should be updated, with six key
process principles: (a) transparency; (b) consistency; (c) independence; (d)
external validation; (e) “business scope”; (f) incrementality.
• Process for 2013 Review:
o Step 1: Appointment of chairs of each panel linked to primary field of
research (FoR) codes.
o Step 2: three to six members on each panel.
o Step 3: Public call for submissions (May).
o Step 4: Panel review of submissions (June-August), revised list
created/exposed (early September) seeking public response.
o Step 5: Responses reviewed by: (a) FoR chairs in conjunction with
BARDsNet nominee; & (b) small group of “external” academics (Sept).
o Step 6: Final list announced (Oct.), presented to the ABDC for
endorsement (Nov.) and then made available via the ABDC web site.
• Primary FoR panel structure:
o Information Systems (0806)
o Economics (1401-1499)
o Accounting (1501)
o Finance (1502)
o Management (1503)
o Marketing/Tourism/Logistics (1504-07)
o Business and Taxation Law (180105/1801025)
• Collectively, the review panel covers a broad cross-section of 27 highly
qualified academics across all these fields (refer to Appendix A).
• As for the prior ABDC list, 4 quality rating categories are formally maintained:
o A*: highest quality category, indicatively representing the top 5-7% of
the journals assigned to the given primary panel.
o A: second-highest quality category, indicatively representing the next
15-25% of the journals assigned to the given primary panel.
o B: third-highest quality category, indicatively representing the next 35-
40% of the journals assigned to the given primary panel.
o C: fourth-highest quality category, representing the remaining
recognised quality journals assigned to the given primary panel.
• A detailed set of guidelines was prepared – “Instructions to Submitters” (refer
to Appendix B).
• A primary criterion for adding journals not contained in the ABDC 2010 list is
the “substantive business element” test, based on simple metrics e.g. > 50%
of articles over 3 years written by business faculty or > 50% of articles over a
recent 3-year period are of a business nature.
• In each FoR group there are a range of relevant journals either deemed NOT
to reach the necessary quality threshold level e.g. including “predatory open-
access” journals, or deemed to fail the “substantive business element test”.
Such journals are excluded from the ABDC list.
ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report
 4

• It was stressed to submitters that for any given recommended action, the
QUALITY of a submission is far more important than the quantity of
submissions.
• To be eligible, the submission must have emanated from "within" Australia or
New Zealand (ANZ) and come from one of three relevant stakeholder groups
(refer to Appendix B, Section 8 for details).
• Templates for submissions were designed to cover four scenarios leading to
four alternative templates (forms): A – additions, B – downgrades (including
de-listings), C – upgrades and D – transfers (refer to Appendix C, for blank
templates). Each template/form comprises three pages:
o Page 1: requesting key information relevant to the designated scenario
o Page 2: Executive Summary (250 word limit i.e. one page)
o Page 3: a check list for supplementary appendices.
• A summary of raw submission numbers logged for the 2013 review is given
below (noting that there were several cases in which submitters used
incorrect forms or submitted to incorrect panels or had invalid submissions):

FORM A FORM B FORM C FORM D FORM D Total

New Downgrade Upgrade Change + Change -
0806 Information 8 0 8 0 0 16
Systems
1401-1499 Economics 33 13 80 0 105 231
1501 Accounting 4 2 76 1 0 83
1502 Finance 31 0 27 6 2 66
1503 Management 61 1 135 1 5 203
1504-07 Marketing 39 0 87 1 2 129
Tourism and Logistics
180105-25 Business 8 5 25 0 0 38
Taxation and Law
184 21 438 9 114 766

• Users of the list should take note that the purpose of the A* category is NOT
to exclusively identify truly elite journals (the so-called “Tier 1” journals) for a
given area of research. Indeed, in most cases Tier 1 journals are a small
subset of the A* category. As such, a contentious issue in discussions across
panel chairs, was the role/need for panels to make comment about which of
their A* group are truly “Tier 1”. It was agreed that, in accordance with the
ABDC guidelines, no formal (fifth) category should be created. However, a
minority of panels were keen to volunteer a view on Tier 1 journals for their
group. Since such voluntary information falls outside the terms of reference
set down by the ABDC/BARDsNet, such nomination of Tier 1 journals is not in
any way endorsed by the ABDC.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 5

• Another contentious issue was the treatment of “statistics” journals. Such

journals were previously accommodated within the Economics panel, but this
year’s panel felt uncomfortable continuing to “sponsor” them going forward.
As clearly articulated in their report (see Appendix D2), the Economics panel
recommend: (a) that the ABDC add another FoR to its list: 0401 as “Statistics”
or “Business Statistics”, and (b) that this new FoR be populated with the
statistics journals that are transferring out of the economics list, using the
same journal ratings as assigned in the 2010 ABDC list.
• In summary, the new aggregated 2013 ABDC Journal Quality list comprises
2,598 different journal titles, with A*: 6.6%; A: 19.4%; B: 28.0%; and C: 45.9%
journals. A disaggregated summary across the different FoR codes covered
by this review is as follows:

FoR Description Total A* % A% B% C%

journals
0806 Information systems 197 6.6% 19.8% 30.5% 43.1%
1401 Economic theory 30 13.3% 33.3% 30.0% 23.3%
1402 Applied economics 508 7.1% 15.7% 31.9% 45.3%
1403 Econometrics 33 18.2% 24.2% 18.2% 39.4%
1499 Other economics 110 0.9% 4.5% 24.5% 70.0%
1501 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability 128 7.0% 14.9% 23.4% 54.7%
1502 Banking, Finance & Investment 184 6.0% 16.8% 28.3% 48.9%
1503 Business & Management 765 7.0% 22.0% 23.9% 47.1%
1504 Commercial services 91 4.4% 14.3% 39.6% 41.8%
1505 Marketing 145 6.9% 17.9% 29.0% 46.2%
1506 Tourism 59 6.8% 18.6% 35.6% 39.0%
1507 Transportation & Freight services 56 7.1% 17.9% 37.5% 37.5%
180105 Commercial & Contract law 244 6.2% 31.2% 26.6% 36.0%
180125 Taxation law 48 4.1% 18.8% 29.2% 47.9%
All All 2,598 6.6% 19.4% 28.0% 45.9%

• Suggested improvements for future reviews of the ABDC journal list:

o Create a fully online process, with inbuilt compliance checks
o Create a new 5th scenario and associated proforma for journal “de-
listings”
o Convene a new panel to maintain the “0104” Statistics list
• Appendix D provides detailed individual Panel reports.

A FINAL WARNING: Users of the ABDC list should take note that panels are
generally of the view that within any given rating category there is considerable
variability in the average quality between the (unidentified) marginal journals located
at either end of the category. This underscores the widely held view that, like any
journal list, the ABDC list should only ever be used as a rough guide (or filter) for
assessing likely publication quality. Journal lists should be a starting point only.
Ultimately, there is no substitute for assessing the quality of individual articles on a
case by case basis – no journal list, regardless of how meticulously it is derived, can
ever usurp this role. Like any inherently harmless devise, if used (abused) in a way
that was never intended by the creators, journal lists can become dangerous
weapons! Users beware!

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 6

Executive Summary
Panel-specific Commentary

Information Systems (0806)

• Full details regarding the Information Systems (INS) Panel review are given in
Appendix D1.
• A total of 15 submissions were received by the INS Panel.
• Four submissions received recommended journal rankings the same as the
current ranking.
• Of the total submissions, seven cases recommended “new” journals be added
to this list and, after due deliberation, all of the new journals were endorsed by
our panel. In addition, the panel initiated 68 new journals for inclusion in the list,
informed by the Australasian Councils of Heads and Professors of Information
Systems (ACPHIS) list.
• Of the total submissions, there were no recommendations for downgrading or
delisting of journals. However, the panel initiated 18 downgrades of journals
and 49 de-listings, informed by the ACPHIS list.
• Of the total submissions, eight cases recommended upgrading of journals and,
after due deliberation, four of these upgrades are endorsed by our panel. One
journal was mis-assigned. In addition, the panel initiated 30 upgrades of
journals, informed by the ACPHIS list.
• Of the total submissions, there were no recommendations for transfer of
journals into or out of this panel.
• In its deliberations, this panel also considered the question of the truly elite Tier
1 journals, as relevant to the researchers in the discipline area(s) covered by
our panel. Accordingly, the panel agreed there would not be any journals
assigned a ranking higher than A*. The rationale being that ACPHIS have not
considered such a change and it is not appropriate for our panel at this stage to
propose such a change without their consideration. This may be discussed in
the future.
• Summary distribution of ratings relevant to this panel: a comparison across
categories in the 2010 ABDC list versus the 2013 draft list is given below.

ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 12 6.9% 13 6.6%
A 22 12.6% 39 19.8%
B 43 24.6% 60 30.5%
C 98 56.0% 85 43.1%
175 100% 197 100.0%

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 7

Economics (1401-1499)
• Full details regarding the Economics (ECO) Panel review are given in Appendix
D2.
• 217 submissions were considered by the ECO Panel, of which several made
the same recommendations. 1 There were 193 distinct submissions. The panel
also made 358 suggestions.
• Of the total distinct submissions, 25 cases recommended “new” journals be
added to this list and, after due deliberation, 16 of these new journals are
endorsed by our panel. The panel also made 106 suggestions for new journals,
bringing the total number of recommended additions to 122. A total of 91 of
these journal additions are brought in at “C” rating, while 5, 2, 24 are brought in
with A*, A, B ratings, respectively.
• Of the total distinct submissions, 12 cases recommended downgrading of
journals and, after due deliberation, 7 downgrades are endorsed by our panel.
The panel also suggested 5 downgrades, bringing the total number of
recommended downgrades to 12.
• Of the total distinct submissions, 57 cases recommended upgrading of journals
and, after due deliberation, 25 of these upgrades are endorsed by our panel.
The panel also suggested 19 upgrades, bringing the total number of
recommended upgrades to 44.
• Of the total distinct submissions, 97 cases recommended transfer of journals
out of this panel and, after due deliberation, 95 of these “outgoing” are
endorsed by our panel. The panel also suggested 228 transfers out, bringing
the total number of recommended transfers out to 323.
• In its deliberations, this panel also considered the question of the truly elite Tier
1 journals, as relevant to the researchers in the discipline area(s) covered by
our panel. Accordingly, the panel agreed that the following journals, a subset of
the A* category, constitute this Tier 1 Grouping:

American Economic Review; Econometrica; Quarterly Journal of Economics;

Journal of Political Economy; Review of Economic Studies; Journal of Monetary
Economics; Journal of Economic Theory; Journal of Econometrics; Review of
Economics and Statistics; Economic Journal.

• Summary distribution of ratings relevant to this panel: a comparison across

categories in the 2010 ABDC list versus the 2013 draft list is given below

ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 49 5.4% 47 6.9
A 183 20.2% 103 15.1
B 291 32.1% 204 30.0
C 384 42.3% 327 48.0
907 100.0% 681 100.0%

1
In the ECO report, we will use following meanings for the following words:
"Submissions" refer to the files sent to the ABDC from across Australia.
"Distinct submissions" refer to the particular changes indicated through the submissions. (In several
cases, several different submissions referred to the same suggested changes.) Thus, the number of
"distinct submissions" is smaller than the number of "submissions".
"Suggestions" are suggested changes that come from the panel itself, which do not have submissions
associated with them.
ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report
 8

Accounting (1501)
• Full details regarding the Accounting (ACC) Panel review are given in Appendix
D3.
• The ACC Panel considered a total of 83 submissions, related to 50 journals. In
addition, based on a perusal of databases, the Panel added 17 new journals
(editorial boards, etc. for each journal are provided).
• Of the total submissions, four cases recommended ‘new’ journals be added to
this list and, after due deliberation, all of these new journals are endorsed by
our Panel. Furthermore, three of these journal additions are brought in at C
rating, while one is brought in with B rating. The Panel also added 17 new
journals (13 at C, 3 at B, 1 at A).
• Of the total submissions, two cases recommended downgrading of journals
and, after due deliberation, there are no downgrades endorsed by the Panel.
• Of the total submissions, 76 cases recommended upgrading of journals (related
to 43 journals, i.e., there were up to 11 different requests for one journal; on the
other hand some journals gave one submission but it was supported by multiple
academics). After due deliberation, 34 of these journal upgrades are endorsed
by our Panel (related to 15 journals: three increases from A to A*; two
increases from B to A; 10 increases from C to B).
• Of the total submissions, one case recommended transfer of a journal into this
Panel and, after due deliberation, this was endorsed by our Panel. One journal
was suggested for an upgrade from A to A* but was not in the accounting list.
The Panel did not consider it to be an accounting journal and did not ask to
have it added to the list.
• In its deliberations, this Panel also considered the question of the truly elite Tier
1 journals, as relevant to the researchers in the discipline area(s) covered by
our Panel. There is limited controversy internationally on what are the Top-6
journals in accounting. Accordingly, the Panel agreed that the following
journals, a subset of the A* category, constitute this Tier 1 Grouping: Journal of
Accounting Research, The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting and
Economics, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Contemporary Accounting
Research and Review of Accounting Studies. The Panel also notes that these
were the six A* journals in 2010. There are differences in quality even within
this list. Overall, there are big differences between the top and bottom journal in
each category, with regard to impact, type of article (e.g., note, teaching case),
etc. We believe care must be taken not to over-rely on categorization.
• Summary distribution of ratings relevant to this Panel: a comparison across
categories in the 2010 ABDC list versus the 2013 draft list is given below.

ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 6 5.6 9 7.0
A 19 17.8 19 14.9
B 17 15.9 30 23.4
C 65 60.7 70 54.7
107 100.0 128 100.0

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 9

Finance (1502)
• Full details regarding the Finance (FIN) Panel review are given in Appendix D4.
• A total of 72 submissions were considered by the FIN Panel.
• Of the total submissions, 31 cases recommended “new” journals be added to
this list and, after due deliberation, 30 of these new journals are endorsed by
our panel (A*: 2 case; A: 1 case; B: 4 cases; C: 23 cases).
• Of the total submissions, there were no cases recommending a downgrade of
journals and, after due deliberation, this is endorsed by our panel.
• Of the total submissions, 35 cases recommended upgrading of journals and,
after due deliberation, 16 of these upgrades are endorsed by our panel (A*: 2
cases; A: 3 cases; B: 11 cases).
• Of the total submissions, 5 cases recommended transfer of journals into this
panel and, after due deliberation, all 5 of these “incoming” are endorsed by our
panel (A*: 1 case; A: 3 cases; B: 1 case).
• Of the total submissions, 1 case recommended transfer of journals out of this
panel and, after due deliberation, this “outgoing” journal is endorsed by our
panel.
• Summary distribution of ratings relevant to this panel: a comparison across
categories in the 2010 ABDC list versus the 2013 draft list is given below:

ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 6 4.0% 11 6.0%
A 26 17.3% 31 16.8%
B 39 26.0% 52 28.3%
C 79 52.7% 90 48.9%
150 100.0% 184 100.0%

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 10

Management (1503)
• Full details regarding the Management (MAN) Panel review are given in
Appendix D5.
• A total of 194 submissions were received by the MAN Panel, including three
that were originally considered by other panels. The majority of journals for
which submissions were made received only a single submission. Twenty-nine
journals received multiple submissions. There was a mix of individual and
institutional submissions.
• Of the total submissions, 62 cases recommended “new” journals be added to
this list. After due deliberation, 45 of these new journals were endorsed by our
panel. Three journals were brought in with an A* rating; 16 were brought in with
an A rating; 17 were brought in with a B rating and nine were brought in with a
C rating.
• Of the total submissions, only one case recommended the downgrading of a
journal and, after due deliberation, this submission was not endorsed by our
panel.
• Of the total submissions, 126 cases recommended upgrading of journals. After
due deliberation, 50 upgrades were endorsed by our panel. Our panel
endorsed eight upgrades to A*, 25 upgrades to A and 17 upgrades to B. Of the
total upgrades, one triple-rating upgrade and two double-rating upgrades were
endorsed. Five submissions that made multiple-upgrade cases were endorsed
in-part with single rating upgrades. In the case of two journals with multiple
submissions, our panel sought the views of discipline experts external to the
panel to ensure the robustness and integrity of the process.
• Of the total submissions, one case recommended the transfer of a journal into
this panel but, after due deliberation, this transfer was not endorsed by our
panel.
• Four submissions recommended transfer of journals out of this panel and, after
due deliberation, all of these “outgoing” transfers were endorsed by our panel.
• The MAN panel further endorsed removal of 17 journals, where the journal
content was deemed out of scope, the journal had insufficient English language
content or the journal was a duplicate in error on the original list.
• In cases where a journal name has changed or a journal has subsumed
another journal, both the original and changed names appear on the list.
• Summary distribution of ratings relevant to this panel: a comparison across
categories in the 2010 ABDC list versus the 2013 draft list is given below:

ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 44 5.9% 54 7.0%
A 139 18.8% 168 22.0%
B 179 24.2% 183 23.9%
C 379 51.1% 360 47.1%
741 100.0% 765 100.0%

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 11

Marketing/Tourism/Logistics (1504-07)
• Full details regarding the Marketing/Tourism/Logistics (MTL) Panel review are
given in Appendix D6.
• A total of 128 submissions were received by the Marketing, Tourism and
Logistics Panel.
• Of the total submissions, 39 recommended “new” journals (additions) were
received by the panel. After due deliberation, 31 of these new journals were
endorsed by our panel. The remaining journals were not considered to have a
sufficient business orientation to be included in the ABDC list. Twenty two of
these journal additions were given a “C” rating, eight were given a “B” rating,
and one was given an “A” rating.
• None of the submissions recommended a downgrade of a journal. However,
after due deliberation, eight downgrades were suggested by our panel (four in
1504, 1 in 1506 and 3 in 1507), as it was clear these journals did not fit well
with the other journals in their original rating group.
• Eighty seven cases recommended an upgrade of a journal and, after due
deliberation, 75 upgrades were endorsed by our panel (21 in 1504, 25 in
1505, 17 in 1506 and 12 in 1507), although not all were from specific external
submissions, as the panel considered all of the journals in the various FOR
groups in its deliberations.
• One journal was recommended for transfer into this panel (from 1502 to 1504)
and, after due deliberation, was endorsed by our panel. It is worth noting that
we believe a number of the distribution channel journals (e.g. “Supply Chain
Management Review”) would fit more logically in 1507 than in 1504, where
they are currently located. Thus some internal changes were also made
within the FORs in this panel to make things more consistent (e.g. all of the
leisure journals were put into the 1504 FOR).
• There were no recommended transfers of journals out of this panel. However,
it should be noted that one submission was received recommending that the
“Journal of Tourism Studies” be deleted from the records as the journal no
longer exists. This journal has been duly delisted.
• A Summary distribution of ratings relevant to this panel that compares the
2010 list with the 2013 draft list can be seen in the table below.

ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 13 4.1% 22 6.3%
A 45 14.1% 60 17.1%
B 99 30.9% 120 34.2%
C 163 50.9% 149 42.5%
320 100.0% 351 100.0%

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 12

Business and Taxation Law (180105/1801025)

• Full details regarding the Business and Taxation Law (BTL) Panel review are
given in Appendix D7.
• The BTL Panel was responsible for 2 fields of research (FoR) namely
commercial and contract law 180105 (LAW) and taxation law 180125 (TAX).
• A total of 38 submissions related to 32 journals were received by the BTL
Panel.
• Submissions were received from:
o institutions (19 in total, 18 from UNSW; 1 from the University of
Sydney);
o peak bodies (9 in total, all from the Australasian Tax Teachers
Association (ATTA)); and
o individuals (10 in total, 3 being editors of the relevant journal).
• Of the total submissions, 8 submissions recommended “new” journals (relating
to 6 journals: 3 LAW and 3 TAX) be added to this list and, after due
deliberation, 5 new journals (2 LAW and 3 TAX) are endorsed by our panel and
all are brought in at “C” rating. The remaining submission (LAW: International
Journal of Law and Management) was, based on a review of its content,
referred to the MAN Panel for consideration.
• Of the total submissions, 5 submissions (relating to 4 journals: 1 LAW and 3
TAX) recommended downgrading (or delisting) of journals and, after due
deliberation, 2 (TAX) downgrades are endorsed by our panel. In addition, our
panel initiated cases for the downgrading of 4 LAW journals. This was
considered necessary to more accurately reflect their quality given the
underlying philosophy of the rating categories as prescribed.
• Of the total submissions, 25 submissions (relating to 22 journals: 11 LAW; 10
TAX and 1 belonging to another FoR) recommended upgrading of journals and,
after due deliberation, 7 of these upgrades are endorsed by our panel. One
submission (Fiscal Studies) was referred to the correct panel (ECO) for
consideration.
• 2 duplications on the 2010 list were removed (Intertax: International Tax
Review; and Common Law World Review).
• Of the total submissions, no cases recommended transfer of journals into this
panel. Of the total submissions, no cases recommended transfer of journals out
of this panel.
• Summary distribution of ratings relevant to this panel: a comparison across
categories in the 2010 ABDC list versus the 2013 draft list is given below
followed by a reconciliation of transfers. A comparison across these same
categories by each field of research is provided in the body of the BTL report
(refer to Appendix D7).

ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 17 5.9% 17 5.8%
A 86 29.8% 85 29.1%
B 78 27.0% 79 27.1%
C 108 37.3% 111 38.0%
289 100.0% 292 100.0%

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 13

Appendices

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 14

Appendix A
ABDC Journal Review Panels 2013
Overall Chair: Robert Faff

0806 Info Systems

Julie Fisher (chair) Monash University
John Lamp Deakin University
Deborah Bunker University of Sydney

1401-1499 Economics
Ian King (Chair) University of Melbourne
Simon Grant University of Queensland
David Harris Monash University
Rodney Falvey Bond University
Alan Woodland University of NSW

1501 Accounting
Ken Trotman (Chair) University of NSW
Naomi Soderstom University of Melbourne
Peter Clarkson University of Queensland

1502 Finance
Robert Faff (Chair) University of Queensland
Steve Easton University of Newcastle
Carole Commerton-Forde University of Melbourne

1503 Management
Ingrid Nielson (Chair) Monash University
Neal Ashkanasy University of Queensland
Bob Cavana Victoria University of Wellington
Gavin Jack La Trobe University
Vikas Kumar University of Sydney
Adrian Wilkinson Griffith University

1504-07 Marketing Tourism Logistics

Geoff Soutar (Chair) University of Western Australia
Chandana Hewge Swinburne University of Technology
Geoffrey Couch La Trobe University
Janet McColl- Kennedy University of Queensland

180105-1801025 Business and Taxation Law

Margaret McKerchar (Chair) University of NSW
Kerrie Sadiq Queensland University of Technology
Vince Morabito Monash University

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 15

Appendix B

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS COUNCIL

JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

Instructions to Submitters

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 16

Table of Contents
Background
1. History of the ABDC Journal List ………………………………………………….17

2. Planning a Review for 2012-2013: BARDsNet feedback ……………………….20

3. Process for 2013 Review agreed by ABDC and BARDsNet …………………..21

4. Proposed Timeline ……………………………………………………………….......22

5. Primary FoR Panel Structure………………………………………………………..23

6. Underlying Philosophy and Indicative “definitions” of the four research

quality rating categories ………………………………………………………………..23

7. Some Key Considerations ………………………..………………………………...24

Submission Process
8. Eligibility for making Submissions ………………………………………………..25

9. A Summary of Scenarios and Proforma Templates …………………………....25

10. Filling in FORM A: “New Academic Journal”…………………………………...26

11. Filling in FORM B: “Rating Downgrade” ………………………………………..26

12. Filling in FORM C: “Rating Upgrade” ……………………………………………30

13. Filling in FORM D: “Change of FoR Panel” …………………………………….32

14. Instructions for making a Submission ……………………………………..……34

15. Further Inquiries ……………………………………………………………………..35

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 17

BACKGROUND 2
1. History of the ABDC Journal List

To consider the most appropriate process for reviewing the ABDC Journal Quality
List, it is important to understand how the existing list was created and subsequently
modified. The existing list is widely used, whether in its exact form or with
modifications deemed appropriate via individual schools. There is also significant
anecdotal evidence that Business Schools outside of Australia and New Zealand find
the ABDC Journal List to be of use. The fact that the list is widely used gives
credibility to the suggestion that although not perfect, it at least serves as a useful
starting point for certain discussions regarding research output evaluation. It also
suggests that some caution may be warranted in making any significant changes to
the scope of coverage.

In 2007 the Australian Business Deans Council determined that it would establish a
Journal Quality List for the use of its members. While the Council accepted that it
was impossible to establish a journal list that would meet with the full agreement of
all interested parties given the diversity of subjective opinion that surrounds
academic journal quality, the Council nonetheless recognized that there were
benefits from establishing a journal list. There was a growing proliferation of journal
lists internationally and various Council members were using different lists for
internal purposes.

A review of international journal lists was undertaken and it was agreed that an
Australian Business Deans list was required as there were shortcomings in the
available international lists. These shortcomings included regional biases, insufficient
coverage of Australian journals, too heavy an emphasis on some criteria that worked
against specific disciplines, and lack of consensus of a definitive list.

The development of the initial ABDC Journal Quality List was undertaken by a
disciplinary representative working group under the leadership of the ABDC sub-
group of Associate Deans of Research (BARDsNET). The subsequent list was
ratified by the Council and published in early 2008. It was agreed that the ABDC
Journal List should not be revised for two years to allow members an opportunity to
become familiar with the list and to provide some certainty over journal ratings. The
Council agreed to review the list after two years.

During the course of 2008 and 2009, a feedback mechanism allowed interested
parties to provide commentary on the ABDC Journal List. Over 200 items of
feedback were received. Approximately half of this feedback related to incorrect
journal titles, inactive journals, matters of fact relating to journal identity and
disciplinary classification. These corrections were subsequently made to the list. The
remaining items of feedback entered the review process.

2
The first four sections of this document were prepared by Professor Stephen Taylor, BARDsNet Chair,
incorporating material already available on the ABDC web-site.
ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report
 18

Toward the end of 2009, the ABDC advised that it was undertaking a review of the
ABDC Journal List. The first stage of the review involved establishing a panel of 17
discipline experts who reviewed the existing ABDC Journal List. The experts were
given latitude to exercise their judgment. Criteria to be considered included:
- Relative standing of the journal in other recognized lists (such as the
Association of Business Schools)
- Citation metrics
- International standing of the editorial board
- Quality of peer-review processes
- Track record of publishing influential papers
- Sustained reputation
- Influence of publications in the journal in relation to hiring, tenure and
promotion decisions.

A draft ABDC Journal List was released in December 2009 for public comment. The
list was sent to all Council member business schools and faculties, professional and
academic associations, international business schools that were known to be using
the list, and publishers. In addition, the list was made public on the ABDC website.
The exposure period was two months.

Of note, from the feedback items that concerned the rating category of journals that
were received during 2008 and 2009, most of these were no longer a relevant input
to the review as the expert reviewers had produced a draft list that agreed with the
commentary. The remaining feedback items were then treated as submissions on
the draft list. Almost 1,000 items of feedback were received on the draft ABDC
Journal Quality List.

The submissions were grouped according to type. Submissions broadly fell into four
categories:
1. Incorrect journal details (title, ISSN)
2. Incorrect field of research classification
3. Missing and expired journal titles
4. Debate over journal rating.

Questions over journal rating were the most contentious matters. In around 90% of
cases, submissions concerning journal rating were made for an upward re-rating of
journal titles.

The journal rating questions were dealt with through the following process:

- Initial assessment was made by reference to comparable journals in the

specific discipline; relying mainly on citation metrics and other reputable
journal quality lists. In some cases, the submissions were judged as lacking
sufficient evidence to take the case further.
- Where submissions were judged to be reasonable, specific cases were
referred to a new group of discipline experts who made a recommendation.
- Where possible, the expert recommendations were compared to an existing
disciplinary list from a recognized discipline association for alignment.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 19

A revised list was subsequently produced. Before publication, this list was referred to
a panel of 10 disciplinary experts selected because of their experience and standing
to make comparisons across broad disciplinary groups. The final panel of 10 experts
were instructed to make a “sanity check”. This final review resulted in only a handful
of amendments.

The 2010 review relied on disciplinary opinion to classify journals rather than
following any existing journal-FoR mapping. There was also a deliberate attempt to
minimize the number of titles appearing in “other” categories.

The list was developed for the purpose of serving ABDC members. While it is
inevitable that other parties outside of the ABDC use the list, marginal decisions
regarding journal classifications have typically been made slanted to the interests of
the members of the ABDC.

Perhaps the most significant departure of the 2010 list from the 2008 list was the
removal of the interdisciplinary category. However, many of these journals did not
disappear from the list altogether. Rather, journals previously listed as inter-
disciplinary (which might more accurately be termed multi-disciplinary) were re-
coded under a field of research code that aligns with the type of academic areas
likely to publish in such journals. For example, actuarial science appears under
Banking Finance & Investment (FoR: 1502); applied psychology appears under
Business & Management (FoR: 1503).

Some inter-disciplinary titles were removed as they appeared elsewhere on other

discipline lists. It was thought to be unhelpful to have journal titles appearing on
multiple lists with different ratings. Hence, where journal titles appeared in other
subject areas (eg education, psychology, history), they were left off the ABDC list.

There is little doubt that most journal lists are biased against new journals, mainly on
the basis that they have not had sufficient time to be listed under citation databases
or gain sufficient citations which occurs with the passage of time. However, in
revising the list, attention was paid to those journals that are on a particularly steep
upward trajectory, and where appropriate there was some extrapolation made of
future trajectory. Hence, the 2010 list has sought to mitigate against new journal
bias.

A handful of Australian based journals were judged to be of high quality but suffered
from small readerships and hence did not fare as well as some of their international
counterparts in metric contests such as citations. In such cases when the expert
feedback indicated a marginal rating decision (ie. falling in-between two rating
categories), the journal was rated into the upper category.

Statistics on the 2010 list (i.e., the current version) are produced below. Note that the
disciplinary groupings follow the Australian standard classification of Field of
Research code (FoR). Further details on FoR can be found at: www.abs.gov.au.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 20

FoR Description Total A* % A% B% C%

journals
All All 2671 5.5 19.5 27.6 47.4
0806 Information systems 175 6.9 12.6 24.6 56.0
1401 Economic theory 29 13.8 27.6 31.0 27.6
1402 Applied economics 602 3.5 15.3 33.2 48.0
1403 Econometrics 119 14.3 29.4 29.4 26.9
1499 Other economics 157 4.5 30.6 29.9 35.0
1501 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability 107 5.6 17.8 15.0 61.7
1502 Banking, Finance & Investment 150 4.0 17.3 26.0 52.7
1503 Business & Management 741 5.9 18.8 24.2 51.1
1504 Commercial services 57 0.0 14.4 38.6 47.4
1505 Marketing 117 6.0 12.8 30.8 50.4
1506 Tourism 79 3.8 15.2 31.6 49.4
1507 Transportation & Freight services 49 6.1 20.4 18.4 55.1
1599 Other commerce 0 - - - -
180105 Commercial & Contract law 243 6.2 32.1 25.9 35.8
180125 Taxation law 46 4.3 17.0 31.9 46.8

2. Planning a Review for 2012-2013: BARDSNet feedback

Clearly, a credible journal list must be consistently updated. This can occur via either
a static process (i.e., a periodic review) or via a more dynamic process which allows
for relatively constant adjustment. As the ABDC journal list has not been updated
since 2010, it was agreed at the first 2012 meeting of BARDSNet that the list should
be updated (at least initially in a static manner) and that the process for this updating
should satisfy a number of key conditions, namely;
• The process should be transparent. There was wide consensus that a key
determinant of the credibility of a journal ranking list is the transparency of the
process by which rankings are determined. Two key aspects of transparency
discussed were with respect to who makes the decisions (i.e., the identity of
those deciding rankings and classifications as well as the ability of individuals
to be considered for such roles) and the information on which changes and
adjustments are made (i.e., the basis on which rankings changes occur,
namely the submissions made to the decision making group).
• The basis on which submissions are made should be consistent: BARDsNet
members suggested that all submissions for change should be made on a
standard template. This template should clarify the source of the submission
and the evidence on which changes are suggested.
• The review process should have independent leadership: It was suggested by
several BARDsNet members that the review process (how ever exactly
structured) should have a chair who is independent of the BARDsNet
executive and the ABDC Council. This was viewed as giving more credibility
to the process and some “arms-length” from the overseeing organization.
• External validation should occur: For maximum credibility it was suggested
that the final journal list should have some form of external review, most likely
by academics not located in Australian and New Zealand Business Schools.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 21

• Scope should be restricted: As the table above indicates, the current list
includes journals in all major business disciplines (FoRs 1501-1599), as well
as economics (FoRs 1401-1403 and 1499) and certain areas of law (FoRs
180105 and 180125) plus information systems (FoR 0806). There was some
discussion over whether the list should be reduced in scope or not, but very
little enthusiasm for any expansion.
• The existing Journal List has been widely acknowledged as credible, so the
review process should not dismantle what is presently in place but rather build
on it.

With these factors in mind, it was agreed that there was most definitely a need for a
review of the journal list, and that a process should be put to the BARDsNet group
for discussion and approval which could then be presented to the ABDC for support.

3. Process for 2013 Review agreed by ABDC and BARDsNet

The process for reviewing the ABDC Journal List will proceed in a manner designed
to explicitly recognize the feedback summarized above:

• Step 1: Appointment of Journal List “Guardians”: A call will be issued for

nominations for Chairs of each primary FoR “panel” (although it may not be
necessary to have a separate nominee for each of the primary economics
codes). These nominations will be submitted to the BARDsNet executive for
discussion and approval by the ABDC Executive. Nominations should simply
be a brief statement of background and a CV. From among this group one
person will be selected as chair of the “Guardians”. It is expected that each
member of this group will be a senior academic located in either an Australian
or New Zealand Business School and who would also be free of major
editorial conflicts of interest (e.g. they will not be a managing editor of a
journal, but may have other editorial roles).

• Step 2: Following the appointment of chairs for each panel there will be a call
for nominations to each panel. As far as possible, panel members should be
free of major editorial conflicts of interest. There will be typically no more than
three to five members of any one panel. ECRs with appropriate experience
may also nominate. Nominations will be reviewed by the BARDsNet executive
in conjunction with the chair of the “Guardians” (in all cases) and the relevant
panel chair. The names of the members of each panel will be publicly
available.

• Step 3: A public call for submissions will be made via the Deans of Australian
and New Zealand Business Schools. The call for submissions will also be
placed on the ABDC web site (by which means the submission process would
be accessed). Submissions are encouraged from universities and
associations, but will also be accepted from individuals. The current journal list
and FoR classifications will form the basis of the journals and classifications to
be ranked. Criteria for adding journals not contained in ABDC 2010 include
that they contain a substantive business element (evidenced by >50% of
articles over 3 years written by business faculty; or >50% of articles over 3
years being of a business nature). Alternatively, a journal can be removed
from the list if it does not contain a substantive business element. All

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 22

submissions are to be made on condition they will be publically available. If a

decision is made not to accept a submission (for reasons such as making this
submission publicly available may create a legal liability for the ABDC) then it
will not be made publically available.

• Step 4: Submissions will be reviewed by the relevant FoR panel and then the
revised list for each FoR will be forwarded to the Chair of Guardians, who will
review the overall outcomes and summarize before forwarding to the
BARDsNet executive for review. Once approved the revised list will be
exposed via the ABDC web-site to allow responses.

• Step 5: Responses will be reviewed by the FoR chairs in conjunction with a

nominee from the BARDsNet executive. The draft list will also be reviewed by
a small group of external (i.e., outside Australia and New Zealand) academics
to be identified by the BARDsNet executive and approached on behalf of the
ABDC. Suggestions for changes to the rankings from the external review will
be evaluated by the Guardians.

• Step 6: The final revised list will be presented to the ABDC for endorsement
and will be made available via the ABDC web site.

4. Proposed Timeline

• Step 1: Appointment of Panel Chairs/Guardians: Nominations open February

6 and close February 28, with outcomes announced by March 15.

• Step 2: Call for nominations to Panels opens March 15 and closes April 10,
with outcomes announced April 19.

• Step 3: Call for submissions opens May 1, closes May 31.

• Step 4: Submissions reviewed during June-July, with draft list announced July
31. The ABDC will provide funding to enable each expert panel to meet face-
to-face once, as well as for the Guardians to meet with the BARDsNet
executive to finalize the list.

• Step 5: Responses to the draft revised list open August 1, close August 31.
External review also occurs between August 1 and August 31.

• Step 6: Final revised list announced September 1 and made available via
ABDC web site.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 23

5. Primary FoR Panel Structure

The overall review panel comprises seven sub-panels, based on a logical set of
groupings of Field of Research (FoR) codes. The seven groups are:

0806: Information Systems (INS)

1401-1499: Economics (ECO)
1501: Accounting (ACC)
1502: Finance (FIN)
1503: Management (MAN)
1504-07: Marketing/Tourism/Logistics (MTL)
180105/1801025: Business and Taxation Law (BTL)

6. Underlying Philosophy and Indicative “definitions” of the Four Research

Quality Rating Categories

The basic philosophy underlying the ABDC list is first to identify a broad set of
quality journal outlets relevant to a given group of FoR category and to collectively
recognise them as worthy targets of academic research endeavour (in contrast to
those journals unlisted and unrated). The second leg of the process then involves
partitioning this full set of quality journals into four mutually exclusive (and
collectively exhaustive) rating categories labelled: A*; A; B and C. These quality
rating categories are defined as follows: 3

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. 4
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.

Unrated and unlisted journals: It should be noted that in each FoR group there will
be a range of relevant journals deemed NOT to reach the quality threshold level to
be classified as quality journal outlets e.g. including “predatory open-access”
journals. Such journals will not be listed or rated in the ABDC list.

3
The percentages stated for each rating category are indicative only – moreover, individual FoR codes will
exhibit some variation around the means assigned to the overall panel.
4
It should be noted that the purpose of the A* category is NOT to exclusively identify Tier 1 journals for a
given area of research – experts within each specific discipline are well-versed in making such judgements
irrespective of the ABDC objectives. While such elite journals are an important component, the purpose of the
A* group is to augment the Tier 1 group with the closest set of relevant journals that are nearest in quality to
the Tier 1 group.
ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report
 24

7. Some Key Considerations

• For the purposes of this review, the ABDC 2010 journal list is accepted as a
firm foundation upon which to build. While the coverage in each panel list is
open to relevant expansion, ratings assigned to journals in the 2010 list
should be viewed as “sticky”, particularly in the downward direction.
Suggested downgrades will attract particular careful scrutiny and the review
process in Stage 5 (August 2013) will give ample opportunity for cases to be
made against (or in support of) the proposed downgrade of any journal.
• 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 an efficient and effective process for submitters and assessor panels
• Minimise information overload
• Minimise information duplication
• Minimise irrelevant information
• Focus on objective information
• Avoid overlap of lists – assign unique journal “ownership”
• For any given journal, the QUALITY of submissions5 is far more important
than the quantity of submissions – like-minded submitters are STRONGLY
encouraged to submit a single joint submission.

5
“Quality” in this context predominantly refers to the collective strength and persuasiveness of the
arguments/evidence submitted in support of the action requested. Of course, the care and presentational
quality that the submission displays is also important.
ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report
 25

SUBMISSION PROCESS
8. Eligibility for making Submissions
To be eligible, the submission must emanate from "within" Australia or New Zealand
(ANZ) and come from one of three relevant stakeholder groups:

(1) an official submission from a 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;
(2) a submission from a relevant Peak Body representing ANZ academics (where
such a body is primarily located in ANZ);
(3) a submission from an individual academic or groups of like-minded academics
with formal affiliation(s) to a university(ies) based in ANZ (NB: each signatory
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.

9. A Summary of Scenarios and Proforma Templates

Draft templates for submissions are designed with the above considerations in mind
and cover four distinct scenarios leading to four alternative templates (forms):

 Scenario 1: A relevant journal is missing from the ABDC 2010 list – complete
FORM A (i.e. “addition to list” request).
 Scenario 2: A currently ABDC-rated journal is “over-rated” in the ABDC 2010
list – complete FORM B (i.e. “downgrade” request).
 Scenario 3: A currently ABDC-rated journal is “under-rated” in the ABDC
2010 list – complete FORM C (i.e. “upgrade” request).
 Scenario 4: A currently ABDC-rated journal is “mis-classified” in the ABDC
2010 list – complete FORM D (i.e. “reclassification” request, with scope
here also for recommending a changed rating if desired).

Each template/form comprises three pages:

• Page 1: requesting key information relevant to the designated scenario

• Page 2: Executive Summary (250 word limit i.e. one page)
• Page 3: provides a check list for supplementary appendices that attach to
the submission (allowing more detailed information to be documented).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 26

10. Filling in FORM A: “New Academic Journal”

When should I use this Form?

• You should complete FORM A if you believe that a relevant journal is missing
from the ABDC 2010 list.
• Previously unrated journals should only be nominated in this form where a
clear case can be made for them (a) achieving a minimum “business element
test” and (b) satisfying a minimum threshold of research quality.
• For example, there is a strong presumption that titles that fall into the recent
wave of “predatory” open access journals should not be nominated.
• Please complete a separate form relating to each journal for which you wish
to make a submission of this type.

FORM A Guidelines for filling in Page 1:

Journal Title: type in the name of the journal that you wish to nominate.

QA1: simply place a check against the relevant primary FoR Panel.

QA2: simply place a check against the requested ABDC 2013 rating.

QA3: simply place a check against the relevant FoR Panel used by ERA 2010.

QA4: simply place a check against the appropriate ERA 2010 rating.

QA5: type in the name of a journal rated in the ABDC 2010 list and belonging to the
same FoR code as selected in QA1 which, in your view, is the nearest in academic
quality to the one that you have nominated as a new inclusion.

QA6: complete all the journal information as requested relating to your nominated
new journal.

QA7: place a check in the box which appropriately describes the “primary” submitter.
The primary submitter is the “lead” submitter in cases where a joint submission is
being lodged by like-minded groups – the other parties to such a submission are
described as “other signatories”.

QA8: type in the name of the primary submitter – be it a university institution name
(e.g. “UQ Business School”); or an eligible Peak Body (e.g. “AFAANZ”); or an eligible
individual (e.g. “Professor Fred Tuttle”). For submissions in which the primary
submitter is an individual academic, that individual’s institutional affiliation should be
typed in (e.g. “University of Sydney”).

QA9: If this submission represents other signatories apart from the primary
submitter, then tick “yes”. Otherwise tick “no”. If yes, type in the total number of
signatories including the primary submitter (e.g. if there are 6 other signatories plus
the primary submitter, then type in “7”). Please note: for submissions which do
involve “other signatories” you will need to lodge Appendix A9 that provides the
requested details of the other signatories (see below).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 27

FORM A Guidelines for filling in Page 2 (QA10):

• Page 2 is designed to give you the opportunity to clearly and concisely make
your best case for why the nominated journal should be included in the 2013
ABDC list and for why it should be rated at the level you nominated in answer
to question QA2.
• A bullet-point style is encouraged – but not mandatory.
• The content of your Executive Summary should, where relevant, make brief
reference to a particular appendix that contains further details underlying the
key argument(s) e.g. “… Journals X, Y, Z are strong benchmarks for Journal
A (App.A5)”.

FORM A Guidelines for filling in Page 3 (Supplementary Information: Appendix

Checklist):
The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted
by way of appendices. However, please note that: (a) FoR panels will be highly
appreciative of those submissions that present concise, focused and carefully
crafted material; and (b) you are strongly encouraged to collaborate with like-
minded institutions/colleagues across the sector to create single joint
submissions.

• QA11: tick the box which is appropriate. If your answers to QA1 and QA3 are
the same, then tick the second box – in this case Appendix A1 is not needed.
Otherwise, tick the first box – in this case Appendix A1 MUST be provided as
part of your full submission.
• QA12: this question requires you tick whichever boxes are appropriate to your
submission – in all cases that you tick, the designated appendices MUST be
provided as part of your full submission.
• Appendices A2 – A8: are optional – it is entirely up to you which of these
are important and need to be included in your full submission.
• Appendix A9 is mandatory only for those submissions which involve “other
signatories” (see QA9).

In your full submission:

• Appendices A2, A3, A7 and A9: are straightforward and require no further
explanation.
• Appendix A4: covers recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant
field. The best example would be signed/dated letter(s) on official letterhead
directly from the leading academic in question.
• Appendix A5: Comparisons with existing rated journals. Here you could
nominate several journals e.g. 3-5 journals which you believe are highly
comparable (in terms of their academic quality) to your nominated journal and
you should give a brief justification how you identified these journals as
appropriate “benchmark” journals e.g. based on citation analysis.
• Appendix A6: In many disciplines, review articles give high praise to select
influential papers/journals and making reference to this might help make your
case.
• Appendix A8: Other supporting documentation e.g. relative ratings of this
journal given by other reputable journals lists or in reputable journal
ranking/rating articles (please keep this concise and relevant).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 28

11. Filling in FORM B: “Rating Downgrade”

When should I use this Form?

• You should complete FORM B if you believe that a currently ABDC-rated
journal should be downgraded from its ABDC 2010 rating.
• Complete this form also, if there is a currently listed journal which you believe
does not meet minimum research quality thresholds and should therefore be
removed from the ABDC lists (e.g. because it is a “predatory” open access
journal).
• Please complete a separate form relating to each journal for which you wish
to make a submission of this type.

FORM B Guidelines for filling in Page 1:

Journal Title: type in the name of the journal that you wish to nominate.

QB1: simply place a check against the relevant primary FoR Panel.

QB2: simply place a check against the requested ABDC 2013 rating.

QB3: simply place a check against the appropriate ABDC 2010 rating.

QB4: simply place a check against the appropriate ERA 2010 rating.

QB5: type in the name of a journal rated in the ABDC 2010 list and belonging to the
same FoR code as selected in QB1 which, in your view, is the nearest in academic
quality to the one that you have nominated for downgrade.

QB6: complete the journal information as requested relating to your nominated new
journal.

QB7: place a check in the box which appropriately describes the “primary” submitter.
The primary submitter is the “lead” submitter in cases where a joint submission is
being lodged by like-minded groups – the other parties to such a submission are
described as “other signatories”.

QB8: type in the name of the primary submitter – be it a university institution name
(e.g. “UQ Business School”); or an eligible Peak Body (e.g. “AFAANZ”); or an eligible
individual (e.g. “Professor Fred Tuttle”). For submissions in which the primary
submitter is an individual academic, that individual’s institutional affiliation should be
typed in (e.g. “University of Sydney”).

QB9: If this submission represents other signatories apart from the primary
submitter, then tick “yes”. Otherwise tick “no”. If yes, type in the total number of
signatories including the primary submitter (e.g. if there are 6 other signatories plus
the primary submitter, then type in “7”). Please note: for submissions which do
involve “other signatories” you will need to lodge Appendix B8 that provides the
requested details of the other signatories (see below).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 29

FORM B Guidelines for filling in Page 2 (QB10):

• Page 2 is designed to give you the opportunity to clearly and concisely make
your best case for why the nominated journal should be downgraded in the
2013 ABDC list.
• A bullet-point style is encouraged – but not mandatory.
• The content of your Executive Summary should, where relevant, make brief
reference to a particular appendix that contains further details underlying the
key argument(s) e.g. “… Journals X, Y, Z are strong benchmarks for Journal
A (App.B4)”.

FORM B Guidelines for filling in Page 3 (Supplementary Information: Appendix

Checklist):

The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted

by way of appendices. However, please note that: (a) FoR panels will be highly
appreciative of those submissions that present concise, focused and carefully
crafted material; and (b) you are strongly encouraged to collaborate with like-
minded institutions/colleagues across the sector to create single joint
submissions.

• QB11: this question requires you tick whichever boxes are appropriate to your
submission – in all cases that you tick, the designated appendices MUST be
provided as part of your full submission.
• Appendix B8 is mandatory only for those submissions which involve “other
signatories” (see QB9).
• for the scenario of a rating downgrade, all other appendices should be seen
to be optional – you have total discretion over those that you choose to
supply and those that you choose to ignore in your full submission.

In your full submission:

• Appendices B1, B2, B6 and B8: are straightforward and require no further
explanation.
• Appendix B3: covers recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant
field. The best example would be signed/dated letter(s) on official letterhead
directly from the leading academic in question.
• Appendix B4: Comparisons with existing rated journals. Here you could
nominate several journals e.g. 3-5 journals which you believe are highly
comparable (in terms of their academic quality) to your nominated journal and
you should give a brief justification how you identified these journals as
appropriate “benchmark” journals e.g. based on citation analysis.
• Appendix B5: In many disciplines, review articles give high praise to select
influential papers/journals and making reference to this might help make your
case.
• Appendix B7: Other supporting documentation e.g. relative ratings of this
journal given by other reputable journal quality lists or in reputable journal
ranking/rating articles; major recent changes to the editorial board; major
recent changes in acceptance rates. Please keep the material included in this
appendix concise and relevant.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 30

12. Filling in FORM C: “Rating Upgrade”

When should I use this Form?

• You should complete FORM C if you believe that a currently ABDC-rated
journal should be upgraded from its ABDC 2010 rating.
• Please complete a separate form relating to each journal for which you wish
to make a submission of this type.

FORM C Guidelines for filling in Page 1:

Journal Title: type in the name of the journal that you wish to nominate.

QC1: simply place a check against the relevant primary FoR Panel.

QC2: simply place a check against the requested ABDC 2013 rating.

QC3: simply place a check against the appropriate ABDC 2010 rating.

QC4: simply place a check against the appropriate ERA 2010 rating.

QC5: type in the name of a journal rated in the ABDC 2010 list and belonging to the
same FoR code as selected in QC1 which, in your view, is the nearest in academic
quality to the one that you have nominated for upgrade.

QC6: complete the journal information as requested relating to your nominated new
journal.

QC7: place a check in the box which appropriately describes the “primary” submitter.
The primary submitter is the “lead” submitter in cases where a joint submission is
being lodged by like-minded groups – the other parties to such a submission are
described as “other signatories”.

QC8: type in the name of the primary submitter – be it a university institution name
(e.g. “UQ Business School”); or an eligible Peak Body (e.g. “AFAANZ”); or an eligible
individual (e.g. “Professor Fred Tuttle”). For submissions in which the primary
submitter is an individual academic, that individual’s institutional affiliation should be
typed in (e.g. “University of Sydney”).

QC9: If this submission represents other signatories apart from the primary
submitter, then tick “yes”. Otherwise tick “no”. If yes, type in the total number of
signatories including the primary submitter (e.g. if there are 6 other signatories plus
the primary submitter, then type in “7”). Please note: for submissions which do
involve “other signatories” you will need to lodge Appendix C8 that provides the
requested details of the other signatories (see below).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 31

FORM C Guidelines for filling in Page 2 (QC10):

• Page 2 is designed to give you the opportunity to clearly and concisely make
your best case for why the nominated journal should be upgraded in the 2013
ABDC list.
• A bullet-point style is encouraged – but not mandatory.
• The content of your Executive Summary should, where relevant, make brief
reference to a particular appendix that contains further details underlying the
key argument(s) e.g. “… Journals X, Y, Z are strong benchmarks for Journal
A (App.C4)”.

FORM C Guidelines for filling in Page 3 (Supplementary Information: Appendix

Checklist):

The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted

by way of appendices. However, please note that: (a) FoR panels will be highly
appreciative of those submissions that present concise, focused and carefully
crafted material; and (b) you are strongly encouraged to collaborate with like-
minded institutions/colleagues across the sector to create single joint
submissions.

• QC11: this question requires you tick whichever boxes are appropriate to your
submission – in all cases that you tick, the designated appendices MUST be
provided as part of your full submission.
• Appendix C8 is mandatory only for those submissions which involve “other
signatories” (see QC9).
• for the scenario of a rating upgrade, all other appendices should be seen to
be optional – you have total discretion over those that you choose to supply
and those that you choose to ignore in your full submission.

In your full submission:

• Appendices C1, C2, C6 and C8: are straightforward and require no further
explanation.
• Appendix C3: covers recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant
field. The best example would be signed/dated letter(s) on official letterhead
directly from the leading academic in question.
• Appendix C4: Comparisons with existing rated journals. Here you could
nominate several journals e.g. 3-5 journals which you believe are highly
comparable (in terms of their academic quality) to your nominated journal and
you should give a brief justification how you identified these journals as
appropriate “benchmark” journals e.g. based on citation analysis.
• Appendix C5: In many disciplines, review articles give high praise to select
influential papers/journals and making reference to this might help make your
case.
• Appendix C7: Other supporting documentation e.g. relative ratings of this
journal given by other reputable journal quality lists or in reputable journal
ranking/rating articles; major recent changes to the editorial board; major
recent changes in acceptance rates. Please keep the material included in this
appendix concise and relevant.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 32

13. Filling in FORM D: “Change of FoR Panel”

When should I use this Form?

• You should complete FORM D if you believe that a currently ABDC-rated
journal should change from its ABDC 2010 FoR Panel to different FoR Panel.
• Please complete a separate form relating to each journal for which you wish
to make a submission of this type.

FORM D Guidelines for filling in Page 1:

Journal Title: type in the name of the journal that you wish to nominate.

QD1: simply place a check against the relevant “new” primary FoR Panel.

QD2: simply place a check against the relevant “old” primary FoR Panel.

QD3: simply place a check against the requested ABDC 2013 rating.

QD4: simply place a check against the appropriate ABDC 2010 rating.

QD5: simply place a check against the appropriate ERA 2010 rating.

QD6: type in the name of a journal rated in the ABDC 2010 list and belonging to the
same FoR code as selected in QD1 which, in your view, is the nearest in academic
quality to the one that you have nominated for a change in FoR panel.

QD7: complete the journal information as requested relating to your nominated new
journal.

QD8: place a check in the box which appropriately describes the “primary” submitter.
The primary submitter is the “lead” submitter in cases where a joint submission is
being lodged by like-minded groups – the other parties to such a submission are
described as “other signatories”.

QD9: type in the name of the primary submitter – be it a university institution name
(e.g. “UQ Business School”); or an eligible Peak Body (e.g. “AFAANZ”); or an eligible
individual (e.g. “Professor Fred Tuttle”). For submissions in which the primary
submitter is an individual academic, that individual’s institutional affiliation should be
typed in (e.g. “University of Sydney”).

QD10: If this submission represents other signatories apart from the primary
submitter, then tick “yes”. Otherwise tick “no”. If yes, type in the total number of
signatories including the primary submitter (e.g. if there are 6 other signatories plus
the primary submitter, then type in “7”). Please note: for submissions which do
involve “other signatories” you will need to lodge Appendix D8 that provides the
requested details of the other signatories (see below).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 33

FORM D Guidelines for filling in Page 2 (QD11):

• Page 2 is designed to give you the opportunity to clearly and concisely make
your best case for why the nominated journal should have its assigned FoR
Panel changed in the 2013 ABDC list.
• Make it clear whether you propose to retain the ABDC 2010 rating or that
seek an “upgrade” or a “downgrade” – and in the latter two cases clearly
justify the proposed rating change.
• A bullet-point style is encouraged – but not mandatory.
• The content of your Executive Summary should, where relevant, make brief
reference to a particular appendix that contains further details underlying the
key argument(s) e.g. “… Journals X, Y, Z are strong benchmarks for Journal
A (App.D4)”.

FORM D Guidelines for filling in Page 3 (Supplementary Information: Appendix

Checklist):

The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted

by way of appendices. However, please note that: (a) FoR panels will be highly
appreciative of those submissions that present concise, focused and carefully
crafted material; and (b) you are strongly encouraged to collaborate with like-
minded institutions/colleagues across the sector to create single joint
submissions.

• QD12: this question requires you tick whichever boxes are appropriate to your
submission – in all cases that you tick, the designated appendices MUST be
provided as part of your full submission.
• Appendix D8 is mandatory only for those submissions which involve “other
signatories” (see QD10).
• for the scenario of a rating upgrade, all other appendices should be seen to
be optional – you have total discretion over those that you choose to supply
and those that you choose to ignore in your full submission.

In your full submission:

• Appendices D1, D2, D6 and D8: are straightforward and require no further
explanation.
• Appendix D3: covers recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant
field. The best example would be signed/dated letter(s) on official letterhead
directly from the leading academic in question.
• Appendix D4: Comparisons with existing rated journals. Here you could
nominate several journals e.g. 3-5 journals which you believe are highly
comparable (in terms of their academic quality) to your nominated journal and
you should give a brief justification how you identified these journals as
appropriate “benchmark” journals e.g. based on citation analysis.
• Appendix D5: In many disciplines, review articles give high praise to select
influential papers/journals and making reference to this might help make your
case.
• Appendix D7: Other supporting documentation e.g. relative ratings of this
journal given by other reputable journals lists or in reputable journal
ranking/rating articles (please keep this concise and relevant).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 34

14. Instructions for making a Submission

(1) Submissions to the 2013 Review of the ABCD journal quality list will only be valid
and only be considered if they comply FULLY to all directives issued in this “Instructions
to Submitters” document. Most critically, such compliance relates to (a) eligibility, as
stated in Section 8 above and (b) the instructions listed below.

(2) ALL submissions should be fully word processed directly on the relevant form(s) as
provided (i.e. not hand written, not copied into Word, not amended in any other way).

(3) Do NOT adjust the format of the 3-page form relating to each submission (e.g. once
completed, each form should comply with the format as described in Section 9 above).

(4) Regarding each individual submission (i.e. relating to ONE journal), having identified
the appropriate form (i.e. either “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”), 2 files must be lodged:

File #1: Completed 3-page form relevant to the submission (i.e. saved PDF)

File #2: One single consolidated file containing the FULL submission: i.e.
completed 3-page proforma first followed by all relevant appendices (i.e. create
one combined PDF file) 6

(5) Lodge your submission by email to: [email protected]

(6) The email should:

a. Subject line = “ABDC Journal List 2013 Review Submission: <<primary

submitter name>>.x” (where “x” represents the “xth” submission you have
made.

For example, say you are making a submission from UQ Business School
and this is your 11th different submission, then the subject line in your email
should state (please keep a careful summary record of your submissions as
you make them):

“ABDC Journal List 2013 Review Submission: UQBS.11”

b. Attach to the email, the 2 associated files relating to the given submission (as
outlined in step (4) above).

c. Body of the email should simply state the target FoR panel (i.e. INS, ECO,
ACC, FIN, MAN, MTL or BTL), the Form submitted (A, B, C, or D) and the
journal title relating to the submission.

For example, lets say you are submitting a Form C (i.e. upgrade) to the
Information Systems Panel regarding the “Journal of BIS”. The body of the
email should simply state:

“INS: Form C: Journal of BIS”

6
One way of creating a combined PDF file for full submissions is as follows. 1. Convert all files to PDF. 2. Open
Adobe Acrobat Pro. 3. Select “Combine files in PDF”. 4. Drag and drop files into the window to add them. 5.
Arrange them in the desired order: 3-page form first, followed by relevant appendices in numerical order. 6.
Select the “Combine files” button.
ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report
 35

(7) An automated reply will be sent to you acknowledging receipt of your submission.

(8) Each submission should be sent via a separate email.

(9) Submissions Open: 3 May, 2013.

(10) Submissions CLOSE: COB 31 May, 2013 (EST).

15. Further Inquiries

Please read the “Instructions to Submitters” very carefully before you proceed to
extensively develop any possible submission. Considerable effort has been devoted
to making the instructions fully self-contained and unambiguous. However, should
you feel that there is any confusion around the requirements please follow the
procedure and sequence stated below to gain assistance.

(a) Consult FAQ list: an “FAQ” listing will be established and updated on the
ABDC website. Please, in the first instance, consult the relevant web-page
for this list to check that your question/query has not been adequately
resolved there.

(b) Contact the ABDC Secretariat: Should the FAQ listing not adequately
resolve your query, please contact the ABDC secretariat – either by sending
an email to:

[email protected]

OR by phoning Fiona Doyle (Executive Officer, ABDC) on:

02 6162 2970

PLEASE DO NOT contact any of the panel members directly or indirectly, since ALL
queries MUST be handled centrally 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.

Should you disregard this directive, all panel members are instructed to give no
advice and to immediately refer you to the above procedure. Please be respectful
and understanding of such a response when it happens.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 36

Appendix C

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

Proforma Templates

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 37

FORM A: ABDC 2013 JOURNALS LIST REVIEW

NEW ACADEMIC JOURNAL SUBMISSION

*** PLEASE NOTE THAT: FORM A is designed to formalise requests to the ABDC Journals Review
Panel 2013 seeking the inclusion of an academic journal which is currently omitted from the ABDC
2010 list. Previously unrated journals should only be nominated in this form where a clear case can
be made for them (a) achieving a minimum “business element test” and (b) satisfying a minimum
threshold of research quality. Please complete a separate form relating to each journal for which you
wish to make a submission of this type.

Journal Title: .

QA1. FIELD of RESEARCH (FoR) PANEL to which this request is directed (tick one box only):
 0806 Information Systems
 1401-1499 Economics
 1501 Accounting
 1502 Finance
 1503 Management
 1504-07 Marketing/Tourism/Logistics
 180105/1801025 Business and Taxation Law

QA2. WHAT ABDC 2013 RATING DO YOU PROPOSE FOR THIS JOURNAL?
 A*  A B C
QA3. IN ERA 2010, WHICH FoR GROUP WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?
 0806 Information systems
 1401-1499 Economics
 1501 Accounting
 1502 Finance
 1503 Management
 1504-07 Marketing/Tourism/Logistics
 180105/1801025 Business and Taxation Law
 OTHER: please specify . .
 New journal not previously ranked

QA4. WHAT ERA 2010 RATING WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?

 A*  A B C  not applicable
QA5. NOMINATE “THE BEST” COMPARATOR JOURNAL (journal from the ABDC 2010 list that
is most similar in research quality): .

QA6. JOURNAL INFORMATION

Publisher: .
Frequency:
Current Volume: Current Issue: ISSN: First Year Published:
Refereed (please tick one): yes no
Editor’s Name: Institution:
Web Address: .

NATURE OF SUBMISSION
QA7. Primary submitter type (tick one box only)
 Higher Education Institutional Submission (e.g. formal submission from Business
Faculty/School)
 Peak Body Submission (e.g. AFAANZ, ANZAM)
 Individual Submission

QA8. Primary submitter: . .

Institutional Affiliation:. .
QA9. Are there other signatories to this submission?  Yes  No
If yes, how many signatories are there (including the primary submitter)? . .

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 38

QA10. Executive Summary (250 words fully presented on this page only). In the space below
succinctly highlight the most powerful elements of your case for including the designated new
journal in the ABDC 2013 list and for the suggested rating given in QA2. Please use a “bullet
point” style where possible.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 39

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APPENDIX CHECKLIST

The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted

by way of appendices.
QA11. Mandatory “substantive business element test” (please tick one box only):
 Appendix A1: Substantive business element test
You should provide:
• Simple metrics that demonstrate a substantive “business” element
relating to the relevant FoR Panel e.g. > 50% of articles over 3 years
written by business faculty or > 50% of articles over a recent 3-year
period are of a business nature. For the purposes of this test, a research
area is deemed to be “business” provided that it meaningfully relates to
(at least) one of the FoR Panels established for the ABDC journal list
review.
• The Editorial Board list and clearly establish that many academics on the
board have meaningful links to the relevant area of business-related
research.

 ERA 2013 FoR code is the same as the requested FoR designation (i.e. answer for QA1 =
QA3) – Appendix A1 is NOT required.

QA12. What supplementary information are you supplying (by way of appendices) to support
your submission? (these appendices should be seen to be optional – you have discretion over
those that you choose to supply and those that you choose to ignore).

The following documents are attached in support of this application (please tick boxes as
relevant):

 Appendix A2: List of Editorial Board Members

 Appendix A3: Description and Scope of Journal
 Appendix A4: Recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant field
 Appendix A5: Comparisons with existing rated journals
 Appendix A6: Coverage in review articles
 Appendix A7: Impact Factors: SSCI or others
 Appendix A8: Other supporting documentation
 Appendix A9: Signatory Details – in cases where there are more than one signatory to the
submission,
list all signatory names and their university or relevant affiliations (this
appendix should articulate with the answer given to QA8 above).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 40

FORM B: ABDC 2013 JOURNALS LIST REVIEW

RATING DOWNGRADE SUBMISSION

*** PLEASE NOTE THAT: FORM B is designed to formalise requests to the ABDC Journals Review
Panel 2013 seeking a downgrade in rating of an academic journal which is currently included and
rated in the ABDC 2010 list e.g. seeking a drop in rating from an “A” to a “B” journal. Please complete
a separate form relating to each journal for which you wish to make a submission of this type.
Complete this form also, if there is a currently listed journal which you believe does not meet minimum
research quality thresholds and should therefore be removed from the ABDC lists (e.g. because it is
a “predatory” open access journal).

Journal Title: .

QB1. FIELD of RESEARCH (FoR) PANEL to which this request is directed (tick one box only):
 0806 Information Systems
 1401-1499 Economics
 1501 Accounting
 1502 Finance
 1503 Management
 1504-07 Marketing/Tourism/Logistics
 180105/1801025 Business and Taxation Law

QB2. WHAT ABDC 2013 RATING DO YOU PROPOSE FOR THIS JOURNAL?
 A*  A B C  remove from ABDC list
QB3. WHAT ABDC 2010 RATING WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?
 A*  A B C
QB4. WHAT ERA 2010 RATING WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?
 A*  A B C  not applicable
QB5. NOMINATE “THE BEST” COMPARATOR JOURNAL (journal from the ABDC 2010 list that
is most similar in research quality): .

QB6. JOURNAL INFORMATION

Editor’s Name: Institution:
Web Address: .

NATURE OF SUBMISSION

QB7. Primary submitter type (tick one box only)

 Higher Education Institutional Submission (e.g. formal submission from Business
Faculty/School)
 Peak Body Submission (e.g. AFAANZ, ANZAM)
 Individual Submission

QB8. Primary submitter: . .

Institutional Affiliation. .
QB9. Are there other signatories to this submission?  Yes  No
If yes, how many signatories are there (including the primary submitter)? . .

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 41

QB10. Executive Summary (word limit: 250 words fully presented on this page only). In the
space below succinctly highlight the most powerful elements of your case for downgrading the
rating of the designated journal. Please use a “bullet point” style where possible.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 42

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APPENDIX CHECKLIST

The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted by way of
appendices.

QB11. What supplementary information are you supplying (by way of appendices) to support
your submission?

The following documents are attached in support of this application (please tick boxes as
relevant):

 Appendix B1: List of Editorial Board Members

 Appendix B2: Description and Scope of Journal
 Appendix B3: Recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant field
 Appendix B4: Comparisons with existing rated journals
 Appendix B5: Coverage in review articles
 Appendix B6: Impact Factors: SSCI or others
 Appendix B7: Other supporting documentation
 Appendix B8: Signatory Details – in cases where there are more than one signatory to the
submission,
list all signatory names and their university or relevant affiliations (this
appendix should articulate with the answer given to QB9 above).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 43

FORM C: ABDC 2013 JOURNALS LIST REVIEW

RATING UPGRADE SUBMISSION

*** PLEASE NOTE THAT: FORM C is designed to formalise requests to the ABDC Journals Review
Panel 2013 seeking an upgrade in rating of an academic journal which is currently included and
rated in the ABDC 2010 list e.g. seeking to raise a rating from a “B” to an “A” journal. Please
complete a separate form relating to each journal for which you wish to make a submission of this
type.

Journal Title: .

QC1. FIELD of RESEARCH (FoR) PANEL to which this request is directed (tick one box only):
 0806 Information Systems
 1401-1499 Economics
 1501 Accounting
 1502 Finance
 1503 Management
 1504-07 Marketing/Tourism/Logistics
 180105/1801025 Business and Taxation Law

QC2. WHAT ABDC 2013 RATING DO YOU PROPOSE FOR THIS JOURNAL?
 A*  A B C
QC3. WHAT ABDC 2010 RATING WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?
 A*  A B C
QC4. WHAT ERA 2010 RATING WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?
 A*  A B C  not applicable
QC5. NOMINATE “THE BEST” COMPARATOR JOURNAL (journal from the ABDC 2010 list that
is most similar in research quality): .

QC6. JOURNAL INFORMATION

Editor’s Name: Institution:
Web Address: .

NATURE OF SUBMISSION

QC7. Primary submitter type (tick one box only)

 Higher Education Institutional Submission (e.g. formal submission from Business
Faculty/School)
 Peak Body Submission (e.g. AFAANZ, ANZAM)
 Individual Submission

QC8. Primary submitter: . .

Institutional Affiliation: . .
QC9. Are there other signatories to this submission?  Yes  No
If yes, how many signatories are there (including the primary submitter)? . .

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 44

QC10. Executive Summary (word limit: 250 words fully presented on this page only). In the
space below succinctly highlight the key elements of your case for upgrading the rating of the
designated journal. Please use a “bullet point” style where possible.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 45

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APPENDIX CHECKLIST

The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted by way of
appendices.

QC11. What supplementary information are you supplying (by way of appendices) to support
your submission?

The following documents are attached in support of this application (please tick boxes as
relevant):

 Appendix C1: List of Editorial Board Members

 Appendix C2: Description and Scope of Journal
 Appendix C3: Recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant field
 Appendix C4: Comparisons with existing rated journals
 Appendix C5: Coverage in review articles
 Appendix C6: Impact Factors: SSCI or others
 Appendix C7: Other supporting documentation
 Appendix C8: Signatory Details – in cases where there are more than one signatory to the
submission,
list all signatory names and their university or relevant affiliations (this
appendix should articulate with the answer given to QC9 above).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 46

FORM D: ABDC 2013 JOURNALS LIST REVIEW

CHANGE OF FIELD of RESEARCH (FoR) CLASSIFICATION SUBMISSION

*** PLEASE NOTE: FORM D is designed to formalise requests to the ABDC Journals Review Panel
2013 seeking a change in the FoR classification of an academic journal which is currently already
included in the ABDC 2010 list (e.g. from 1401 to 1502). Please complete a separate form relating
to each journal for which you wish to make a submission of this type.

Journal Title: .

QD1. NEW FIELD of RESEARCH (FoR) PANEL proposed for ABDC 2013 list (tick one box only):
 0806 Information Systems
 1401-1499 Economics
 1501 Accounting
 1502 Finance
 1503 Management
 1504-07 Marketing/Tourism/Logistics
 180105/1801025 Business and Taxation Law

QD2. WHAT “OLD” FoR group is this journal assigned in the ABDC 2010 list?
 0806 Information systems
 1401-1499 Economics
 1501 Accounting
 1502 Finance
 1503 Management
 1504-07 Marketing/Tourism/Logistics
 180105/1801025 Business and Taxation Law

QD3. WHAT ABDC 2013 RATING DO YOU PROPOSE FOR THIS JOURNAL?
 A*  A B C
QD4. WHAT ABDC 2010 RATING WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?
 A*  A B C
QD5. WHAT ERA 2010 RATING WAS THIS JOURNAL ASSIGNED?
 A*  A B C  not applicable
QD6. NOMINATE “THE BEST” COMPARATOR JOURNAL (journal from the ABDC 2010 list that
is most similar in quality): .

QD7. JOURNAL INFORMATION

Editor’s Name: Institution:
Web Address: .

NATURE OF SUBMISSION

QD8. Primary submitter type (tick one box only)

 Higher Education Institutional Submission (e.g. formal submission from Business
Faculty/School)
 Peak Body Submission (e.g. AFAANZ, ANZAM)
 Individual Submission

QD9. Primary submitter: . .

Institutional Affiliation: . .

QD10. Are there other signatories to this submission?  Yes  No

If yes, how many signatories are there (including the primary submitter)? . .

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 47

QD11. Executive Summary (word limit: 250 words fully presented on this page only). In the
space below succinctly highlight the most powerful elements of your case for changing the FoR
category of the designated journal (as indicated in QD1 above). Make it clear whether you
propose to retain the ABDC 2010 rating or an “upgrade” or a “downgrade” – and in the latter two
cases clearly justify the proposed rating change. Please use a “bullet point” style where possible.

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 48

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APPENDIX CHECKLIST

The ABDC invites further supplementary and supporting information to be submitted by way of
appendices.

QD12. What supplementary information are you supplying (by way of appendices) to support
your submission?

The following documents are attached in support of this application (please tick boxes as
relevant):

 Appendix D1: List of Editorial Board Members

 Appendix D2: Description and Scope of Journal
 Appendix D3: Recommendations from eminent scholars in the relevant field
 Appendix D4: Comparisons with existing rated journals
 Appendix D5: Coverage in review articles
 Appendix D6: Impact Factors: SSCI or others
 Appendix D7: Other supporting documentation
 Appendix D8: Signatory Details – in cases where there are more than one signatory to the
submission,
list all signatory names and their university or relevant affiliations (this
appendix should articulate with the answer given to QA8 above).

ABDC Journal Quality List – 2013 Review: Overall Report

 49

Appendix D1

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

0806 Information Systems (INS)

FoR Panel Report

Julie Fisher (Chair) – Monash University

John Lamp – Deakin University
Deborah Bunker – University of Sydney
 50

Since 2007 when the first journal ranked list for 0806 was developed the Australasian
Councils of Heads and Professors of Information Systems (ACPHIS) has continued to
receive and consider changes to the list. In December 2012 a formal review of
Information Systems Journal rankings was undertaken. The process involved inviting
submissions from all Australian and New Zealand Information Systems academics. When
submitting, academics were required to provide justification for any changes to what was
then the current list. At the conclusion of the process a revised journal ranked list was
produced. ACPHIS reviewed this list before agreeing to the changes. Decisions that were
made through this earlier process, regarding Journal rankings informed the panel’s
decisions and have been included in this report along with the decisions regarding new
submissions received.

A. Journal Additions
The INS Panel received seven submissions recommending journal additions to the ABDC
list. After due deliberation, all journals were added and endorsed by our panel. Three of the
journals are both new “young” journals– with less than 5-6 years of publishing history.
• The journal Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy was launched in
2007, it could be regarded as peripheral to information systems however it does
publish papers relevant to IS. The submission requested a rank of A the panel
however ranked the journal B as it has yet to establish itself and demonstrate it is
clearly a A level IS journal.
• The Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology was launched in 2010. The
submission requested a rank of B the panel agreed given it is clearly a journal relevant
to IS and business. It has already built a presence with good citations.
• International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation as a
new journal has yet to establish itself and was given the rank of C.
Four older journals not on the 0806 list have been added.
• Behaviour and Information Technology, leading journal in the field and previously on
the ACPHIS list ranked A
• Library Review publishes papers very relevant to IS and the panel agreed to accept
the recommendation of the submission for it to be ranked B.
• Online Information Review quality journal on the ACPHIS list ranked B
• The Electronic Library publishes papers relevant to IS and the panel agreed to include
the journal. The recommendation of the submission was for it to be ranked A, the
panel thought it should be a B journal as its focus is primarily on libraries.

The endorsed list of newly-admitted journals to this panel (and their associated provisional
ratings) are shown in Table INS_A1. A list of other journals considered by the panel,
informed by the ACPHIS list, have been added. Those journals with explanations for their
inclusion and ranks is provided in Table INS_A2.

B. Journal Downgrades
The INS Panel received no submissions recommending journal downgrades.
The panel however did review the current list and made decisions regarding the downgrade of
some journals. A list of journals downgraded considered by the panel, informed by the
ACPHIS list, have been included. Those journals with explanations for their downgrading
and ranks is provided in Table INS_B.
 51

C. Journal Upgrades
The INS Panel received eight submissions recommending journal upgrades. After due
deliberation, four of these rating upgrades are endorsed by our panel. A range of
recommended journal upgrades are not acted upon by this panel, primarily for one or more of
the following reasons:
• The journal was peripheral to IS
• The arguments for change did not present any or strong evidence for change
• Upgrading had been considered by the ACPHIS executive previously and rejected
• The publisher is not well regarded
• It was not considered the equivalent of other A* journals
• The editorial board consists of those who have published in the journal
• Not appropriate to upgrade to A* the journal is narrowly focused or peripheral to IS.

The endorsed list of upgraded journals relevant to this panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) are shown in Table INS_C1. A list of ranking upgrades of other journals
considered by the panel, informed by the ACPHIS list, have been included. Those journals
with explanations for the changes is provided in Table INS_C2.

D. Journal Transfers
The INS Panel received no submission(s) recommending journal transfers into (out of) this
panel. One journal was mis-assigned.

The panel considered journals which had been on the 2010 ABDC list but were not regarded
as information systems journals. These journals have been omitted from the 2013 list. These
are not journals for transfer within the ABDC discipline group. A list of journals the panel
considered should be deleted can be found in Table INS_D with an explanation for their non
inclusion.
 52

TABLES

Table INS_A1: Journal Additions – External Submissions

Journal Submission Decision Justification FORM A Submission Reference*

Request
1 Behaviour and A A Leading journal, ranked A by ACPHIS 2010 INS_FA_A_001
Information Technology

2 Library Review B B Panel agreed with the submission. The journal INS_FA_A_002
publishes papers very relevant to IS
3 International Journal of A* C New journal published by IGI, relevant INS_FA_A_003
Actor-Network Theory research approach for IS. Yet to establish
and Technological itself. Editorial board mainly people who have
published in the area.
Innovation

4 Journal of Hospitality and B B New journal launched in 2010. Panel agreed INS_FA_A_005
Tourism Technology with the request, has already built a presence
in the area
5 Online Information B B Quality publisher. Relevant to IS. INS_FA_A_004
Review

6 The Electronic Library A B Publishes papers relevant to IS and the panel INS_FA_F_006
agreed to include the journal. The
recommendation of the submission was for it
to be ranked A, the panel thought it should be
a B journal as its focus is primarily on libraries
7 Transforming A B New journal launched in 2007. A little INS_FA_S_007
Government: People, peripheral to IS. Submission requested A panel
Process and Policy decided B.

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC website, which
provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 53

Table INS_A2: Journal Additions – INS Panel Initiated (informed by the 2010 ACPHIS list)

Journal Rank Justification

1
ACM Transactions on Database Systems B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
2
ACM Transactions on Graphics B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
3
ACM Transactions on Internet Technology B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
4 ACM Transactions on Programming Languages
B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
and Systems
5 Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and
C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Society
6
British Journal of Educational Technology B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
7
Business Intelligence Journal C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
8
Campus-Wide Information Systems C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
9
eHealth International C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
10
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications A Well regarded. Leading IS scholars on the editorial board
11 Electronic Journal on Information Systems in
C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Developing Countries
12
e-Service Journal B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
13
European Journal of Operational Research A On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
14
First Monday B Considered sufficiently relevant to IS and of sufficient quality
 54

15
Group Decision and Negotiation A Considered relevant and quality IS journal. Quality editorial board
16
Health Policy and Technology B New journal, important area for IS
17
IBM Systems Journal A On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
18
Informatics for Health and Social Care C Emerging area for IS researchers
19
Information Communication and Society A Not on the list previously. High quality journal, well regarded
20
Information Economics and Policy B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
21
Information Technology & Development B Emerging area, new journal
22
Information Visualization C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
23 International Journal of Applied Management and
C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Technology
International Journal of Education and
24 Development using Information and C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Communication Technology
25
International Journal of Electronic Business C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change

26 International Journal of Electronic Customer C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change

Relationship Management
27 International Journal of Healthcare Technology
C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
and Management
28 International Journal of Information and C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Communication Technology Education
29 International Journal of Information Technology C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
and Web Engineering
30 International Journal of Intelligent Information
C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Technologies
 55

31
International Journal of Internet Science C Emerging area, new journal
32
International Journal of Knowledge and Learning C New journal
33 International Journal of Social Humanistic
C Emerging area for IS researchers
Computing
34
International Journal of Technology Management C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change

35 International Journal of Technology Management C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change

and Sustainable Development
36 International Journal of Technology, Knowledge
C Relevant journal for IS researchers
and Society
37
IT and Society: An Online Journal C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
38
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making A On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change

39 Journal of Community Informatics B Publishes papers of interest to IS researchers, reasonable editorial board and quality

40 Journal of Computing and Information

C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Technology
41
Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
42
Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
43 Journal of Information Communication and Ethics
B Good publisher, high quality editorial board
in Society
44
Journal of Information Systems A On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
45
Journal of Information Systems Education B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
46
Journal of Information Systems Security C Very new journal
 56

47
Journal of Information Technology Education C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
48 Journal of Information Technology Theory and
A On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Application
49
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
50
Journal of Internet Commerce B Reasonable impact factor, very relevant to IS

51 Journal of Knowledge Management Practice B Overlooked in the first round of rankings, considered relevant and reasonable quality

52
Journal of Management Systems C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
53
Journal of Research on Technology in Education C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
54
Journal of Strategic Information Systems A* On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
55 Journal of Technology Management and
C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Innovation
56
Journal of the Operational Research Society B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
57
Journal on Educational Resources in Computing C Relevant journal for IS researchers
58
Journal on Information Technology in Healthcare C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
59 Journal of the American Society for Information A*
Leading journal in the area of informatics. Very highly regarded by the discipline. Top
Science and Technology editorial board
60
Knowledge and Process Management B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change

61 New Technology, Work and Employment Articles focus on issues relevant to Social Informatics and general IS scholars. Good
A
impact factor
62
Operations Research B On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
 57

63
Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce C Relevant journal for IS researchers
64
Science, Technology and Society B Quality publisher, relevant to IS
65
SIAM Journal on Computing C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
66
The Computer Journal C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
67
The Information Society A Ranked A by 0807 previously. Considered relevant to IS
68 World Wide Web: Internet and Web Information
C On the 2010 ACPHIS list no change
Systems

Table INS_B: Journal Downgrades – INS Panel Initiated (informed by the 2010 ACPHIS list)

Journal ABDC Rank Rationale

2010 2013
1 ACM Transactions on Information Systems A* C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
2 Computer Supported Cooperative Work A B On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a B, no change
3 Expert Systems with Applications B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
4 Information Processing Letters B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
5 Information Retrieval B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
6 Information Technology and Libraries B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
7 INFORMS Journal on Computing A B On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a B, no change
8 Interfaces B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
9 International Journal of Accounting A B On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a B, no change
Information Systems
10 International Journal of Electronic B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
Government Research
11 International Journal of Human-Computer A B On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a B, no change
Studies
12 Journal of Database Management A B On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a B, no change
13 Journal of Information Technology and B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
 58

Tourism
14 Journal of Research and Practice in B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
Information Technology
15 Journal of Software Maintenance and B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change
Evolution
16 Journal of Systems and Software A B On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a B, no change
17 Journal of the ACM A* C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, more computer science than IS, no change
18 Knowledge and Information Systems B C On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a C, no change

Table INS_C1: Journal Upgrades – External Submissions

Journal Title Previous New Justification FORM C Submission Reference*

rank rank
1 International Journal of Web Based C B Range of qualitative and quantitative evidence INS_FC_U_001
Communities provided
2 Journal of Enterprise Information C B Range of qualitative and quantitative evidence INS_FC_U_002
Management provided
3 Journal of Systems and Information C B Range of qualitative and quantitative evidence INS_FC_U_003
Technology provided
4 Journal of the Association of A A* Newish journal when first ranked, very high quality INS_FC_U_004
Information Systems and impact now. On US IS Scholars top journal list
(http://ais.site-ym.com/?SeniorScholarBasket)
 59

Table INS_C2: Journal Upgrades – INS Panel Initiated (informed by the 2010 ACPHIS list)

Journal upgrades ABDC Rank Justification

rank 2013
2010
1 Applied Ontology C A Consulted leading scholar in area

2 Australasian Journal of Information B A Change in editorial board and policy since 2010
Systems
3 Business and Information Systems C A English language version of the German journal WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK highly
Engineering regarded journal. Editorial board has high quality IS scholars
4 Computers and Security B A Improved impact factor, more leading researchers on the editorial board

5 Data and Knowledge Engineering B A Quality publisher. Improved standing

6 Enterprise Information Systems C A Leading IS scholar joining the editorial board, improved ISI

7 INFOR (INFOR: Information C B Previously ranked B by ACPHIS

Systems and Operational Research)
8 Information and Organization A A* Highly regarded. Recommendation came from senior US scholar.

9 Information Processing and C B Improving quality

Management
10 Information and Software B A Quality publisher
Technology
11 Information Systems and e- C B Improving quality.
Business Management
12 Information Systems Management C B Improving quality

Information Technology and C B Improving quality

13 Management

14 International Journal of C A Improving quality and higher impact factor

Cooperative Information Systems
15 International Journal of C A High-quality editorial board, improved impact factor.
Information Management
 60

16 International Journal of C B Improving quality

Information Security
17 International Journal of Knowledge C B Consultant leading scholar in the area. Improved ranking and decrease in acceptance rate
Management of papers
18 Internet Research B A Rectifying a mistake from ERA 2008

19 Journal of Computer Information B A Previously ranked A by ACPHIS

Systems
20 Journal of Decision Systems C B New publisher and improved quality

21 Journal of Electronic Commerce C B Senior scholars on the editorial board. Well regarded journal
Research
22 Journal of Global Information B A Improved impact factor. Improved editorial board including leading IS scholars
Management
Journal of Strategic Information A A* On US IS Scholars top journal list (http://ais.site-ym.com/?SeniorScholarBasket ).
23 Systems (Note ABDC has it listed
as Studies not Systems)
24 Journal of the American Medical B A High impact factor, improving relevance to IS
Informatics Association
25 Journal of Theoretical and Applied C B Improved Impact Factor.
Electronic Commerce Research
26 Knowledge Management Research B A Premier journal in the area, good impact factor
and Practice
27 Knowledge-Based Systems B A Quality publisher. Improved editorial board

28 Personal and Ubiquitous B A Leading IS scholar on the editorial board, good impact factor
Computing
29 Strategic Outsourcing Journal C B Quality publisher. Improved editorial board

International Journal of Data C B On the 2010 ACPHIS list as a B, no change

30 Warehousing and Mining
 61

Table INS_D: Journal Delistings – INS Panel Initiated (informed by the 2010 ACPHIS list)

ACPHIS ABDC
Journal name
2012 2010 Justification
1 ACM Transactions on Asian NR B Peripheral to IS
Language Information Processing
2 Asian Journal of Information NR C
Technology Peripheral to IS
3 Bulletin of Informatics and NR C
Cybernetics Peripheral to IS
4 NR C Very business broad, peripheral to IS
Communications of the IBIMA
5 NR C Taiwanese journal
Communications of the ICISA
6 NR B Management journal not IS
Communications of the IIMA
7 Data Base for Advances in C B More computer science than IS
Information Systems
8 Electronic Journal of NR C Peripheral to IS
Organizational Virtualness
9 IEICE Transactions on Information NR C Focus is engineering.
and Systems
10 IMA Journal of Mathematical NR C Mathematics not IS
Control and Information
Information Systems Control NR C Could not find an editorial board, does not look credible
11 Journal: a leader in IT governance
and assurance
12 Information Technology in C C Poor quality journal, not indexed.
Hospitality
13 NR C Peripheral to IS
Information Technology Journal
14 Information Technology, Learning NR C Has not published an edition since 2009
and Performance Journal
 62

Informing Science: international NR C Does not look like a credible publisher

15 journal of an emerging
transdiscipline
Interdisciplinary Journal of NR C Does not look like a credible publisher
16 Information, Knowledge, and
Management
17 International Journal for NR C Peripheral to IS
Infonomics
18 International Journal of Business NR C Does not look like a credible publisher
and Systems Research
19 International Journal of e-Business NR C Poor quality journal and publisher
Research
International Journal of Accounting NR C Peripheral to IS
20 Information Science and
Leadership
21 International Journal of High NR C Deemed to be computer science
Performance Systems Architecture
22 International Journal of Human NR C
Factors Modelling and Simulation Tending more to mathematical modelling, peripheral to IS
23 International Journal of Information NR C
and Systems Sciences Publishes mathematical modelling, nothing published since 2011
24 International Journal of Information NR C Does not look like a credible publisher Computer science
and Computer Security
25 International Journal of Information NR C Does not look like a credible publisher. No editorial board
Technology and Management
International Journal of Information NR C Does not look like a credible publisher
26 Technology and the Systems
Approach
International Journal of NR C German language journal
27 Interoperability in Business
Information Systems
International Journal of IT NR C Does not look like a credible publisher
28 Standards and Standardization
Research
 63

29 International Journal of Semantic NR C Deemed to be computer science

Computing
30 International Journal of Web NR C Deemed to be computer science
Information Systems
31 International Journal of Web NR C Does not look like a credible publisher
Portals
32 International Journal of Web NR C Does not look like a credible publisher
Services Research
33 International Journal on Semantic NR C Unknown publisher, unsure about their credibility
Web and Information Systems
34 JITTA: an information systems NR B Could not find a page for the journal, maybe dead
journal
Journal of Applied Systems NR C Could not find a page for the journal, maybe dead
35 Studies: methodologies and
applications for systems approaches
36 Journal of Information Science and NR C Thai journal, very technical,
Technology
37 Journal of Information Systems and C C Dead
Small Business
38 Journal of Information Technology NR C Strange unknown publisher,
Management
39 Journal of Information Technology C C Journal changed name to Case and Application research
Cases and Applications
40 Journal of Information, Information NR C Small editorial board, does not look credible
Technology, and Organizations
41 B C Dead
MISQ Discovery
42 C C Not IS very much computer science
Mobile Information Systems
43 RAIRO - Operations Research NR C Core Operations Research

44 The African Journal of Information NR C

Systems Deemed not relevant to Australian research
 64

The Electronic Journal of NR C No evidence of an ed board, published in Hong Kong, delete

45 Information Systems in Developing
Countries
The International Journal of NR C Could not find web page
46 Emerging Technologies and
Society
47 NR A Same as Journal of Information Systems
The Journal of Information Systems
48 The Journal on Information NR C Cannot find a website
Technology in Healthcare
49 NR B German language
Wirtschaftsinformatik
 65

Appendix D2

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

1401-1499 Economics (ECO)

FoR Panel Report

Ian King (Chair) – Melbourne University

Simon Grant – University Queensland
David Harris – Monash University
Rodney Falvey – Bond University
Alan Woodland – University of NSW
 66

Introductory Remarks

The ECO Panel faced a 2010 ABDC list with 907 journals on it. The panel realized quite
quickly that many of these journals were from other disciplines, which had FoRs outside of
14 according to the ERA, but which had been, for reasons unknown, assigned to the various
categories within 14 at some stage during the construction of previous ABDC lists.

These non-economics journals came from many different disciplines, including political
science, public administration, demography, ecology, environmental studies, sociology,
climatology, philosophy, geography, biology, physics, mathematics, and statistics.

The panel noted, in particular, that when comparing the 1403 ("Econometrics") and 1499
("Other Economics") lists with their counterparts in previous ERA rounds, there were very
significant differences. For example, of the 119 journals listed under 1403, only 11 of them
(9%) had any connection with the code 14 according to the ERA. Similarly, of the 157
journals listed under 1499, only 9 of them (6%) had any connection with the code 14. Put
another way, 91% of the journals in 1403, and 94% of the journals in 1499 had no connection
at all with economics (i.e., not even cross-listed with economics) according to the ERA. 1

The problem also existed, but with much less severity, in the other 2 codes: 1401 (Economic
Theory) and 1402 (Applied Economics). Of the 29 journals listed under 1401, 3 of them were
non-economics journals (10%). Similarly, of the 602 journals listed under 1402, 66 of them
were non-economics journals (11%).

These non-economics journals also had a significant presence in the premier categories. For
example, 1403 had 17 journals listed as A*, of which 13 (76%) were non-economics.
Similarly, 1499 had 7 journals listed as A*, with 100% of them being non-economics.

The panel also noted that a significant number of foreign-language journals were present
throughout the lists. Some checking was done, and many of these journals were found to have
no English at all in them.

After checking with the ABDC, the panel confirmed that it's terms of reference extended
beyond simply the reviewing of submissions to consideration of the Economics list overall.
The panel therefore decided to take on the responsibility of checking throughout the entire list
to:
• Identify journals that should be added or removed from the list.
• Assess the validity of existing grades of all journals on the list using, as much as
possible, citation-based data -- as a "reality check".
• Identify sensible re-assignments, within the 14 FoR, that would bring the ABDC 1403
and 1499 FoRs more in line with their ERA counterparts.

After significant discussion on the issue the majority of the panel took the view that, for most
part, journals that have no identifiable connection with economics (for example, journals that
are not cross-listed with economics, do not have a significant proportion of economists on
their editorial boards, and do not mention economics in their mission statements) would be
recommended to be excluded from the 2013 ABDC list. This is an important decision

1
Hereafter, journals that are not listed or cross-listed as economics (14) in the ERA will be
referred to as "non-economics" journals.
 67

because, in the 2010 ABDC list, there are literally hundreds of journals that fall into that
category.

The panel recognized that a special issue arises when considering what are typically thought
of as statistics journals. In particular, a significant percentage of econometricians in Australia
publish not only in econometrics journals (1403) but also in statistics journals -- which have
the FoR 0104. The 2010 ABDC list had 67 non-economics journals (56%) with this FoR
listed under "econometrics". A concern was raised (and the case was made, vigorously, by
one member of the panel in particular) that if these journals were no longer listed under the
ABDC journal listings, then this may have a negative effect on the way that publications in
statistics journals would be viewed within the business school community.

Acknowledging these concerns, the panel agreed that a sensible way forward would be to
propose that the ABDC include the FoR 0104 (with the title "Statistics", or possibly
"Business Statistics") as a new listing under its auspices. This was a proposal that was
endorsed by the meeting of the panel heads on August 12, 2013, and which allows the
economics panel to restrict its attention to journals that fall under its realm of expertise.

Overall, then, the panel considered all of the submissions but also made many other
recommendations, based on a comprehensive analysis of the list.

When considering journal additions, downgrades, and upgrades, particular attention was paid
to citation-based journal rankings. Overall, 3 sources were used when making these
determinations:

• Thomson Reuters ISI Journal Citation Reports, 2013 edition (hereafter, JCR)
• Kalaitzidakis et al (Canadian Journal of Economics, 2010) economics journal
rankings (hereafter, KMS)
• IDEAS/REPEC 2013 economics journal rankings.

The primary source was the JCR which ranks over 300 journals in Economics, according to a
variety of criteria. Three of these criteria are comprehensive for all of the journals they list:
"Total Cites", "Impact Factor", and "Eigenfactor ®". Ordinarily, only journals that are ranked
in the top 50 according to at least 2 of these 3 criteria would be considered as candidates for
the A* category. (Exceptions can be made -- discussed below.) Similarly, only those that are
ranked in the range 51-150 or better in at least 2 of the 3 categories would be candidates for
the A category. Since the number of journals in the JCR is significantly smaller than the
number of economics journals in the ABDC ranking, the JCR ranking is not particularly
helpful for distinguishing between B and C journals.

The KMS study is widely used, internationally, for ranking economics journals. It has the
advantage of using a particularly well-regarded methodology for adjusting citations for
quality. However, it also covers a smaller number of journals, and is now several years old.
This was used as an occasional backup check, to make sure that no really serious errors were
made -- particularly for the top journals.

The IDEAS/REPEC website is much more comprehensive, covering almost 1200 journals,
and is continuously updated. It also uses several criteria. The one used most extensively was
the most sophisticated one, based on "Recursive Discounted Impact Factors". Coverage was
the clear advantage of this list -- particularly for newer journals. However, this list does not
 68

have the formal academic credentials that the other two lists have. As such, it was used
mainly as a backup. It was also used as a source to identify economics journals (typically, in
the B and C range) that, up to this point, have not appeared on any ABDC lists but which the
panel considers to be legitimate additions to the list.

Some other considerations were also brought to bear, when making the recommendations.
First, the panel was aware of the recent entry of several, very high profile, new journals.
(Specifically, 4 new journals recently issued by the very prestigious American Economics
Association (the American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic
Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics and American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy) and 2 new journals recently issued by the equally
prestigious Econometric Society (Theoretical Economics and Quantitative Economics).
These journals are big news in the economics profession, and are widely viewed as being
competitive with the very top field journals. Although they do not yet have a history of
citations, to grade them as anything less than A* would significantly undervalue them relative
to how they are seen internationally. The panel recommends an A* grade for all of these
journals, based on the prestige of their editorial boards, the associations they represent, and
the expectations that they will be cited very heavily in the near future.

Another consideration was the stature of a journal within its field. Generally, the panel
viewed the #1 journal in a field as deserving of A* status, even if the journal would not
achieve this status by citation data alone. For example, the Journal of Economic History is
regarded as the top journal in the important field of Economic History, and has significantly
more citations than any other journal in that field, but would not make the top 50 based on
citations alone. (Of course, a line must be drawn, somewhere, concerning which fields are
considered "important fields", and the panel used its judgment on that issue.)

Acknowledging the view, expressed by the ABDC, that the exercise should be a conservative
one, downgrades and upgrades were recommended by the committee only when there was
very clear evidence, from the criteria listed above, that these changes were warranted.
 69

A. Journal Additions

The ECO Panel considered 25 distinct submissions recommending journal additions to the
ABDC. After due deliberation, 16 of these journal additions are endorsed by our panel. These
journals have mostly entered at the lowest, “C” rating level. There are some exceptions,
however, where a persuasive case is made for a rating above C, as discussed in the
Introductory Remarks, above.

A range of recommended “new” journals are not acted upon by this panel, primarily due to
the fact that they were not deemed by the panel to be economics journals or that they were
already assigned to another discipline within the ABDC (for example Accounting, or
Finance).

The panel also made 106 suggestions for additions. These suggestions were drawn from
various sources, including the lists of economics journals given in the KMS study, and the
IDEAS/REPEC webpage, along with the panel members' specialized knowledge in their own
field areas -- particularly with new journals.

The total number of recommended additions is 122.

The endorsed list of newly-admitted journals to this panel (and their associated provisional
ratings) are shown in Table ECO_A at the end of this report.

B. Journal Downgrades

The ECO Panel considered 12 distinct submissions recommending journal downgrades.

After due deliberation, 7 of these rating downgrades are endorsed by our panel.

One of these downgrades (The Review of Black Political Economy) involved a movement of
two steps downward, from A to C. The panel considered this case carefully, and agreed that,
by all citation criteria, this move was justified.

Five of the journal downgrade submissions were not acted upon by this panel, for the
following reasons.

Three of the journals under consideration were BE Press journals, which are electronic
"Contributions", and "Topics", in descending order with respect to quality). Thus, each of the
3 journals considered here arguably represented 4 tiers of journal -- arguably making them 12
different journals to consider. The top tiers of these journals are well regarded and could
arguably be ranked as A*, but the lower tiers could be regarded as A or possibly B in some
cases. Many researchers, however, do not list the tier of the publication on their CVs, which
makes it difficult to distinguish the prestige of that particular publication. To complicate
matters further, all of the BE Press journals were recently sold to another publisher (De
Gruyter) and it is not clear to what extent the qualities or the tiers will be maintained.
Accordingly, panel decided to simplify matters by ignoring the tiers within the BE Press
publications, and giving them an A grade overall. This appeared as the most sensible solution
to this problem at the moment.
 70

One submission suggested that the History of Political Economy be downgraded from A to C.
The panel checked the citation data on this journal and found that this downgrade would not
be justified. However, a downgrade from A to B would be justified.

Another submission suggested that Housing Studies be downgraded from A to C. The panel
determined that this journal is not an economics journal and, so, recommended that it be
transferred from the economics list.

The panel also suggested 5 downgrades, based on an exhaustive citation analysis of all of the
economics journals in the 2010 ABDC list that also appear in the citation-based lists
(primarily the 3 criteria in the JCR). Included is the History of Political Economy, as
mentioned above. In all cases, the citation scores were consistently below the minimal scores
for the initial grades.

The total number of recommended downgrades is 12.

The endorsed list of downgraded journals relevant to this panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) are shown in Table ECO_B at the end of this report.

C. Journal Upgrades

The ECO Panel considered 57 distinct submissions recommending journal upgrades. After
due deliberation, 25 of these rating upgrades are endorsed by our panel.

A range of recommended journal upgrades are not acted upon by this panel, due to one of the
two following reasons. First, several of these journals were deemed by the panel not to be
economics journals, and so were recommended to be transferred from the economics list. The
remainder were not acted upon because they could not be justified by the citation data.

The panel also suggested 19 upgrades, based on an exhaustive citation analysis of all of the
economics journals in the 2010 ABDC list that also appear in the citation-based lists
(primarily the 3 criteria in the JCR). In all cases, the citation scores were consistently above
the minimal scores for the new grades.

All of the journals that were upgraded moved up only one grade, except for two journals:
Theoretical Economics and Marine Resource Economics which both moved up two grades.
The upgrade of the first of these came from a submission, and the second came from a
suggestion from the panel. Theoretical Economics (moved from B to A*) is a special case
because, since the previous ABDC round, it changed its state quite significantly. Previously,
it had been a new and independent journal but, recently, it has been adopted by the
prestigious Econometric Society to become one of its 2 new journals (along with Quantitative
Economics) which (as discussed above) are regarded by the profession as being comparable
to the top field journal Journal of Economic Theory, which is clearly an A* journal (indeed, a
"Tier 1" journal). Marine Resource Economics moved from C to A based simply on its
impressive citation record. According to all 3 criteria in the JCR, this is a solid A journal.

The total number of recommended upgrades is 44.

The endorsed list of upgraded journals relevant to this panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) are shown in Table ECO_C at the end of this report.
 71

D. Journal Transfers

The ECO Panel considered 97 submissions recommending journal transfers out of this
panel. After due deliberation, 95 of these “incoming (“outgoing”) transfers are endorsed by
our panel. Both of the two submissions that were not endorsed referred to journals that the
panel deemed to be economics journals that belonged on the list.

The panel also suggested 228 transfers off the list, as described in some detail in the
Introductory Remarks above. None of these journals were considered by the panel to be
economics journals. The panel took the position that it is not qualified to judge the quality of
journals outside of the discipline of economics. Moreover, it felt that it would be
inappropriate to keep journals on the list that are clearly outside of economics. To judge
which journals fell into this category, the panel identified FoR codes from the ERA as a start.
Only journals that did not have any 14 FoR code in the ERA were candidates for transfer.
Candidate journals were then assessed according to other criteria, such as composition of
editorial boards (whether or not significant representation from economists appears) and
mission statements of the journals (whether or not the journal mentions economics). Only
those journals that failed these tests were placed on the transfer list.

The panel would like to reiterate, however, that it holds the view that the ABDC should add
another FoR to its list: 0401 as "Statistics" or "Business Statistics", for the reasons outlined
in the Introductory Remarks. We recommend that this new FoR be populated with the
statistics journals that are recommended for transfer out of economics in this report, using
the journal ranks (A*, A, etc.,) from the 2010 ABDC journal ranking, and that a new panel be
convened to maintain this list for the future.

The panel also noticed that a significant number of foreign-language journals were present
throughout the lists. Some checking was done, and many of these journals were found to have
no English at all in them. On the grounds that the committee is not competent to judge the
quality of research written in languages other than English, those journals that were found to
have no significant English in them were recommended for transfer from the list.

The total number of journal recommended for transfer from the list is 323.

The panel also recommends transferring some journals across classifications within the
Economics FoR – mainly to re-populate 1499 and 1403, once the non-economics journals
have been transferred out. The main sources, when deciding which journals should be
transferred across, were the 1499 and 1403 ERA lists.

The endorsed list of journals transfers relevant to this panel (and their associated provisional
ratings) are shown in Table ECO_D at the end of this report.
 72

TABLES

ABDC 2013 1401 1402 1403 1499 Aggregated

A* 4 36 6 1 47
A 10 80 8 5 103
B 9 162 6 27 204
C 7 230 13 77 327
30 508 33 110 681

Table ECO_A: Journal Additions

Journal Title Rating FORM A Submission

and FoR Reference*/Panel Suggestions
1 African Journal of Economic and Sustainable Devt C 1402 ECO_FA_F_033
2 American Economic Journal: Applied Economics A* 1402 ECO_FA_F_017
3 American Economic Journal: Economic Policy A* 1402 ECO_FA_F_018
4 American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics A* 1402 ECO_FC_F_041
5 American Economic Journal: Microeconomics A* 1402 ECO_FA_F_025
6 Dynamic Games and Applications B 1401 ECO_FA_S_028
7 Health Policy B 1402 ECO_FA_F_029
8 Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Em ... C 1499 ECO_FA_F_006
9 Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies… C 1499 ECO_FA_S_007
10 Journal of Choice Modelling C 1401 ECO_FA_F_014
11 Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences C 1499 ECO_FA_S_004
12 Journal of Financial Economic Policy B 1499 ECO_FA_S_002
13 Journal of Human Capital A 1402 ECO_FA_S_005
14 Journal of Pacific Studies C 1499 ECO_FA_S_011
15 Journal of Time Series Econometrics B 1403 ECO_FA_S_027
16 Value in Health B 1499 ECO_FA_F_032
17 Quantitative Economics A* 1403 Panel suggestion
18 Journal of LACEA Economia (Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association) B 1402 Panel suggestion
19 Innovation Policy and the Economy B 1402 Panel suggestion
20 Annual Review of Economics B 1402 Panel suggestion
 73

21 Annual Review of Financial Economics B 1402 Panel suggestion

22 Annual Review of Resource Economics B 1402 Panel suggestion
23 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy B 1402 Panel suggestion
24 Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics C 1402 Panel suggestion
25 Asian Economic Policy Review C 1402 Panel suggestion
26 Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society B 1402 Panel suggestion
27 Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research C 1499 Panel suggestion
28 Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal B 1402 Panel suggestion
29 Journal of Business Cycle Measurement and Analysis B 1402 Panel suggestion
30 International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics A 1402 Panel suggestion
31 Climate Change Economics B 1499 Panel suggestion
32 Journal of Globalization and Development B 1499 Panel suggestion
33 Finnish Economic Papers B 1402 Panel suggestion
34 African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics B 1402 Panel suggestion
35 Review of Economic Analysis B 1402 Panel suggestion
36 Journal of Korea Trade C 1402 Panel suggestion
37 Journal of Behavioral Economics B 1499 Panel suggestion
38 Western Economics Forum C 1402 Panel suggestion
39 European Journal of Government and Economics C 1402 Panel suggestion
40 Eurasian Business Review C 1402 Panel suggestion
41 Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting C 1403 Panel suggestion
42 Spatial Economic Analysis B 1402 Panel suggestion
43 Transformations in Business & Economics C 1402 Panel suggestion
44 Peace Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
45 Middle East Development Journal C 1499 Panel suggestion
46 Money Affairs C 1402 Panel suggestion
47 The IUP Journal of Monetary Economics C 1402 Panel suggestion
48 Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics C 1403 Panel suggestion
49 The Journal of Development Effectiveness C 1402 Panel suggestion
50 Journal of Cost-Benefit Analysis C 1499 Panel suggestion
51 Latin American Journal of Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
52 Czech Economic Review C 1402 Panel suggestion
 74

53 Czech Journal of Economics and Finance C 1499 Panel suggestion

54 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
55 Choices C 1499 Panel suggestion
56 Western Journal of Agricultural Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
57 Mineral Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
58 Review of Business and Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
59 Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
60 Cyprus Economic Policy Review C 1499 Panel suggestion
61 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policy C 1499 Panel suggestion
62 European Political Economy Review C 1499 Panel suggestion
63 Review of Economic and Business Studies C 1402 Panel suggestion
64 Asian Economic and Financial Review C 1499 Panel suggestion
65 Journal of Applied Economic Sciences C 1402 Panel suggestion
66 The IUP Journal of Applied Economics C 1402 Panel suggestion
67 Review on Economic Cycles C 1402 Panel suggestion
68 Socio-Economic Planning Sciences C 1499 Panel suggestion
79 International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy C 1499 Panel suggestion
70 Philippine Review of Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
71 The IUP Journal of Public Finance C 1402 Panel suggestion
72 Austrian Economic Quarterly C 1499 Panel suggestion
73 Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development C 1499 Panel suggestion
74 Agricultural Economics Review C 1499 Panel suggestion
75 Sustainable Development C 1499 Panel suggestion
76 International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research C 1402 Panel suggestion
77 Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
78 Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment C 1499 Panel suggestion
79 Lahore Journal of Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
80 Health Economics Review C 1402 Panel suggestion
81 Agricultural Economics Research Review C 1499 Panel suggestion
82 New Economy C 1499 Panel suggestion
83 Journal of the Knowledge Economy C 1499 Panel suggestion
84 Bulletin of the Czech Econometric Society C 1403 Panel suggestion
 75

85 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion

86 European Economic Letters C 1499 Panel suggestion
87 Applied Econometrics C 1403 Panel suggestion
88 Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
89 International Journal of Economics and Business Researc C 1402 Panel suggestion
90 German Journal of Agricultural Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
91 Journal of Global Business and Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
92 Studies in Agricultural Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
93 African Development Review C 1499 Panel suggestion
94 International Journal of Management and Network Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
95 Journal of the New Economic Association C 1499 Panel suggestion
96 Enometrica C 1499 Panel suggestion
97 The IUP Journal of Agricultural Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
98 Asian Journal of Empirical Research C 1499 Panel suggestion
99 International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues C 1499 Panel suggestion
100 Theoretical and Applied Economics C 1401 Panel suggestion
101 Kobe Economic and Business Review C 1402 Panel suggestion
102 Dynamic Econometric Models C 1403 Panel suggestion
103 International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories C 1402 Panel suggestion
104 Romanian Economic Business Review C 1499 Panel suggestion
105 Contemporary Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
106 Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology C 1499 Panel suggestion
107 Economic Studies Journal C 1402 Panel suggestion
108 Journal of Economics and Management C 1499 Panel suggestion
109 Economic Thought Journal C 1499 Panel suggestion
110 Ethics and Economics C 1499 Panel suggestion
111 History of Economic Thought and Policy C 1499 Panel suggestion
112 Agricultural Economics and Rural Development C 1499 Panel suggestion
113 Economics and Applied Informatics C 1499 Panel suggestion
114 Studies in Business and Economics C 1402 Panel suggestion
115 Business and Economics Research Journal C 1402 Panel suggestion
116 Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal C 1499 Panel suggestion
 76

117 Perspectives of Innovation in Economics and Business C 1499 Panel suggestion

118 Farm and Business - The Journal of the Caribbean Agro-Economic Society C 1499 Panel suggestion
119 International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics C 1403 Panel suggestion
120 Annals - Economy Series C 1499 Panel suggestion
121 Games B 1401 Panel suggestion
122 Theoretical Economics Letters B 1401 Panel suggestion
* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.

Table ECO_B: Journal Downgrades

Journal Title Rating FORM B Submission

Reference*/Panel
suggestions
1 Australian Economic History Review A to B UTS submission
2 BE Journal of Theoretical Economics A* to A ECO_FB_S_001
3 Journal of Economic Issues A to B UTS submission
4 Journal of Economic Surveys A to B UTS submission
5 Journal of Post Keynesian Economics A to B UTS submission
6 The Review of Black Political Economy A to C UTS submission
7 Revue Economique A to B UTS submission
8 The Economic History Review A* to A Panel suggestion
9 Journal of Risk and Uncertainty A* to A Panel suggestion
10 History of Political Economy A to B Panel suggestion
11 Fiscal Studies A to B Panel suggestion
12 ASEAN Economic Bulletin/Journal of Southeast Asian Economies B to C Panel suggestion
* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 77

Table ECO_C: Journal Upgrades

Journal Title Rating FORM C Submission

Reference*
1 Australian Economic Papers C to B ECO_FC_S_001,
ECO_FC_F_013
2 China Economic Review B to A ECO_FC_F_022
3 Economic Analysis and Policy C to B ECO_FC_S_020
4 Empirical Economics B to A ECO_FC_S_016,
ECO_FC_S_045,
ECO_FC_S_052
5 Energy Economics A to A* ECO_FC_S_004
6 European Economic Review A to A* ECO_FC_S_046
7 European Journal of Political Economy B to A ECO_FC_S_047,
ECO_FC_S_048
8 Feminist Economics B to A ECO_FC_F_010
9 Indian Growth and Development Review C to B ECO_FC_S_049
10 Information Economics and Policy B to A ECO_FC_F_050
11 Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization A to A* UTS submission
12 Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control A to A* ECO_FC_S_054,
ECO_FC_F_055,
ECO_FC_S_056,
ECO_FC_S_058
13 Journal of Economic History A to A* ECO_FC_S_057
14 Journal of Economic Inequality C to B ECO_FC_F_019
15 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management A to A* ECO_FC_S_059,
ECO_FC_F_060
16 Journal of the European Economic Association A to A* ECO_FA_S_021,
ECO_FC_S_040
17 Journal of Human Resources A to A* ECO_FC_S_061
18 Journal of Labor Economics A to A* ECO_FC_F_065,
ECO_FC_F_066
19 Journal of Money, Credit and Banking A to A* ECO_FC_F_070,
 78

ECO_FC_S_071
20 Journal of Policy Modelling B to A ECO_FC_F_072
21 Journal of Public Economic Theory B to A ECO_FC_S_073
22 Journal of Urban Economics A to A* UTS submission
23 Review of Economic Dynamics A to A* ECO_FC_f_076
24 Review of International Economics B to A ECO_FC_S_077
25 Theoretical Economics B to A* ECO_FC_F_080
26 Ecological Economics A to A* Panel suggestion
27 Econ Journal Watch C to B Panel suggestion
28 Health Economics A to A* Panel suggestion
29 International Review of Economics and Fianance B to A Panel suggestion
30 Journal of African Economies B to A Panel suggestion
31 Journal of Business Economics and Management C to B Panel suggestion
32 Journal of Cultural Economics B to A Panel suggestion
33 Journal of Forest Economics C to B Panel suggestion
34 Journal of Housing Economics B to A Panel suggestion
35 Journal of Sports Economics B to A Panel suggestion
36 Marine Resource Economics C to A Panel suggestion
37 New Political Economy B to A Panel suggestion
38 Papers in Regional Science B to A Panel suggestion
39 Pharmacoeconomics B to A Panel suggestion
40 Review of Environmental Economics and Policy B to A Panel suggestion
41 Journal of Economic Inequality C to B Panel suggestion
42 Review of Network Economics C to B Panel suggestion
43 Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics B to A Panel suggestion
44 Mathematical Social Sciences B to A Panel suggestion
* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 79

Table ECO_D: Journal Transfers/De-listings

Outgoing Journal Title Rating FORM D Submission

Reference*
1 Advances in Applied Mathematics A UTS submission
2 Advances in Applied Probability A UTS submission
3 American Journal of Political Science A* UTS submission
4 American Political Science Review A* UTS submission
5 Annals of Applied Probability A* UTS submission
6 Annals of Applied Statistics A UTS submission
7 Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics A UTS submission
8 Annals of Probability A* UTS submission
9 Annals of Statistics A* UTS submission
10 Australian Journal of International Affairs A UTS submission
11 Australian Journal of Political Science A UTS submission
12 Australian Journal of Public Administration A UTS submission
13 Bernoulli: A Journal of Mathematical Statistics and A UTS submission
14 Bioinformatics A* UTS submission
15 Biometrika A UTS submission
16 Biometrics A* UTS submission
17 Biostatistics A* UTS submission
18 British Journal of Political Science A UTS submission
19 China Quarterly: an International Journal for the A UTS submission
20 Comparative Politics A UTS submission
21 Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine A UTS submission
22 Demographic Research A UTS submission
24 Demography A UTS submission
25 Disasters: the Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy, and A UTS submission
26 Ecology A UTS submission
27 Environment and Planning A: International J. of Ur A* UTS submission
28 Environment and Planning B A* UTS submission
29 Environment and Planning D: Society and Space A UTS submission
30 Environment and Ecological Statistics A UTS submission
 80

31 Environmental Education Research A UTS submission

32 Environmental Modelling and Software A UTS submission
33 European Journal of Political Research A UTS submission
34 European Urban and Regional Studies A UTS submission
35 Foreign Affairs A* UTS submission
36 Foreign Policy (Washington) A* UTS submission
37 Global Networks (Oxford): a Journal of Trans … A UTS submission
38 IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics A UTS submission
39 International Affairs A UTS submission
40 International Journal of Climatology A UTS submission
41 International Migration A UTS submission
42 International Statistical Review A UTS submission
43 International Studies Quarterly A UTS submission
44 Journal of Applied Probability A UTS submission
45 Journal of Complexity A UTS submission
46 Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics A UTS submission
47 Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics A UTS submission
48 Journal of European Public Policy A UTS submission
49 Journal of Multivariate Analysis A UTS submission
50 Journal of Policy Analysis and Management A UTS submission
51 Journal of Population Research A UTS submission
52 Journal of Public Administration Research and Policy A UTS submission
53 Journal of the Royal Stat Society, Series A A UTS submission
54 Journal of the Royal Stat Society, Series C A UTS submission
55 Journal of the Royal Stat Society, Series D A UTS submission
56 Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference A UTS submission
57 Land Use Policy A UTS submission
58 L’institute Henri Poincare Annales (B) A UTS submission
59 Local Government Studies A UTS submission
69 Mathematical Finance A UTS submission
61 Multiscale Modelling and Simulation A UTS submission
62 Numerische Mathematik A* UTS submission
 81

63 Pacific Review A UTS submission

64 Philosophy and Public Affairs A UTS submission
65 Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications A UTS submission
66 Policy and Politics: an International Journal A UTS submission
67 Political Communication: an International Journal A UTS submission
68 Political Science Quarterly A UTS submission
69 Population and Environment A UTS submission
70 Population Bulletin A UTS submission
71 Population Research and Policy Review A UTS submission
72 Population Studies: a Journal of Demography A UTS submission
73 Public Administration and Development A UTS submission
74 Public Administration Quarterly A UTS submission
75 Public Administration Review A UTS submission
76 Public Administration: an International Quarterly A UTS submission
77 Public Money and Management A UTS submission
78 Public Opinion Quarterly A UTS submission
79 Probability Theory and Related Fields A* UTS submission
80 Scandinavian Journal of Statistics: Theory and App A UTS submission
81 SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization A* UTS submission
82 SIAM Journal of Matrix Analysis and Applications A* UTS submission
83 SIAM Journal of Numerical Analysis A* UTS submission
84 SIAM Journal on Optimization A* UTS submission
85 Statistica Neerlandica A UTS submission
86 Statistica Sinica A UTS submission
87 Statistical Science: a Review Journal A UTS submission
88 Statistics in Medicine A UTS submission
89 Stochastic Processes and their Applications A UTS submission
90 Studies in Comparative International Development A UTS submission
91 Theory of Probability and its Applications A UTS submission
92 Third World Quarterly A UTS submission
93 Washington Quarterly A UTS submission
94 Water Resources Research A UTS submission
 82

95 World Politics A UTS submission

96 The American Statisitician (AMSTAT) B Panel suggestion
97 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics B Panel suggestion
98 Canadian Journal of Statistics B Panel suggestion
99 Energy Policy B Panel suggestion
100 Agribusiness (New York): an international journal C Panel suggestion
101 Allemagne d'Aujourd'hui: politique, economie, societe C Panel suggestion
102 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social B Panel suggestion
102 Asia Europe Journal: intercultural studies in the social B Panel suggestion
103 Australasian Agribusiness Review C Panel suggestion
104 Community Development Journal B Panel suggestion
105 Conflict Management and Peace Science B Panel suggestion
106 Development Review C Panel suggestion
107 European Journal of Housing Policy B Panel suggestion
108 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Research Review B Panel suggestion
109 Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship C Panel suggestion
110 Global Environmental Politics C Panel suggestion
111 Global Social Policy C Panel suggestion
112 Health Marketing Quarterly B Panel suggestion
113 Housing Policy Debate B Panel suggestion
114 Huan Bohai Jingji Liaowang C Panel suggestion
115 Il Pensiero Economico Moderno C Panel suggestion
116 Information Technology for Economics Management C Panel suggestion
117 Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy B Panel suggestion
118 International Journal of Agricultural Resources, C Panel suggestion
119 International Journal of Asian Studies B Panel suggestion
120 International Journal of Public Policy B Panel suggestion
121 International Journal of Technological Learning, C Panel suggestion
122 International Monetary Fund Staff Papers A Panel suggestion
123 International Social Science Journal B Panel suggestion
124 Italian Journal of Regional Science C Panel suggestion
125 Jahrbuch fuer Regionalwissenschaft: review of regional research B Panel suggestion
 83

126 Journal for Institutional Innovation, Development and C Panel suggestion

127 Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation C Panel suggestion
128 Journal of Business Chemistry C Panel suggestion
129 Journal of Developing Areas B Panel suggestion
130 Journal of Human Development and Capabilities B Panel suggestion
131 Journal of International Relations and Development C Panel suggestion
132 Korea Review of International Studies C Panel suggestion
133 Labour and Management in Development C Panel suggestion
134 Liiketaloudellinen Aikakauskirja C Panel suggestion
135 Maritime Policy and Management: an international C Panel suggestion
136 Mind and Society C Panel suggestion
137 Mita Gakkai Zasshi C Panel suggestion
138 Nase Gospodarstvo C Panel suggestion
139 Nationalokonomisk Tidsskrift B Panel suggestion
140 Pesquisa e Planejamento Economico C Panel suggestion
141 Policy C Panel suggestion
142 Post-Soviet Affairs B Panel suggestion
143 Public Policy Research B Panel suggestion
144 Quarterly Journal of Political Science B Panel suggestion
145 Rationality and Society B Panel suggestion
146 Revista de Economia Aplicada C Panel suggestion
147 Revista de Economia del Rosario C Panel suggestion
147 Revista de Economia Institucional: revista de la facultad de economia C Panel suggestion
149 Revista de Economia Mackenzie C Panel suggestion
150 Revista de Economia Politica C Panel suggestion
151 Revista de Metodos Cuantitativos para la Economia y la Empresa C Panel suggestion
152 Revista Europea de Direccion y Economia de la Empresa C Panel suggestion
153 Revista Galega de Economia C Panel suggestion
154 Revista Venezolana de Analisis de Coyuntura C Panel suggestion
155 Revue d'Economie Regionale et Urbaine: le meilleur du savoir sur les questions C Panel suggestion
urbaines et regionales contemporaines
156 Revue d'Integration Europeenne C Panel suggestion
 84

157 Revue Internationale de Droit Economique: lieu de C Panel suggestion

158 Risk, Decision and Policy B Panel suggestion
159 Russell: the journal of Bertrand Russell studies C Panel suggestion
160 Small-Scale Forestry C Panel suggestion
161 Social Science Japan Journal C Panel suggestion
162 Social Service Review B Panel suggestion
163 Socio-Economic History B Panel suggestion
164 Southern African Journal of Environmental Education C Panel suggestion
165 Studies in Family Planning B Panel suggestion
166 Telecommunications Policy B Panel suggestion
167 Urban Affairs Review B Panel suggestion
168 US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Monthly Labor Review B Panel suggestion
169 World Bank Research Observer B Panel suggestion
170 Zhongnan Caijing Daxue Xuebao C Panel suggestion
171 A St A - Advances in Statistical Analysis C Panel suggestion
172 Advances and Applications in Statistics C Panel suggestion
173 Aligarh Journal of Statistics C Panel suggestion
174 American Mathematical Monthly B Panel suggestion
175 American Statistician B Panel suggestion
176 Applicationes Mathematicae C Panel suggestion
177 Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry B Panel suggestion
178 Australian Senior Mathematics Journal C Panel suggestion
179 Biometrical Journal: journal of mathematical methods in biosciences B Panel suggestion
180 British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology B Panel suggestion
181 Canadian Journal of Statistics B Panel suggestion
182 Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods B Panel suggestion
183 Computational Optimization and Applications B Panel suggestion
184 Computational Statistics and Data Analysis A Panel suggestion
185 ESAIM: Probability and Statistics C Panel suggestion
186 Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics B Panel suggestion
187 Journal of Applied Mathematics and Stochastic Analysis B Panel suggestion
188 Journal of Applied Statistical Science C Panel suggestion
 85

189 Journal of Applied Statistics B Panel suggestion

190 Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics C Panel suggestion
191 Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics B Panel suggestion
192 Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods B Panel suggestion
193 Journal of Nonparametric Statistics B Panel suggestion
194 Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation C Panel suggestion
195 Journal of Statistical Research C Panel suggestion
196 Journal of Statistical Software C Panel suggestion
197 Journal of Statistical Theory and Applications C Panel suggestion
198 Journal of Statistics and Management Systems C Panel suggestion
199 Journal of Statistics Education B Panel suggestion
200 Journal of the American Statistical Association A* Panel suggestion
201 Journal of the Japan Statistical Society C Panel suggestion
202 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology A* Panel suggestion
203 Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland C Panel suggestion
204 Journal of Theoretical Probability C Panel suggestion
205 Lifetime Data Analysis: an international journal devoted to the methods and B Panel suggestion
applications of reliability and survival analysis
206 Mathematical Biosciences B Panel suggestion
207 Mathematical Gazette C Panel suggestion
208 Mathematical Methods of Statistics B Panel suggestion
209 Mathematical Population Studies B Panel suggestion
210 Metrika: international journal for theoretical and applied statistics B Panel suggestion
211 Metron: international journal of statistics C Panel suggestion
212 Model Assisted Statistics and Applications: an international journal C Panel suggestion
213 Monte Carlo Methods and Applications C Panel suggestion
214 Osaka Journal of Mathematics B Panel suggestion
215 Pakistan Journal of Statistics C Panel suggestion
216 Psychometrika B Panel suggestion
217 Service Industries Journal B Panel suggestion
218 Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes: an international journal devoted to time C Panel suggestion
series analysis and the statistics of continuous time processes and dynamical systems
 86

219 Statistical Journal of the IAOS C Panel suggestion

220 Statistical Methodology C Panel suggestion
221 Statistical Methods and Applications C Panel suggestion
222 Statistical Methods In Medical Research B Panel suggestion
223 Statistical Modelling: an international journal B Panel suggestion
224 Statistical Papers B Panel suggestion
225 Statistics and Decisions: an international mathematical journal for stochastic methods C Panel suggestion
and models
226 Statistics and Probability Letters B Panel suggestion
227 Statistics Education Research Journal B Panel suggestion
228 Statistics: a journal of theoretical and applied statistics B Panel suggestion
229 Stochastic Analysis and Applications B Panel suggestion
230 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment B Panel suggestion
231 Stochastic Models B Panel suggestion
232 Stochastics: an international journal of probability and stochastic processes C Panel suggestion
233 The Mathematical Scientist C Panel suggestion
234 African Population Studies C Panel suggestion
235 Asia Pacific Journal of Finance and Banking Research C Panel suggestion
236 Asian and Pacific Migration Review C Panel suggestion
237 Asian Journal of Political Science B Panel suggestion
238 Asian Population Studies B Panel suggestion
239 Asian Survey: a bimonthly review of contemporary Asian affairs C Panel suggestion
240 Asian-Pacific Business Review C Panel suggestion
241 Asia-Pacific Population Journal C Panel suggestion
242 Australasian Journal of Regional Studies B Panel suggestion
243 Australasian Journal on Ageing B Panel suggestion
244 Australian Journal of Human Rights C Panel suggestion
245 Australian Journal of Social Issues B Panel suggestion
246 Australian Review of Public Affairs C Panel suggestion
247 Australian Social Monitor C Panel suggestion
248 Australian Social Policy C Panel suggestion
249 Canadian Public Policy B Panel suggestion
 87

250 China Information: a journal on contemporary China studies B Panel suggestion

251 Chronique Internationale de l'I R E S B Panel suggestion
252 Commonwealth and Comparative Politics C Panel suggestion
253 Comparative Political Studies B Panel suggestion
254 Competition and Change: the journal of global business and political economy B Panel suggestion
255 Contemporary Pacific B Panel suggestion
256 Contemporary Southeast Asia: a journal of international and strategic affairs C Panel suggestion
257 Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales C Panel suggestion
258 Development in Practice C Panel suggestion
259 Ecological Modelling B Panel suggestion
260 Economies et Societes B Panel suggestion
261 Energy and Environment C Panel suggestion
262 Environment and Planning C: Government Policy B Panel suggestion
263 Environmental Modelling and Assessment B Panel suggestion
264 Environmental Values C Panel suggestion
265 Environmetrics B Panel suggestion
266 Europe - Asia Studies C Panel suggestion
267 European Journal of Population B Panel suggestion
268 Far Eastern Economic Review C Panel suggestion
269 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Review C Panel suggestion
270 Genus C Panel suggestion
271 Housing Studies A Panel suggestion
272 Interdisciplinary Environmental Review C Panel suggestion
273 International Journal of Environment and Pollution C Panel suggestion
274 International Journal of Maritime History B Panel suggestion
275 International Journal of Public Administration B Panel suggestion
276 International Journal of Sustainable Development C Panel suggestion
277 International Migration Review A Panel suggestion
278 International Review of Administrative Sciences: an international journal of C Panel suggestion
comparative public administration
279 International Review of Public Administration B Panel suggestion
280 Investigacion de Historia Economica C Panel suggestion
 88

281 Issues Studies: an international quarterly on China, Taiwan, and East Asian affairs C Panel suggestion
282 Japan Labor Review C Panel suggestion
283 Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: research and practice B Panel suggestion
284 Journal of Co-operative Studies C Panel suggestion
285 Journal of Energy and Development C Panel suggestion
286 Journal of Family History: studies in family, kinship and demography C Panel suggestion
287 Journal of Interdisciplinary History C Panel suggestion
288 Journal of International Migration and Integration C Panel suggestion
289 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory A Panel suggestion
290 Journal of Public Policy B Panel suggestion
291 Lavoro e Diritto C Panel suggestion
292 Middle East Policy B Panel suggestion
293 Millennium: journal of international studies B Panel suggestion
294 Natural Resources Forum C Panel suggestion
295 New Left Review B Panel suggestion
296 New Zealand Geographer B Panel suggestion
297 New Zealand Population Review C Panel suggestion
298 Pacific Affairs: an international review of Asia and the Pacific B Panel suggestion
299 Parliamentary Affairs: a journal of representative politics B Panel suggestion
300 Policy Sciences: an international journal devoted to the improvement of policy making B Panel suggestion
301 Policy Studies B Panel suggestion
302 Policy Studies Journal B Panel suggestion
303 Political Quarterly B Panel suggestion
304 Political Studies B Panel suggestion
305 Politics and Society B Panel suggestion
306 Population B Panel suggestion
307 Population and Development Review A Panel suggestion
308 Population Trends C Panel suggestion
309 Population, Space and Place C Panel suggestion
310 Public Policy and Administration B Panel suggestion
311 Regional Studies A Panel suggestion
312 Review of International Studies B Panel suggestion
 89

313 Review of Regional Studies: the official journal of the Southern regional science C Panel suggestion
association
314 Revista de Historia Industrial C Panel suggestion
315 Rio Grande Do Sul Brazil Fundacao de Economia e Estatistica Indicadores C Panel suggestion
Economicos FEERio Grande do
316 Science and Public Policy C Panel suggestion
317 The China Review: an interdisciplinary journal on greater China C Panel suggestion
318 The Milbank Quarterly B Panel suggestion
319 The Natural Resources Journal C Panel suggestion
320 Urban Studies: an international journal for research in urban studies A Panel suggestion
321 West European Politics B Panel suggestion
322 World Policy Journal C Panel suggestion
323 World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development C Panel suggestion

Reassignment of FoR within 14 Source

1 Journal of Applied Econometrics Panel From 1402 to 1403
2 Computational Economics Panel From 1402 to 1403
3 International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies Panel From 1402 to 1403
4 Journal of Forecasting Panel From 1402 to 1403
5 Ecological Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
6. Journal of Asian Economic Panel From 1402 to 1499
7. Journal of Comparative Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
8. Journal of Economic Geography Panel From 1402 to 1499
9. Comparative Economic Studies Panel From 1402 to 1499
10 Economic Systems Panel From 1402 to 1499
11 Faith and Economics Panel From 1401 to 1499
12 History of Economic Ideas Panel From 1401 to 1499
13 International Journal of Social Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
14 International Journal of the Economics of Business Panel From 1402 to 1499
15 International Regional Science Review Panel From 1402 to 1499
16 International Tax and Public Finance Panel From 1402 to 1499
17 Journal of Australian Political Economy Panel From 1402 to 1499
 90

18 Journal of Family and Economic Issues Panel From 1402 to 1499

19 Journal of Sports Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
20 Pharmacoeconomics Panel From 1402 to 1499
21 Politics, Philosophy and Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
22 Economic Systems Research Panel From 1402 to 1499
23 Electronic Journal of Evolutionary Modeling and Economic Dynamics Panel From 1402 to 1499
24 Forum for Health Economics and Policy Panel From 1402 to 1499
25 International Journal of Green Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
26 Journal of Bioeconomics Panel From 1402 to 1499
27 Journal of Forensic Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
28 Journal of Forest Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
29 Netnomics Panel From 1402 to 1499
30 Theoretical Economics Panel From 1402 to 1401
31 Games and Economic Behavior Panel From 1402 to 1401
32 Journal of Mathematical Economics Panel From 1402 to 1401
33 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics Panel From 1402 to 1401
34 Journal of Public Economic Theory Panel From 1402 to 1401
35 Mathematical Social Sciences Panel From 1402 to 1401
36 (NBER) Macroeconomics Annual Panel From 1401 to 1402
37 Revista de Economia Panel From 1401 to 1402
38 Briefing Notes in Economics Panel From 1401 to 1402
39 Journal of Economics Panel From 1401 to 1402
40 International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies Panel From 1402 to 1403
41 International Journal of Forecasting Panel From 1402 to 1403
42 Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics Panel From 1402 to 1403
43 Journal of Quantitative Economics Panel From 1402 to 1403
44 Review of Economics of the Household Panel From 1402 to 1499
45 European Journal of Comparative Economics Panel From 1402 to 1499
46 Rethinking Marxism Panel From 1402 to 1499

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC website,
which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 91

Appendix D3

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

1501 Accounting (ACC)

FoR Panel Report

Ken Trotman (Chair) – University of NSW

Naomi Soderstom – Melbourne University
Peter Clarkson – University Queensland
 92

Background on the Panel

The Panel comprised Ken Trotman (chair) (University of New South Wales), Peter Clarkson
(University of Queensland) and Naomi Soderstrom (University of Melbourne). All members
have been academics for long periods and are very well acquainted with the majority of the
journals, having acted in the roles of author, reviewer, editorial board member, and editor.
For the more contentious decisions, Panel members went back and read selections of papers
from the relevant journals to support their existing knowledge. Panel members were also
informed by the proposals submitted and sought advice from experts in fields with which
they were less familiar.

As an example, one or more of the Panel members have been on the editorial boards of the
following journals:

Abacus
Accounting and Finance
Accounting Horizons
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Accounting Research Journal
Advances in Accounting
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory
Australian Journal of Management
Behavioral Research in Accounting
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
China Accounting and Finance Review
Contemporary Accounting Research
European Accounting Review
International Journal of Auditing
International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy
Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics
Journal of International Accounting Research
Journal of Management Accounting Research
Oxford Scholarly Research Reviews
Pacific Accounting Review
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
The Accounting Review

The Panel’s research specialisations cover auditing, financial accounting and management
accounting, and all three have published and are presently working in the area of
sustainability accounting. Panel members have published research employing a wide range of
research methods, including archival, experimental, survey, and case studies. In sum, the
Panel have conducted both quantitative and qualitative research.

The Panel believes that the lists need to be used responsibly in promotion exercises and that
they form only part of the picture. Benchmarking exercises, creating league tables based on
these scores, is only a small part of the picture in determining promotion, i.e., these methods
do not substitute for peer review.
 93

A. Journal Additions
The ACC Panel considered four submissions recommending journal additions to the ABDC
list. After due deliberation, four of these journal additions are endorsed by our Panel. In
addition, it appeared to the Panel that a lot of journals that should have been included on the
ABDC list were not and as a result the Panel added 17 new journals taken from various
databases. Some of the recommended new journals are ‘young’ journals, e.g., those with
fewer than five years of publishing history and others that were simply overlooked in the
past. As such, these journals have mostly entered at the lowest C rating level. There were four
exceptions, however, where a persuasive case was made for a rating above C. Three of these
were at B based on the history of the journal or a strong editorial board and some recent
quality papers. Finally, one journal ‘Foundations and Trends in Accounting’ was added as an
A based on strength of editorial board and recent editions of the journal. It was decided that
all journals added reached a minimum threshold quality and meet the “substantive business
element test”.

The endorsed list of newly-admitted journals to this Panel (and their associated provisional
ratings) are shown in Table ACC_A at the end of this report.

B. Journal Downgrades
The ACC Panel considered two submissions recommending journal downgrades. After due
deliberation, neither of these rating downgrades are endorsed by our Panel.

The downgrades were not acted upon by this Panel, primarily for one or more of the
following reasons:
• The Panel believed the present rating was appropriate given the quality of the papers
in that journal.
• There were requests to upgrade the same journal and we believe the present rating
was considered appropriate.

There is no endorsed list of downgraded journals relevant to this Panel.

C. Journal Upgrades
The ACC Panel considered 76 submissions (relating to 43 journals) recommending journal
upgrades. After due deliberation, 34 of these rating upgrades (relating to 15 journals) are
endorsed by our Panel.

In summary, of the 11 journals recommended for upgrade to A* from A (in addition one
journal was A* in 2010 but the submission asked for a change from A to A*), two were
endorsed by the Panel (Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory and Management
Accounting Research) and one additional journal was added by the Panel (European
Accounting Review). In making these judgments the Panel considered the following issues:
• Suggestions were made to the Panel by numerous individuals, that accounting was
badly under represented in A* journals in 2010 with only six A* journals compared to
over 40 in some other disciplines. The argument was that accounting researchers were
therefore at a disadvantage in evaluations, promotion, etc. In addition, the argument
was made that quality should not be based on percentage of journals in a discipline, as
that easily makes the number inflatable by including large numbers of journals at the
bottom end. The question was raised whether differences in the number of journals
considered in each category should be driven by the relatively equal numbers of
Australian accounting academics relative to finance, economics and management. The
 94

Panel had sympathy with this sentiment to a large extent, but believed that increasing
the list extensively would devalue its credibility, i.e., in most countries the top
category of journals usually contains four–six journals.
• There were expressions of concern that the journal list needed to be broader than a
solely North American coverage and that consideration had to be given to the
availability of publication outlets for high quality qualitative and quantitative
research. The Panel’s view was that quality of the journal papers rather than the
location of the journal was the key issue. In their deliberations, the Panel gave
recognition to the importance of including journals that publish a broad range of
research methods. Two of the present A* journals (Accounting, Organizations and
Society and Contemporary Accounting Review) are important outlets for qualitative
research. Of the three journals that were added to the A* category, two (Management
Accounting Research and European Accounting Review) are European based
journals, with a long history of publishing qualitative research. Auditing: A Journal of
Practice & Theory has recently added an editor, who is a leading publisher of
qualitative research and there have been two special issues this year on qualitative
research and environmental research.
• Views were expressed of the need to consider including an Australian based journal in
the A* category. Three journals put up very strong cases in this category (Abacus,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, and Accounting & Finance). Based
on quality alone, the Panel decided that at this point, none of the three journals would
be included in the A* category, although they are showing improvement. It was
recognised that all three journals had some very high quality papers, but the variance
in quality was high relative to present A* journals. This point was made to us by
numerous leading academics across Australia, with many suggesting that there were
papers in these journals that were publishable in A* journals, but there were also
papers that were of much lower quality.
• Views were also expressed that the present A* journals placed too strong an emphasis
on financial accounting, with two of them rarely accepting either auditing or
management accounting. Review of Accounting Studies was considered by many as a
specialist financial accounting journal.
• The reasons for promoting the three journals to A* were as follows and were
supported by the attached proposals:
o Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (AJPT) has been the leading
specialist auditing journal in the world for over 25 years, was one of the
original seven SSCI journals, has a high five year impact factor, a rigorous
review process, includes Australians/New Zealanders as editors, and was well
supported by leading audit researchers. A strong case was made that Review
of Accounting Studies was a specialist financial accounting journal in the A*
category and AJPT was the equivalent in auditing.
o Management Accounting Research (MAR) has long been one of the two
leading specialist management accounting journals, has a strong editorial
board, is open to a range of methodologies, and has a high five year impact
factor. MAR also has a higher impact factor than competing publications.
o European Accounting Review (EAR) has strengthened significantly in recent
years, has a very strong editorial board, accepts papers across a wide range of
research methods, and has a high five year impact factor. The Panel was
impressed at the quality of the editorial process.
 95

• Eleven journals were nominated for promotion from C or B to A journals. Of these,

only two were promoted to A:
o International Journal of Auditing – The Panel viewed this as a truly
international journal, with editors around the world, a strong editorial board,
and very strong support from signatories.
o Journal of International Accounting Research – This is a AAA journal with a
strong editorial board and its inclusion underscores the importance of
international accounting research.
The main reason why more journals were not moved from B to A was the extremely
high variance in the quality of some of the present B journals, including their special
issues. It was felt that these journals were attracting some papers worthy of A
journals, but the publications were mixed with some less quality publications.
• Ten C journals were moved from C to B as a clear indication that these journals had
improved the quality control of their review processes and that movement to the B
category is likely to increase the quality of submissions received.

A range of recommended journal upgrades were not acted upon by this Panel, primarily for
one or more of the following reasons:
• Proposals sometimes provided comparative journals that did not appear appropriate,
i.e., the comparative journal appeared to be of a considerably higher standard than the
journal recommended for upgrade.
• The description of the editorial process did not match the common view of the Panel
members that had participated in those review processes.
• The journal had high quality papers and good support from some leading academics,
but because of only one edition per year it had no impact factor.
• Our reading of papers in the journal led to different conclusions than those put
forward in the proposal, e.g., very high variance in quality. The Panel judged the
journals based upon both their best papers and worst papers (or best editions and
worst editions).
• Some journals solicited very widely for support in the form of signatories. This had
the advantage of showing the level of support for the journal, but when it is circulated
so widely it also gives an indication of those that did not support the upgrade. In fact,
many academics informed us that they were sent open letters for support, but did not
believe an upgrade was appropriate for the journal.
• In some cases a journal can be ranked very high by one group of academics but very
low by a different group.
• It is more impressive to receive support from researchers who publish in a wide range
of journals (suggesting a self interest is less of an issue), compared to support from
academics where the vast majority of their research is in the journal they are
supporting.
• Lack of control of the quality of special issues.

The endorsed list of upgraded journals relevant to this Panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) are shown in Table ACC_C at the end of this report.
 96

D. Journal Transfers
The ACC Panel considered one submission recommending a journal transfer into (out of)
this Panel. After due deliberation, this transfer is endorsed by our Panel. The endorsed list of
journals transfers relevant to this Panel (and their associated provisional ratings) are shown
in Table ACC_D at the end of this report. Also one journal was transferred out as it was
listed under two panels.
 97

TABLES
Summary reconciliation table:

ABDC 2010 + New + Up Grade – Lost to + Transfer – Transfer ABDC 2013

Up Grade
A* 6 (5.6%) 3 - - - 9 (7.0%)
A 19 (17.8%) 1 2 3 - - 19 (14.9%)
B 17 (15.9%) 4 10 2 1 - 30 (23.4%)
C 65 (60.7%) 16 - 10 - 1 70 (54.7%)
107 21 15 15 1 1 128

Table ACC_A: Journal Additions

Journal Title Rating FORM A Submission

Reference#
1 Social and Environmental Accountability Journal B ACC_FA_F_001
2 Global Review of Accounting and Finance C ACC_FA_F_002
3 African Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance C ACC_FA_F_003
4 Asian Journal of Business and Accounting C ACC_FA_F_004
5 Accounting and Finance Research C ACC_FA_F_005
6 AIS Educator Journal C ACC_FA_F_009
7 Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance C ACC_FA_F_011
8 Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting C ACC_FA_F_013
9 Current Issues in Auditing B ACC_FA_F_014
10 IMA Educational Case Journal C ACC_FA_F_016
11 International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting C ACC_FA_F_017
12 International Journal of Accounting Information Systems B ACC_FA_F_018
13 International Journal of Economics and Accounting C ACC_FA_F_019
14 International Journal of Government Auditing C ACC_FA_F_020
15 Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting C ACC_FA_F_021
16 Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting C ACC_FA_F_022
17 Journal of Governmental & Nonprofit Accounting B ACC_FA_F_023
 98

Journal Title Rating FORM A Submission

Reference#
18 Mustang Journal of Accounting and Finance C ACC_FA_F_025
19 Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems C ACC_FA_F_028
20 Foundations and Trends in Accounting A ACC_FA_F_029
21 Management Accounting Quarterly C ACC_FA_F_030
# The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 99

Table ACC_B: Journal Downgrades

Journal Title Rating FORM B Submission

Reference#
N/A

# The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 100

Table ACC_C: Journal Upgrades

Journal Title Rating FORM C Submission

Reference#
1 Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory A* ACC_FC_F_042
ACC_FC_F_063
ACC_FC_F_064
2 Management Accounting Research A* ACC_FC_F_067
3 European Accounting Review A* ACC_FC_F_076
4 International Journal of Auditing A ACC_FC_F_046
ACC_FC_F_048
5 Journal of International Accounting Research A ACC_FC_F_050
6 Accounting History B ACC_FC_F_009
ACC_FC_F_023
ACC_FC_F_034
7 Accounting History Review (formerly Accounting, Business and Financial History) B ACC_FC_F_008
8 Accounting Research Journal B ACC_FC_F_010
9 Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research B ACC_FC_F_035
10 Advances in Accounting Incorporating in Advances in International Accounting B ACC_FC_F_019
ACC_FC_F_037
11 Advances in Management Accounting B ACC_FC_F_020
ACC_FC_F_032
12 Asian Review of Accounting B ACC_FC_F_014
13 International Journal of Accounting and Information Management B ACC_FC_F_027
ACC_FC_F_044
 101

Journal Title Rating FORM C Submission

Reference#
14 Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change B ACC_FC_F_001
ACC_FC_F_002
ACC_FC_F_003
ACC_FC_F_004
ACC_FC_F_012
ACC_FC_F_022
ACC_FC_F_028
ACC_FC_F_052
ACC_FC_F_053
ACC_FC_F_054
ACC_FC_F_055
15 Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal B ACC_FC_F_016
ACC_FC_F_072
# The highlighted reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the
ABDC website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 102

Table ACC_D: Journal Transfers

Panel A: Incoming Journal Title Rating FORM D Submission

Reference#
1 Journal of Intellectual Capital B ACC_FD_F_001

Panel B: Outgoing Journal Title Rating FORM D Submission

Reference#
1 International Review of Business Research Papers C Duplicate with another
Panel

# The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC website,
which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 103

Appendix D4

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

1502 Finance (FIN)

FoR Panel Report

Robert Faff (Chair) – University of Queensland

Carole Commerton-Forde – University of
Melbourne
Steve Easton – University of Newcastle
 104

A. Journal Additions
The FIN Panel considered 31 submissions recommending journal additions to the ABDC
list. After due deliberation, 30 of these journal additions are endorsed by our panel. The
majority of the recommended new journals are either “young” journals – with less than 5
years of publishing history, or of limited exposure/profile. As such, these journals have
mostly entered at the lowest, “C” rating level. There are some exceptions, however, where a
persuasive case is made for a rating above C. Common reasons for these higher rating
decisions include:
• extremely high profile Editors and Editorial Boards; and
• authors are those who systematically publish in established A* finance journals.

The most highly rated new journals are: Review of Asset Pricing Studies and Review of
Corporate Finance Studies (both notable because they are the new “sister” journals related to
the Tier 1 Review of Financial Studies) – both rated A*; and Critical Finance Review – rated
A.

The endorsed list of newly-admitted journals to this panel (and their associated provisional
ratings) are shown in Table FIN_A at the end of this report.

B. Journal Downgrades
The FIN Panel received nil submissions recommending rating downgrade. After due
deliberation, we concur that no downgrade decisions are warranted for journals captured by
this panel.

C. Journal Upgrades
The FIN Panel considered 35 submissions recommending journal upgrades. After due
deliberation, 16 of these rating upgrades are endorsed by our panel. A range of recommended
journal upgrades are not acted upon by this panel, primarily for one or more of the following
reasons:
• Weak/non-existent citation measures, relative to comparable journals in the proposed
rating category;
• A perceived high variability in the quality of articles published in the journal relative
to comparable journals in the proposed rating category;
• Inferior Editors/Editorial Boards, relative to comparable journals in the proposed
rating category;
• Inferior international profile/reach, relative to comparable journals in the proposed
rating category;
• Low profile authors publishing in the journal, relative to comparable journals in the
proposed rating category;
• Narrow scope of articles published – e.g. in terms of geographical dispersion of
authors and/or topic areas, relative to comparable journals in the proposed rating category;
• Low quality articles published – e.g. less analytical content, weaker experimental
design, less important research questions; relative to comparable journals in the proposed
rating category.
The endorsed list of upgraded journals relevant to this panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) are shown in Table FIN_C at the end of this report.

D. Journal Transfers
The FIN Panel considered 5 (1) submission(s) recommending journal transfers into (out of)
this panel. After due deliberation, all of these “incoming (“outgoing”) transfers are endorsed
by our panel. The endorsed list of journals transfers relevant to this panel (and their
associated provisional ratings) are shown in Table FIN_D at the end of this report.
 105

TABLES

Summary reconciliation table:

ABDC 2010 + New + Up – Lost to + Transfer – Transfer ABDC 2013

Grade Up Grade
A* 6 (4.0%) +2 +2 0 +1 0 11 (6.0%)
A 26 (17.3%) +1 +3 -2 +3 0 31 (16.8%)
B 39 (26.0%) +4 +11 -3 +1 0 52 (28.3%)
C 79 (52.7%) +23 0 –11 0 –1 90 (48.9%)
150 +30 +16 –16 +5 –1 184

Table FIN_A: Journal Additions

Journal Title Rating FORM A Submission

Reference*
1 Review of Asset Pricing Studies A* FIN_FA_F_030
2 Review of Corporate Finance Studies A* FIN_FA_F_021
3 Critical Finance Review A FIN_FA_F_005
4 Review of Behavioral Finance B FIN_FA_F_020
5 Review of Futures Markets B FIN_FA_F_022
6 Journal of Financial Stability B FIN_FA_F_029
7 International Journal of Portfolio Analysis and Management B FIN_FA_F_033
8 Journal of Stock and Forex Trading C FIN_FA_F_001
9 Algorithmic Finance C FIN_FA_F_002
10 Applied Finance Letters C FIN_FA_F_003
11 Financial Decisions (formerly the Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions) C FIN_FA_F_006
12 International Journal of Bonds and Currency Derivatives C FIN_FA_F_007
13 International Journal of Financial Markets and Derivatives C FIN_FA_F_008
14 International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management C FIN_FA_F_009
15 International Research Journal of Applied Finance C FIN_FA_F_010
16 Journal of Financial and Economic Practice C FIN_FA_F_011
 106

Table FIN_A: Journal Additions (cont.)

Journal Title Rating FORM A Submission

Reference*
17 Journal of Financial Economic Policy C FIN_FA_F_012
18 Journal of Investment Consulting C FIN_FA_F_013
19 Journal of Operational Risk C FIN_FA_F_014
20 Journal of Performance Management C FIN_FA_F_015
21 Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions C FIN_FA_F_016
22 The Journal of Risk Model Validation C FIN_FA_F_017
23 Quarterly Journal of Finance C FIN_FA_F_018
24 Spanish Review of Financial Economics C FIN_FA_F_023
25 China Finance Review International C FIN_FA_F_024
26 Global Economy and Finance Journal C FIN_FA_F_025
27 International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management C FIN_FA_F_026
28 Qualitative Research in Financial Markets C FIN_FA_F_027
29 European Actuarial Journal C FIN_FA_F_028
30 Journal of Financial Management, Markets and Institutions C FIN_FA_F_032

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 107

Table FIN_C: Journal Upgrades

Journal Title Rating FORM C Submission

Reference*
1 Journal of Financial Intermediation A* FIN_FC_F_015
2 Review of Finance A* FIN_FC_F_027
3 Journal of Financial Services Research A FIN_FC_F_016
4 Journal of Fixed Income A FIN_FC_F_014
5 Quantitative Finance A FIN_FC_F_021
6 Financial Services Review B FIN_FC_F_028
7 Foundations & Trends in Finance B FIN_FC_F_029
8 JASSA B FIN_FC_F_030
9 Journal of Alternative Investments B FIN_FC_F_031
10 Journal of Emerging Market Finance B FIN_FC_F_032
11 Journal of Investing B FIN_FC_F_033
12 Journal of Risk B FIN_FC_F_034
13 Journal of Wealth Management B FIN_FC_F_035
14 Managerial Finance B FIN_FC_F_005
15 Research in International Business & Finance B FIN_FC_F_003
16 Review of Financial Economics B FIN_FC_F_036

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 108

Table FIN_D: Journal Transfers

Panel A: Incoming Journal Title Rating FORM D Submission

Reference*
1 Journal of Financial Markets A* FIN_FD_F_002
2 Australian Journal of Management A FIN_FD_F_001
3 Emerging Markets Review A FIN_FD_F_006
4 Mathematical Finance A FIN_FD_F_004
5 International Review of Economics and Finance B FIN_FA_F_005

Panel B: Outgoing Journal Title Rating FORM D Submission

Reference*
1 International Journal of Sport Finance C MTL_FD_F_001

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC website,
which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 109

Appendix D5

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

1503 Management (MAN)

FoR Panel Report

Ingrid Nielsen – Monash University (Chair)

Neal Ashkanasy – University of Queensland

Bob Cavana – Victoria University of Wellington
Gavin Jack – La Trobe University
Vikas Kumar – University of Sydney
Adrian Wilkinson – Griffith University
 110

The Management panel’s deliberations took place during the period 21 May – 23 August
2013 using a combination of online, teleconference and face-to-face meetings. Any panel
member with a perceived conflict of interest in any decision was required to exclude him- or
herself from deliberations over that decision. For all decisions we aimed to reach a consensus
position and we achieved that objective in the overwhelming majority of cases. Where we
could not reach consensus, we arrived at a majority plus one view. In two cases, we sought
the view of business and management scholars outside the panel to ensure the robustness and
integrity of our process.

A. Journal Additions

The MAN Panel received 62 submissions recommending journal additions to the ABDC
list. This number included one submission originally considered by the BTL panel, seven
submissions incorrectly made on Form C Upgrade forms and two panel initiated submissions.
This number also accounts for one submission that should have been made on a Form C
Upgrade form, which is counted within the Journal Upgrade count in Section C, overleaf.

After due deliberation, 45 new journals were endorsed by MAN. Three journals were brought
in with an A* rating; 16 were brought in with an A rating; 17 were brought in with a B rating
and nine were brought in with a C rating. All but two of the new journals that were brought in
were brought in at the suggested rating. The two that were not brought in at the suggested
rating were both submissions to add at A*, whereas the panel agreed to add both at A. These
two journals were Public Administration: An International Quarterly and Public
Administration Review.

Approximately half of the recommended new journals are well-established outlets with
twenty or more years of history. Many have been in print for over half a century. These
“older” journals account for the vast majority of additions at A* and A. Of the journals with
less than 20 years of publishing history, all but six entered the list at B or C. Of the “younger”
journals that entered the list at A* or A, persuasive cases were made with reference to citation
metrics, standing on other well-established ranking lists, standing relative to competitor
outlets, editorial board membership and author profile. Examples of these latter, younger,
journals to enter the list at A* or A are: Psychological Science (A*), Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied (A) and Social Forces (A).

A range of recommended “new” journals were not acted upon by this panel, primarily for
one or more of the following reasons:

• Deemed to be a “predatory” open access journal

• Failure to reach a minimum threshold of quality
• Failure to meet the “substantive business element test”
• Insufficient English language content
• Deemed to be more suitable for consideration by another panel

The endorsed list of newly admitted journals to this panel (and their associated provisional
ratings) are shown in Table MAN_A at the end of this report.
 111

B. Journal Downgrades

The MAN Panel received one submission recommending a journal downgrade. After due
deliberation, this rating downgrade was not endorsed by our panel, primarily for the
following reasons:

• The journal had a similar profile across a range of citation metrics to its closest
competitor journals at the current rating
• The journal is similarly ranked across a range of well-established journal ranking lists

As the MAN panel did not endorse any journal downgrade submissions, this report does not
contain the XXX_B table present in some other reports.

C. Journal Upgrades

The MAN Panel received 126 submissions recommending journal upgrades. This total
accounts for one submission that was moved to the ACC panel, one submission that was
moved into MAN from the ACC panel, one submission that was moved into MAN from the
INS panel, and seven submissions that should have been made on Form A Add New Journal
forms that were considered as Form A submissions. After due deliberation, 50 of these
upgrades were endorsed by our panel. Our panel endorsed eight upgrades to A*, 25 upgrades
to A and 17 upgrades to B. We endorsed upgrades to A* only where the submission made an
exceptionally clear case that the particular journal is among the elite journals covered by the
scope of the MAN panel. Examples of journals for which we endorsed an upgrade to A*
include Human Relations, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and Sociology.

Unlike some other panels, the MAN panel chose not to name an elite “Tier 1” group of
journals within the management field as we agreed that such further categorisation did not
add value to the management rankings, given its scope and diversity; and given that no
published Tier 1 will appear on the final list. Furthermore, the MAN panel was of the view
that management scholars implicitly know what the small group of truly elite journals are in
their discipline area.

Notably, three journals in the operations management area were elevated to A* (European
Journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Production Economics and
OMEGA). The panel discussed this particular outcome and were in agreement that the
elevation of the top group of operations management journals to A* addressed a previous
anomaly of the list with regard to this discipline area.

Of the total upgrades, one triple-rating upgrade and two double-rating upgrades were
endorsed. The triple–rating upgrade was applied to Academy of Management Annals, which
shifts from a C to A* rating. The panel was in agreement that the age of the outlet, relative to
the remaining stable of AOM journals, most likely underlay its original rating; but that even
in a short space of time, Annals had demonstrated that it was of comparable quality to the
other more well-established outlets in its stable. Its editorial board is populated by leading
scholars in the discipline. Added, it is extremely well cited, and consistently ranked among
the top five most influential and most frequently cited management journals with an SSCI
2011 impact factor of 4.5 and an SSCI 2011 5-year impact factor of 7.0. Relatively, it is
ranked #5 out of 168 journals in the ‘Management’ discipline within the SSCI.
 112

The two journals that were endorsed with double rating upgrades were International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.
In both cases the submissions that we received were sufficiently persuasive for the panel to
endorse upgrade from C to A. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management is in its 33rd year of publication. It has a very high quality editorial board which
includes top international scholars in supply chain management. It has a low acceptance rate
of about 10% and a current impact factor of 1.038. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal did
not have an impact factor when the original ABDC list was published and this likely in-part
underlay its original C rating. However, it has a very strong editorial board and now has an
impact factor of 2.053. Added, it was reclassified from 0 to 3 on the ABS2010 list in the UK.
Very strong scholars have published in this journal since its inauguration, including a large
group of scholars whom themselves have over 10,000 citations (some well over 50,000) on
Google Scholar.

Five further submissions that made multiple-upgrade cases were endorsed in-part with single
rating upgrades, as the submissions did not make compelling cases for substantial rating
shifts.

The rating upgrades endorsed by our panel were primarily for the following reasons:

• The journal had a substantively superior profile across a range of citation metrics to
its closest competitor journals
• The journal is ranked more favourably across a range of well-established journal
ranking lists
• The journal’s editorial board and author profile are substantively more favourable to
its closest competitor journals

A range of recommended journal upgrades were not acted upon by this panel, primarily for
one or more of the following reasons:

• The submission did not evidence that the journal had a similar profile across a range
of citation metrics to its closest competitor journals at the recommended rating
• The submission did not evidence that the journal had a more favourable profile across
a range of citation metrics to its closest competitor journals at lower rating levels
• The submission did not evidence that the journal is ranked lower than its closest
competitor journals across a range of well-established journal ranking lists
• The submission was not sufficiently persuasive in arguing the case that the journal’s
editorial board and author profile was comparable to its closest competitor journals at
the recommended rating.

In the case of two journals with multiple submissions, our panel sought the views of
discipline experts external to the panel. These journals were Asia-Pacific Journal of Human
Resources and Journal of Management and Organization. One reason why we sought these
external views was that two and three of our panel members respectively declared conflicts of
interest in deliberating over these two journals. Our intent, therefore, in recruiting proxy
members was to ensure the robustness and integrity of the deliberation and voting process. A
further compelling reason to recruit proxy members was that both of these journals have a
high degree of local relevance, which is one issue that panels were required to consider in
 113

their deliberations. So, while it was the case that individual members also removed
themselves from discussions around other journals for which they had a conflict of interest;
the high number of non-voting members for these two outlets, coupled with the compelling
nature of the local relevance factor, precipitated recruitment of external panel members in
these two cases. Following receiving input and votes from external members, the panel did
not endorse upgrade of either of these journals.

The endorsed list of upgraded journals relevant to this panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) are shown in Table MAN_C at the end of this report.

D. Journal Transfers

The MAN panel received one submission recommending the transfer of a journal into the
panel but, after due deliberation, this transfer was not endorsed. One further submission that
was originally made to BTL was endorsed by our panel for transfer to MAN and was
subsequently reviewed as a Form A Add New Journal submission.

The MAN Panel also received four submission recommending journal transfers out of this
panel. After due deliberation, all of these transfers were endorsed by our panel as the journals
were each deemed to be a better disciplinary fit elsewhere.

The MAN panel further endorsed removal of 17 journals, primarily for the following reasons:

• The journal content was out of scope

• The journal had insufficient English language content
• The journal was a duplicate in error on the original list

Such journals included: Acta Mathematicae Applicandae Sinica, Agrekon, RAE, and the
duplicate entry for SMART Journal of Business Management Studies.

The endorsed list of journal transfers and delistings relevant to this panel (and their
associated provisional ratings) are shown in Table MAN_D at the end of this report.
 114

TABLES

Reconciliation table:

ABDC +New Gain by Lost to -transfers Delistings ABDC

2010 upgrade upgrade 2013
A* 44 +3 +8 -1 54
A 139 +16 +25 -7 -2 -3 168
B 179 +17 +17 -23 -2 -5 183
C 379 +9 -20 -8 360
741 +45 +50 -50 -4 -17 765

Table MAN_A: Journal Additions

Journal Title Rating FORM A Submission

Reference*
1 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology A* MAN_FA_F_017
2 African Journal of Economic and Management Studies C MAN_FA_F_012
3 American Journal of Health Sciences B MAN_FA_F_003
4 Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management C MAN_FA_F_051
5 Built Environment Project and Asset Management B MAN_FA_F_031
6 Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology B MAN_FA_F_019
7 Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education B MAN_FA_F_043
8 Discourse & Communication A MAN_FA_F_018
9 Entrepreneurship Research Journal B MAN_FA_F_032
10 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (formerly Equal Opportunities International) B MAN_FA_F_020
11 Gender and Society A* MAN_FA_F_021
12 Global Strategy Journal A MAN_FA_F_014
13 Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning C MAN_FA_F_047
14 IIE Transactions A MAN_FA_F_045
15 IIMB Management Review B MAN_FA_F_056
16 Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science & Practice B MAN_FA_F_062
17 International Journal of Law and Management C BTL_FA_F_008^^^
 115

18 International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences B MAN_FA_F_058

19 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied A MAN_FA_F_023
20 Journal of Indian Business Research C MAN_FA_F_039
21 Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization B MAN_FA_F_054
22 Journal of International Business Education B MAN_FA_F_044
23 Journal of Organizational Behavior Education C MAN_FA_F_055
24 Journal of Personality A MAN_FA_F_038
25 Journal of Political Power B MAN_FA_F_008
26 Journal of Research in Personality A MAN_FA_F_007
27 Journal of Social Issues A MAN_FA_F_024
28 M@n@gement B MAN_FA_F_050
29 Management Decision - incorporates Journal of Management History (Archive) A MAN_FA_F_011
30 Mathematics of Operations Research A MAN_FA_F_016
31 Operations Management Education Review B MAN_FA_F_046
32 Organizational Psychology Review B MAN_FA_F_063
33 Psychological Science A* MAN_FA_F_026
34 Psychology of Women Quarterly A MAN_FA_F_027
35 Public Administration Review A MAN_FC_F_062^^
36 Public Administration: An International Quarterly A MAN_FC_F_063^^
37 Sex Roles A MAN_FA_F_030
38 Social Forces A MAN_FA_F_035
39 Social Indicators Research A MAN_FA_F_034
40 Social Justice Research B MAN_FA_F_028
41 Social Problems A MAN_FA_F_033
42 Social Psychological and Personality Science B MAN_FA_F_029
43 South Asian Journal of Global Business Research C MAN_FA_F_057
44 Sport Business & Management: An International Journal C MAN_FA_F_010
45 World Journal of Management C MAN_FA_F_052
* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC website, which
provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
^^ Submissions made on incorrect form type (Form C) so can be found with Form C submission files.
^^^ Original submission made to BTL. File now re-housed among MAN files.
 116

Table MAN_C: Journal Upgrades

Journal Title Rating FORM C Submission

Reference*
1 Academy of Management Annals A* MAN_FC_F_085
2 Asia-Pacific Journal of Management A MAN_FC_F_071
3 Benchmarking: An International Journal B MAN_FC_F_073
4 Business and Society A MAN_FC_F_023
5 Career Development International B MAN_FC_F_075
6 Critical Perspectives on International Business B MAN_FC_F_090
7 Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal B MAN_FC_F_091
8 Culture and Organization B MAN_FC_F_092
9 Entrepreneurship and Regional Development A MAN_FC_F_077
10 European Journal of Operational Research A* MAN_FC_F_093
11 Human Relations A* MAN_FC_F_094
12 Human Resource Management Review A MAN_FC_F_090
13 International Journal of Arts Management B MAN_FC_F_096
14 International Journal of Conflict Management A MAN_FC_F_029
15 International Journal of Educational Management B MAN_FC_F_041
16 International Journal of Manpower A MAN_FC_F_034
17 International Journal of Organizational Analysis B MAN_FC_F_081
18 International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management A MAN_FC_F_101
19 International Journal of Production Economics A* ACC_FC_F_005^^^
20 International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management B MAN_FC_F_044
21 International Journal of Project Management A MAN_FC_F_102
22 International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy B MAN_FC_F_103
23 International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion B MAN_FC_F_041
24 Journal of Business and Psychology A MAN_FC_F_055
25 Journal of Business Logistics A MAN_FC_F_107
26 Journal of Health, Organization and Management B MAN_FC_F_109
27 Journal of International Management A MAN_FC_F_020
28 Journal of Management History A MAN_FC_F_054
 117

29 Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management B MAN_FC_F_119

30 Journal of Service Management A MAN_FC_F_019
31 Journal of Supply Chain Management: a global review of purchasing and supply A MAN_FC_F_122
32 Labour History: a journal of labour and social history A MAN_FC_F_133
33 Leadership B MAN_FC_F_056
34 Management Learning A MAN_FC_F_060
35 Management Organization Review A MAN_FC_F_059
36 Manufacturing and Service Operations Management A MAN_FC_F_003
37 Measuring Business Excellence B MAN_FC_F_017
38 Omega A* MAN_FC_F_125
39 Organizational Research Methods A* MAN_FC_F_126
40 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin A* MAN_FC_F_061
41 Personnel Review A MAN_FC_F_082
42 Production and Operations Management A MAN_FC_F_128
43 Public Management Review A MAN_FC_F_065
44 Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management B MAN_FC_F_016
45 Small Group Research: an international journal of theory, investigation and application A MAN_FC_F_066
46 Sociology A* MAN_FC_F_015
47 Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal A MAN_FC_F_067
48 The International Journal of Logistics Management A MAN_FC_F_009
49 The TQM Journal B MAN_FC_F_013
50 Work & Stress A MAN_FC_F_131

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
^^^ Original submission made to ACC. File now re-housed among MAN files.
 118

Table MAN_D: Journal Transfers and Delistings

Panel A: Incoming Journal Title Rating FORM D Submission

Reference*

Panel B: Reclassified Journal Title Rating / New panel FORM D Submission

Reference*
1 Australian Journal of Management A / FIN FIN_FD_F_001
2 Emerging Markets Review B / FIN FIN_FD_F_006
3 Journal of Financial Markets A / FIN FIN_FD_F_002
4 Journal of Intellectual Capital B / ACC ACC_FD_F_001

Panel C: Delisted Journal Title Rating / Reason FORM D Submission

Reference*
1 Acta Mathematicae Applicandae Sinica C / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_006
2 Agrekon C / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_007
3 Industrielle Beziehungen: Zeitschrift fuer Arbeit, Organisation und C / Insufficient English MAN_FD_F_008
Management
4 Journal of Geographical Systems: geographical information, analysis, C / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_009
theory and decision
5 Journalism and Mass Communication Educator B / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_010
6 Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly A / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_011
7 Llafur C / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_012
8 Mathematical Programming A / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_013
9 Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability B / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_014
10 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Mathematical, A* / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_015
Physical and Engineering Sciences
11 Queueing Systems: theory and applications B / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_016
12 R D Management A / DUPLICATE N/A - DUPLICATE
13 RAE C / Insufficient English MAN_FD_F_017
14 Revue Internationale du Droit d'Auteur A / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_018
15 Sankhya: the Indian journal of statistics B / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_019
 119

16 SMART Journal of Business Management Studies C/ DUPLICATE N/A - DUPLICATE

17 South African Actuarial Journal C / Out of scope MAN_FD_F_020

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC website,
which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 120

Appendix D6

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

1504-1507
Marketing/Tourism/Logistics (MTL)
FOR Panel Report

Geoffrey Soutar – University of Western

Australia (Chair)
Janet McColl-Kennedy – The University of
Queensland
Geoffrey Crouch – La Trobe University
Chandana Hewege - Swinburn
 121

A. Journals Additions

The Marketing, Tourism and Logistics Panel received 39 submissions recommending

journal additions to the ABDC list. Thirty one of these journal additions were endorsed by
our panel. Some journals seem to have been inadvertently left off the earlier list and some of
the recommended new journals are “young” journals, with less than 5 years of publishing
history. As such, most of these journals have entered at the lowest, “C” rating level. There are
some exceptions, however, where a persuasive case was made for a rating above C. Common
reasons for these higher rating decisions include their impact in the short period they have
been in publication, the quality of the editors and editorial boards and the quality of the
papers being published (sample articles had been read by some panel members). The
endorsed list of new journals for this panel and their provisional ratings is shown in Table A.

B. Journal Downgrades

The Marketing, Tourism and Logistics Panel did not receive any external submissions
recommending journal downgrades. However, after considerable deliberation, some
downgrades were recommended by our panel, as it was felt the journals did not meet the
criteria evident in the other journals rated at that level. The endorsed list of the downgraded
journals relevant to this panel is shown in Table B.

C. Journal Upgrades

The Marketing, Tourism and Logistics Panel received 87 submissions recommending

journal upgrades. After due deliberation, 75 journals were upgraded by the panel. A range of
recommended journal upgrades were not acted upon by this panel, as the submissions were
limited, often not anything other than the journal name. Even when more information was
provided, it was often not sufficient to support an upgrade. However, some submissions were
very convincing and played major roles in the decision to endorse the upgrade the various
journals that are shown below. In three cases, it was clear to the panel that there had been a
considerable misclassification of the journal and they were upgraded from C to A. These
journals are: Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (1504); International Journal of Consumer
Studies (1505); and Journal of Safety Research (1507). In all other cases, the journals were
upgraded by only one level. The endorsed list of the downgraded journals relevant to this
panel is shown in Table C.

D. Journal Transfers

The Marketing, Tourism and Logistics Panel received 2 submissions recommending the
transfer of one journal “International Journal of Sport Finance” from 1502 into this panel.
After due deliberation, this transfer was endorsed by our panel (from FOR 1502 into 1504).
 122

TABLES

Reconciliations

ABDC 2010 + New - Down Gain by + Up – Lost to + Transfer – delisting ABDC 2013
grade upgrade Grade Up Grade
A* 13 0 +9 22
A 45 +1 -4 +28 -9 -1 60
B 99 +8 -4 +4 +38 -25 120
C 163 +22 +4 -41 +1 149
320 +31 -8 +8 +75 -75 +1 -1 351

ABDC 2013 1504 1505 1506 1507 Aggregated

A* 4 10 4 4 22
A 13 26 11 10 60
B 36 42 21 21 120
C 38 67 23 21 149
91 145 59 56 351
 123

Table A MTL_A: Journal Additions

FOR Journal Title Rating FORM A Submission

Reference
1 1504 International Journal of Cultural Policy B MTL_FA_F_036
2 1504 Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering B MTL_FA_F_004
3 1504 International Journal of Sport Communication B MTL_FA_F_014
MTL_FA_F_023
MTL_FA_F_035
4 1504 Soccer & Society C MTL_FA_F_016
5 1504 International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics C MTL_FA_F_015
MTL_FA_F_024
MTL_FA_F_034
6 1504 Hospitality & Society C MTL_FA_F_007
7 1504 Sport, Business and Management C MTL_FA_F_013
MTL_FA_F_032
8 1504 Australasian Parks and Leisure C MTL_FA_F_ Panel
9 1504 Sport Management Education Journal C MTL_FA_F_012
MTL_FA_F_033
10 1504 Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management C MTL_FA_F_037
11 1505 Journal of Social Marketing B MTL_FA_F_030
MTL_FA_F_039
12 1505 International Journal of Quality and Services Science C MTL_FA_F_005
13 1505 Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing C MTL_FA_F_018
MTL_FA_F_022
14 1505 Journal of Islamic Marketing C MTL_FA_F_026
15 1505 Journal of Global Fashion Marketing C MTL_FA_F_019
16 1505 Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education C MTL_FA_F_031
17 1505 Journal of Advertising Education C MTL_FA_F_009
18 1505 Public Relations Inquiry C MTL_FA_F_017
19 1505 Arts Marketing C MTL_FA_F_027
20 1505 Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science C MTL_FA_F_020
 124

21 1505 Asian Journal of Business Research C MTL_FA_F_001

22 1505 Journal of Digital and Social Media Marketing C MTL_FA_F_021
23 1506 International Journal of Event and Festival Management B MTL_FA_F_038
MTL_FA_F_025
24 1506 Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events C MTL_FA_F_029
25 1507 Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour A MTL_FA_F_ Panel
26 1507 Transportation Journal B MTL_FA_F_010
27 1507 Supply Chain Management Review B MTL_FA_F_ Panel
28 1507 Transportation Letters B MTL_FA_F_002
29 1507 Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management C MTL_FA_F_011
30 1507 Operations and Supply Chain Management C MTL_FA_F_006
31 1507 Journal of Research in Transportation Business and Management C MTL_FA_F_003

Table B MTL_B: Journal Downgrades

FOR Journal Title 2010 2013 FORM B Submission Reference

1 1504 Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education B C MTL_FB_F_ Panel
2 1504 The Journal of Hospitality Financial Management B C MTL_FB_F_ Panel
3 1504 Journal of Construction Research B C MTL_FB_F_ Panel
4 1504 Sport Management Review A B MTL_FB_F_ Panel
5 1506 Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education A B MTL_FB_F_ Panel
6 1507 Journal of Construction Procurement B C MTL_FB_F_ Panel
7 1507 International Journal of Automotive Technology A B MTL_FB_F_ Panel
8 1507 Journal of Transport Economics and Policy A B MTL_FB_F_ Panel
 125

Table C MTL_C: Journal Upgrades

FOR Journal Title 2010 2013 FORM C Submission

Reference
1 1504 International Journal of Hospitality Management A A* MTL_FC_F_ Panel
2 1504 Automation in Construction A A* MTL_FC_F_ Panel
3 1504 Journal of Sport Management A A* MTL_FC_F_ Panel
4 1504 Journal of Construction Engineering and Management A A* MTL_FC_F_ Panel
5 1504 Journal of Gambling Studies B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
6 1504 Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
7 1504 Housing Studies B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
8 1504 Int. Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management B A MTL_FC_F_038
MTL_FC_F_057
MTL_FC_F_058
9 1504 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
10 1504 Leisure Studies B A MTL_FC_F_046
11 1504 Sport in Society C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
12 1504 Sport Psychologist C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
13 1504 UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
14 1504 Journal of Sport Behavior C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
15 1504 Sport, Education and Society C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
16 1504 International Gambling Studies C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
17 1504 Journal of Gambling Issues C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
18 1504 International Journal of Sport Psychology C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
19 1504 International Journal of Wine Business Research C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
20 1504 Journal of Park and Recreation Administration C B MTL_FC_F_082
21 1505 Industrial Marketing Management A A* MTL_FC_F_016
MTL_FC_F_053
22 1505 European Journal of Marketing A A* MTL_FC_F_017
MTL_FC_F_033
 126

23 1505 Journal of Service Research A A* MTL_FC_F_013

MTL_FC_F_027
MTL_FC_F_087
24 1505 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
25 1505 Journal of Services Marketing B A MTL_FC_F_086
26 1505 Public Relations Review B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
27 1505 Journal of Interactive Marketing B A MTL_FC_F_014
28 1505 Service Industries Journal B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
29 1505 Journal of Brand Management B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
30 1505 Managing Service Quality B A MTL_FC_F_036
31 1505 Quantitative Marketing and Economics B A MTL_FC_F_056
32 1505 Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing B A MTL_FC_F_063
MTL_FC_F_064
33 1505 Marketing Intelligence and Planning B A MTL_FC_F_031
34 1505 Marketing Theory: an international review B A MTL_FC_F_009
35 1505 Journal of Macromarketing B A MTL_FC_F_010
MTL_FC_F_011
MTL_FC_F_015
36 1505 International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management C B MTL_FC_F_061
37 1505 International Journal of Bank Marketing C B MTL_FC_F_054
38 1505 Journal of Public Relations Research C B MTL_FC_F_022
MTL_FC_F_085
39 1505 Int. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
40 1505 Journal of Communication Management C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
41 1505 Journal of Interactive Advertising C B MTL_FC_F_024
MTL_FC_F_078
MTL_FC_F_079
MTL_FC_F_080
MTL_FC_F_081
42 1505 Journal of Financial Services Marketing C B MTL_FC_F_072
43 1505 Advances in Consumer Research C B MTL_FC_F_047
 127

44 1505 Young Consumers C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel

45 1506 Journal of Sustainable Tourism A A* MTL_FC_F_041
46 1506 Journal of Vacation Marketing B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
47 1506 Current Issues in Tourism B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
48 1506 Tourism Geographies B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
49 1506 Event Management: an international journal B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
50 1506 Tourism Recreation Research B A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
51 1506 Visitor Studies: theory, research, and practice B A MTL_FC_F_034
52 1506 Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism C B MTL_FC_F_043
53 1506 Int. Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research C B MTL_FC_F_020
54 1506 Journal of Convention Event Tourism C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
55 1506 Anatolia C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
56 1506 Journal of Heritage Tourism C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
57 1506 Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality Tourism C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
58 1506 Tourism Review C B MTL_FC_F_029
59 1506 Journal of China Tourism Research C B MTL_FC_F_042
60 1506 International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
61 1506 Journal of Sport Tourism C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
62 1507 Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation A A* MTL_FC_F_ Panel
Review
63 1507 Journal of Transport Geography B A MTL_FC_F_006
64 1507 International Journal of Sustainable Transportation C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
65 1507 Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems: technology, C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
planning, and operations
66 1507 Transportmetrica C B MTL_FC_F_002
67 1507 Journal of Public Transportation C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
68 1507 Journal of Transport and Land Use C B MTL_FC_F_008
69 1507 Journal of Transportation System Engineering and Information C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
Technology
70 1507 Research in Transportation Economics C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
 128

71 1507 Transportation Planning and Technology C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel

72 1507 European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research C B MTL_FC_F_ Panel
73 1504 Journal of Applied Sport Psychology C A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
74 1505 International Journal of Consumer Studies C A MTL_FC_F_ Panel
75 1507 Journal of Safety Research C A MTL_FC_F_ Panel

Table D MTL_D: Journal Transfers (change + )

Journal Title New Rating FORM D Submission Reference

1 International Journal of Sport Finance C (incoming MTL_FD_F_001
from 1502) MTL_FD_F_002

Table D MTL_D: Journal Deletion (change - )

Journal Title New Rating FORM D Submission Reference

1 Journal of Tourism Studies No longer exists MTL_FD_F_001
 129

Appendix D7

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS DEANS

COUNCIL JOURNAL QUALITY LIST
2013 REVIEW

180105/1801025
Business and Taxation Law (BTL)
FoR Panel Report

Margaret McKerchar (Chair) – University of

NSW
Kerrie Sadiq – Queensland University of
Technology
Vince Morabito – Monash University
 130

Background on the Panel

The Panel comprised Professors Margaret McKerchar (chair) (UNSW), Kerrie Sadiq
(Queensland University of Technology) and Vincent Morabito (Monash). All members have
been academics for many years and are well acquainted with the journals assigned to the
panel. For the more contentious decisions, Panel members engaged in further research and
reading to support their existing knowledge and sought further advice from other experts as
necessary. Further, they were informed by the submissions received and the ratings assigned
by both ERA in 2010 and the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD) in 2009. The
research specialisations of the Panel members encompassed both business law and tax law
and across a broad range of methodologies including doctrinal and non-doctrinal research.

A. Journal Additions

The BTL Panel received 8 submissions recommending 6 journal additions (3 LAW and 3
TAX) to the ABDC list. After due deliberation, below are the 5 journal additions endorsed by
the panel. The majority of the recommended new journals are “young” journals – with less
than 5 years of publishing history, or alternatively, are journals directed mainly at a
practitioner audience. As such, these journals have been entered at the lowest, “C” rating
level. These journals are:

Australian GST Journal (TAX)

Insolvency Law Bulletin (LAW)
International Journal of Business Law (LAW)
Journal of Chinese Tax and Policy (TAX)
World Journal of VAT/GST Law (TAX)

One recommended “new” journal (International Journal of Law and Management) was not
acted upon by this panel but instead, after a review of its content, referred to the MAN Panel
for consideration. The endorsed list of newly-admitted journals to this panel (and their
associated provisional ratings) are shown in Table BTL_A at the end of this report.

B. Journal Downgrades

The BTL Panel received 5 submissions recommending 4 journal downgrades (1 LAW and 3
TAX). After due deliberation, 2 (TAX) of these rating downgrades are endorsed by our panel.
These journals are:

International VAT Monitor (TAX) (from A to B)

Taxation in Australia (TAX) (from A to C)

In the case of Taxation in Australia, a ‘double downgrade’ was required to correct what the
BTL Panel believed was a rating error made in 2010. This journal is a practitioner-based
journal published monthly by the Tax Institute. Two submissions were received in support of
this ‘double downgrade’ action and this was endorsed by our Panel.

In the case of International VAT Monitor, the BTL Panel felt that the quality and type of
content published was not of the standard expected of an “A” rated journal. One submission
 131

was received in support of a rating downgrade of this journal and this was endorsed by our
Panel.

In a small subset of cases, the downgrade recommendations to this panel sought delisting of
the journal in question. After due deliberation, no delistings are endorsed by our panel. A
range of recommended journal downgrades or delistings are not acted upon by this panel,
primarily because there was insufficient evidence provided to support the recommendation.
Note that was two cases of duplication of entries in the ABDC 2010 listing of the journals
(Intertax: International Tax Review, and Common Law World Review) which were removed
by our Panel.

Further, the BTL Panel initiated cases for the downgrade of 4 (LAW) journals from “A” to
“B” based on an assessment of their quality, including the standing of the editorial board and
the published content. Each of these downgraded journals was rated “C” by both ERA 2010
and CALD 2009. Whilst downgrades in this review were considered to be ‘sticky’ the Panel
was mindful of the underlying philosophy of the rating review in terms of the expected
distribution of ratings. The Panel felt that to maintain the overall integrity of journal ratings,
cases for downgrade had to be initiated. As a result, while the overall ratings for this Panel
are on the high side of expectations in terms of “A” rated journals (particularly for LAW), the
2013 distribution is marginally closer to the expected distribution. These downgraded
journals are:

International Journal of Shipping Law (now published as Shipping and Trade Law)
Journal of Law, Information and Science
Pacific Rim Law and Policy
Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal

The endorsed list of downgraded journals relevant to this panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) are shown in Table BTL_B at the end of this report.
 132

C. Journal Upgrades

The BTL Panel received 25 submissions recommending journal upgrades (22 journals: 11
LAW, 10 TAX and 1 (Fiscal Studies) belonging to the ECO Panel which was duly
redirected). After due deliberation, 7 (3 LAW and 4 TAX) of these rating upgrades are
endorsed by our panel. These journals are:

Australian Tax Review (TAX)

Civil Justice Quarterly (LAW)
eJournal of Tax Research (TAX)
Journal of Corporate Law Studies (LAW)
Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association (LAW)
New Zealand Journal of Tax Law and Policy (TAX)
Tax Specialist (TAX)

In terms of the TAX upgrades, the Tax Specialist was considered to have been incorrectly
rated in 2010 – almost a contra entry to the ‘double downgrade’ of Taxation in Australia.
Both these journals are published by the Tax Institute though their content and its quality are
markedly different. Two submissions argued the case for upgrade (or correction) of Tax
Specialist which our Panel endorsed.

The Panel endorsed upgrades for the balance of the journals identified above primarily
because of the quality of their published content over time and the standing of their editorial
board as presented in the submissions received. .

A range of recommended journal upgrades are not acted upon by this panel, primarily for one
or more of the following reasons:
• there was insufficient evidence to support the recommendation;
• membership of the editorial board was not of the standard expected of higher rated
journals;
• the content of the journal was primarily directed at practitioners; and/or
• the content of the journal was not of sufficient quality.

The endorsed list of upgraded journals relevant to this panel (and their associated
provisional ratings) is shown in Table BTL_C at the end of this report.

D. Journal Transfers

The BTL Panel did not receive any submission(s) recommending journal transfers into (out
of) this panel.
 133

TABLES

A breakdown of the 2013 draft list by field of research is provided below.

180105 ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 15 6.2% 15 6.2%
A 78 32.1% 76 31.2%
B 63 25.9% 65 26.6%
C 87 35.8% 88 36.0%
243 100.0% 244 100.0%

180125 ABDC 2010 ABDC 2013

# % # %
A* 2 4.3% 2 4.1%
A 8 17.4% 9 18.8%
B 15 32.6% 14 29.2%
C 21 45.7% 23 47.9%
46 100.0% 48 100.0%

Reconciliation table:

ABDC +New Gain by Lost to Lost by Gain by Lost by ABDC

2010 upgrade upgrade downgrade downgrade duplication 2013
A* 17 17
A 86 +5 -6 85
B 78 +2 -5 +5 -1 79
C 108 +5 -2 +1 -1 111
289 292
 134

Table BTL_A: Journal Additions

Journal Title 2013 FORM A Submission

Rating Reference*
1 Australian GST Journal (180125) C BTL_FA_F_009
2 Insolvency Law Bulletin (180105) C BTL_FA_F_010
3 International Journal of Business Law (180105) C BTL_FA_F_011
4 Journal of Chinese Tax and Policy (180125) C BTL_FA_F_012
5 World Journal of VAT/GST Law (180125) C BTL_FA_F_013

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.

Table BTL_B: Journal Downgrades

Journal Title 2010 2013 FORM B Submission

Rating Rating Reference*
1 International VAT Monitor (180125) A B BTL_FB_F_006
2 Journal of Law, Information and Science (previously listed as Journal of Law and A B BTL_FB_F_007
Information Science) (180105)
3 Pacific Rim Law and Policy (180105) A B BTL_FB_F_008
4 Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal (180105) A B BTL_FB_F_009
5 Shipping and Trade Law (previously published as International Journal of Shipping A B BTL_FB_F_010
Law) (180105)
6 Taxation in Australia (180125) A C BTL_FB_F_011

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.
 135

Table BTL_C: Journal Upgrades

Journal Title 2010 2013 FORM C Submission

Rating Rating Reference*
1 Australian Tax Review (180125) B A BTL_FC_F_026
2 Civil Justice Quarterly (180105) B A BTL_FC_F_027
3 eJournal of Tax Research (180125) B A BTL_FC_F_028
4 Journal of Corporate Law Studies (180105) B A BTL_FC_F_029
5 Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association (180105) C B BTL_FC_F_030
6 New Zealand Journal of Tax Law and Policy (180125) B A BTL_FC_F_031
7 Tax Specialist (180125) C B BTL_FC_F_032

* The reference given in this column is to the file name for the relevant completed form, available in public record from the ABDC
website, which provides the case made for changed status for the journal in question.