The ghost of rankings past: The lasting harmful impact of journal rankings, and what we should do instead

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearch

Abstract

A journal ranking exercise took place in 2008–2010. It tried to produce a journal ranking list with international scope and validity. It failed.
The urge to rank — and to use ranking in the assessment of quality — appears to remain strong in Australian law schools. There is a risk this discredited process will be given new impetus by the latest Australian journal ranking list involving law, this time by the Australian Business Deans Council. Its list ranks 2,767 different journal titles, including selected law journals.
The authors believe rankings like these should be formally abandoned for a number of reasons. First, the ranking process is difficult, arbitrary and infected by subjective opinion. This leads to perverse outcomes for legal academics whose career advancement is tied to this uncertain standard. Secondly, the urge to rank is the product of a damaging misconception of the proper role of legal academics and the legal academy. Finally, in the brave new educational world, markets will provide surprisingly nuanced and rigorous measures of quality that cannot be captured in a crude ranking.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)71-85
Number of pages15
JournalBond Law Review
Volume26
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

ranking
career advancement
academic career
Law
school law
world market
academy

Cite this

@article{101eb8a7e3c348a585ab52ad9bc8e414,
title = "The ghost of rankings past: The lasting harmful impact of journal rankings, and what we should do instead",
abstract = "A journal ranking exercise took place in 2008–2010. It tried to produce a journal ranking list with international scope and validity. It failed.The urge to rank — and to use ranking in the assessment of quality — appears to remain strong in Australian law schools. There is a risk this discredited process will be given new impetus by the latest Australian journal ranking list involving law, this time by the Australian Business Deans Council. Its list ranks 2,767 different journal titles, including selected law journals.The authors believe rankings like these should be formally abandoned for a number of reasons. First, the ranking process is difficult, arbitrary and infected by subjective opinion. This leads to perverse outcomes for legal academics whose career advancement is tied to this uncertain standard. Secondly, the urge to rank is the product of a damaging misconception of the proper role of legal academics and the legal academy. Finally, in the brave new educational world, markets will provide surprisingly nuanced and rigorous measures of quality that cannot be captured in a crude ranking.",
author = "Svantesson, {Dan Jerker B} and James Corkery and Bernard McCabe",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "71--85",
journal = "Bond Law Review",
issn = "1033-4505",
publisher = "Bond University Press",
number = "2",

}

The ghost of rankings past : The lasting harmful impact of journal rankings, and what we should do instead. / Svantesson, Dan Jerker B; Corkery, James; McCabe, Bernard.

In: Bond Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2014, p. 71-85.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearch

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ghost of rankings past

T2 - The lasting harmful impact of journal rankings, and what we should do instead

AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B

AU - Corkery, James

AU - McCabe, Bernard

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - A journal ranking exercise took place in 2008–2010. It tried to produce a journal ranking list with international scope and validity. It failed.The urge to rank — and to use ranking in the assessment of quality — appears to remain strong in Australian law schools. There is a risk this discredited process will be given new impetus by the latest Australian journal ranking list involving law, this time by the Australian Business Deans Council. Its list ranks 2,767 different journal titles, including selected law journals.The authors believe rankings like these should be formally abandoned for a number of reasons. First, the ranking process is difficult, arbitrary and infected by subjective opinion. This leads to perverse outcomes for legal academics whose career advancement is tied to this uncertain standard. Secondly, the urge to rank is the product of a damaging misconception of the proper role of legal academics and the legal academy. Finally, in the brave new educational world, markets will provide surprisingly nuanced and rigorous measures of quality that cannot be captured in a crude ranking.

AB - A journal ranking exercise took place in 2008–2010. It tried to produce a journal ranking list with international scope and validity. It failed.The urge to rank — and to use ranking in the assessment of quality — appears to remain strong in Australian law schools. There is a risk this discredited process will be given new impetus by the latest Australian journal ranking list involving law, this time by the Australian Business Deans Council. Its list ranks 2,767 different journal titles, including selected law journals.The authors believe rankings like these should be formally abandoned for a number of reasons. First, the ranking process is difficult, arbitrary and infected by subjective opinion. This leads to perverse outcomes for legal academics whose career advancement is tied to this uncertain standard. Secondly, the urge to rank is the product of a damaging misconception of the proper role of legal academics and the legal academy. Finally, in the brave new educational world, markets will provide surprisingly nuanced and rigorous measures of quality that cannot be captured in a crude ranking.

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 71

EP - 85

JO - Bond Law Review

JF - Bond Law Review

SN - 1033-4505

IS - 2

ER -