Skip to Specific Areas

Search ARC website

Site Navigation

Main Content

Breadcrumb Navigation

You are here:

Frequently Asked Questions

ERA 2010

Are there any new ERA Notifications?
Refer to the ERA Notifications page.

What are the dates for the ERA process in 2010?
The submission period for the full ERA process opens 1 June 2010 and closes 6 August 2010. The ERA Submission timeline is outlined in the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines.

When will the guidelines for ERA 2010 be available?
The ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines and ERA–SEER 2010 Technical Specifications were released in December 2009.

Will the submission process require eight different cluster submissions?
No. The 2010 ERA submission process will use one submission file.

What are the reference periods for ERA?

Data Type Reference Period Years
Research Outputs 1 January 2003–31 December 2008 6
Research Income 1 January 2006–31 December 2008 3
Applied Measures 1 January 2006–31 December 2008 3
Esteem Measures 1 January 2006–31 December 2008 3

What is the census date for ERA?
31 March 2009.

Has the submission validation process been improved?
Yes. In response to feedback from institutions during the trial, the 2010 submission process will have discrete stages to allow submissions to have bibliometric data appended and data integrity checked prior to certification. This process is outlined in more detail in the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines.

What changes have occurred from the 2009 ERA Submission Guidelines?
Changes in the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines include:

  1. Clarification of the researcher eligibility requirements. An additional employment category is provided to accommodate casual staff.
  2. A selection of esteem indicators is included.
  3. There are ERA Listed Conferences for selected disciplines. This includes ranked and unranked conferences.
  4. Institutions are required to apportion FoRs for research outputs, research income, applied measures and esteem. For Journal Articles and Listed Conferences, apportionment of FoRs is only possible across the codes to which each journal/conference is assigned.
  5. For peer review, institutions are able to nominate a preferred FoR in which the output should be reviewed.
  6. Applied measures include Plant Breeder’s Rights and NHMRC Endorsed Guidelines.
  7. For disciplines where citation analysis is not used, the low volume threshold has been increased to 30 submitted research outputs

What is the process for the ARC making formal clarifications to the ERA rules?
Any formal clarifications the ARC makes with respect to the ERA rules will be made in the following way:

  • An email will be sent to ERA Liaison Officers (and ERA Technical Officers, if appropriate)
  • The email will detail the clarification. The title of the email will include an ERA Notification Number and a subheading referring to the key document(s) to which the clarification refers, e.g. ‘ERA Notification 001—ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines’
  • The content of the email will be posted on the ARC website on the ERA Notifications page. It may also be included, with relevant examples, in the ERA FAQ. The FAQ will also contain a link to the ERA Notifications page. All additions to the ERA Notifications page and ERA FAQ will show a last updated date.

Last updated 3 May 2010

[top]

ERA Submission

I have a conference publication which is also published as an article in a journal. Can I submit both outputs to ERA?
Outputs submitted to ERA must meet the definition of research: For the purposes of ERA, research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. If the conference publication or journal article meet the definition of research, then the output which published the original research should be submitted. A conference publication which is later published as a journal article (or vice versa) with the same research component is considered one single output, therefore, the institution should submit the output which originally published the research component.

Who do I contact when I need to amend my role in SEER?
The Institution Liaison Officer at your institution is responsible for your institution's user management within SEER. Please notify your Liaison Officer of the changes that need to be made to the roles of your Institution within SEER for ERA 2010.

Last updated 6 July 2010

[top]

Researcher Eligibility

Are researchers who are on leave without pay from their university as at the census date eligible to be included in ERA?
The ARC has derived its eligibility criteria from the Higher Education Staff Data Collection. With regard to full time and fractional full time, the following definition should be taken as a guide:

"FT/FFT staff data records are to be included in the file in respect of people:

  • who are members of staff at the reference date; and
  • who have an effective substantive appointment at the reference date; and
  • who have current duties at the reference date which require them to undertake full-time work or fractional full-time work; and
    are undertaken in either:
    • an academic organisational unit, an academic support services organisational unit, a student services organisational unit, a public services organisational unit or a general institution services organisational unit; or
    • an independent operation, but only if it is a controlled entity.

Records are NOT to be included in the file in respect of full-time equivalence expended by a member of staff in any independent operation which is not a controlled entity."

This means that staff on leave without pay are not likely to be eligible as a member of staff for the institution from which they have leave.

If they are engaged at another Australian institution at the census date, and meet the ERA researcher eligibility criteria, that institution may be able to claim their research outputs.

If a researcher is engaged by an overseas institution and produces research outputs that name their Australian institution in the byline, they may be eligible under criteria b(iii) of the Submission Guidelines. In this case only those outputs with the submitting institution named in the by line would be eligible.

Last updated 3 May 2010

[top]

Research Outputs

Where can I find more information about the ERA Journal List and ERA Conference List?
The ERA Ranked Journal List and Ranked Conference List are now available from the ERA Ranked Outlets page and the ERA Key 2010 Documents page.

More detailed information about the development of these lists can be accessed via the Ranked Outlets page.

Who is the citation data supplier for ERA 2010?
Scopus is the citation data supplier for the 2010 ERA process.

Where can I find more information about the citation analysis and publication tagging process for 2010?
More information is available on the Citation Supplier page.

Are research themes mandatory?
A research theme is a grouping of FoR codes representing multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research endeavours based on a list provided by the ARC (available in the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines at Appendix C). Institutions may choose to code individual research outputs in ERA Submissions with up to two research themes. Research themes are not mandatory.

How do I apportion 0 per cent to an FoR?
Institutions cannot apportion 0 per cent to a research output. If an FoR assigned to a journal on the ERA Journal List or to a conference on the ERA Conference List is not relevant to a journal article or conference publication, the FoR should be excluded from the submission altogether. Only the relevant FoRs should be apportioned.

How do we manage publications which do not align with the FoRs assigned to the Listed Conferences in which they appear?
Where an output published in a Listed Conference does not align with the FoRs assigned to the relevant Listed Conference in which it appears, an institution may assign the publication to another FoR or FoRs of its own choosing. The chosen FoR or FoRs should be those which most closely represent the content of the publication.

In such cases the output should be submitted without an ERA Conference ID. Note that where a conference output is submitted without an ERA Conference ID it will not be included in the Ranked Conferences indicator calculations.

How do we manage outputs which were originally published in a language other than English?
Where an eligible research output was originally published in a language other than English but is available in English, institutions need to indicate that it is a translation by means of the Translated Concept Key (see p. 22 of ERA-SEER Technical Specifications). In cases where an eligible research output was published in a language other than English but has not been translated into English, a translation of the original title should be provided. Any publications nominated for peer review should be made available in English.

How do I submit a scholarly edition or a scholarly translation?
Scholarly editions and scholarly translations (there must be a demonstrable research component in the edition or translation) should be submitted as follows:

  • scholarly editions (and scholarly translations) should be submitted as Original Creative Works—other
  • institutions should add in the notes field that the work is a ‘scholarly edition’ or ‘scholarly translation’
  • institutions should also specify the ‘staff creator’ contribution in the Notes field.

What is a portfolio and how do I submit research outputs within portfolios?
A portfolio is a group of individual works submitted separately which together constitute a single non-traditional research output.

Individual works that are derived from the same underlying research endeavour but do not in themselves constitute research should be identified as being related where the portfolio as a whole constitutes research.

The portfolio should be able to demonstrate coherent research content. Each individual work within a portfolio must be identified by the portfolio name and the portfolio number.

An example of the portfolio structure is included in the XML examples available on the ARC website.

The maximum number of different FoRs apportioned to research outputs within a portfolio must be three. This means you will need to assign FoRs to individual research outputs and ensure that they are broadly consistent (i.e. within the maximum three) within the portfolio. When identifying the preferred peer review discipline for a portfolio you will have to do this at the individual output level, and ensure that the FoR identified falls within the three FoRs assigned to the outputs within the portfolio.

Can I submit non-traditional research outputs for all research disciplines?
Institutions may only submit non-traditional research outputs for FoRs where peer review is used. Where an FoR has citation analysis listed against it in the discipline matrix, institutions should only submit the traditional research outputs. The Discipline Matrix has been updated to show which FoRs can submit non-traditional outputs.

How is the low volume threshold calculated in cases where research outputs have been apportioned across multiple FoRs?
In cases where a research output has been apportioned across more than one FoR, the contribution towards the low volume threshold is calculated on the basis of the percentage apportionment. For example, if a journal article is apportioned to two FoRs at 40% and 60% respectively, then the article will be counted as 0.4 and 0.6 towards the low volume threshold for each FoR.

For disciplines where citation analysis is not used, books are given a weighting of 5:1 compared with other research outputs. If a book is apportioned to two FoRs at 40% and 60% respectively, then the book will be counted as 2 and 3 towards the low volume threshold for each FoR. Visit ERA Notification 001—ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines.

How will the 20% sample of research outputs for ERA peer review be calculated?
ERA peer review is conducted by reviewing a sample of research outputs rather than by evaluating on an output-by-output basis. The proportion of research outputs to be nominated for ERA peer review should be approximately 20% of all research outputs for the relevant Unit of Evaluation.

That 20% is calculated based on apportioned counts of research outputs. Apportionment is included in this calculation, but weighting of books is not. Visit ERA Notification 001—ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines.

Can I select more than one FoR as the preferred peer review discipline?
No. If an institution chooses to select a preferred peer review discipline for an output it has nominated for peer review, it can only choose one of the assigned FoRs as preferred for peer review.

What is the difference between nominating an output for peer review and recommending a preferred peer review FoR?
An institution will assign a research output up to three FoR codes. If the institution nominates the output for peer review, it will be made available for peer review in each of the FoRs the output is assigned to. In the case of research outputs which have been nominated for peer review and are assigned to multiple FoR codes an institution may then choose to recommend one (and only one) of those FoR codes as the one in which that output should be peer reviewed. Research Evaluation Committees will be made aware of this preference, but they will also have the discretion to review the output in one or more of the other codes to which it was assigned. This means an output with more than one FoR which is nominated for peer review will contribute to the 20 per cent peer review sample in all its FoRs, regardless of whether one of the FoRs has been selected by the institution as the preferred FoR.

Example:
A book is assigned to 2103, 1904 and 1901. If the book is nominated for peer review it will be included in the pool of peer review items for each of those FoRs and may be peer reviewed in each of those FoRs. The institution may indicate that it would prefer that, of those three FoRs, the book is peer reviewed in 1901. The Research Evaluation Committee may then choose to review the book in 1901, or it may choose to review it in one or both of the other FoRs, or all three, or not at all.

How do I demonstrate a ‘publication association’ if it is not shown in the byline of my research output?
If a publication association, in the form of the name or logo of the claiming institution, is not indicated on or within a research output (e.g. in a byline), the following evidence of the publication association should be retained by the institution for verification purposes:

  • a statement from the author indicating that he or she undertook the research leading to the publication in his or her capacity as a staff member of the institution and either
  • a statement from the Director of Human Resources (or equivalent) indicating that the author was an appointee of the institution during the reference period or
  • an extract from the institution’s staff list that lists the author.

These requirements are in line with section 9.4 of the 2010 HERDC Specifications.

Institutions are not required to include such evidence with their submission data.

How do I include special characters in my ERA submission data?
All characters being received through the submission should be from the set of characters found here: The extreme UTF-8 table.  It is important to note that the character encoding needs to be correct. For simple English language based characters, this is straight forward. However for non-standard characters to be received correctly, they must adhere to the UTF-8 encoding system.

For example, a common, non-standard character, is the copyright symbol: © According to the UTF-8 encoding standard, this must have a decimal value of 149 (or Hex 0x95). If this is not encoded correctly (e.g. because the source data is based on a different standard such as ISO-8859-1) the character with decimal value 149 is actually the control character ‘MW’. This would lead to incorrect storage and display of this character in the SEER system when presented to Research Evaluation Committee members and ERA peer reviewers.

As mentioned in the ERA-SEER 2010 Technical Specifications, institutions are required to make characters ‘network safe’, that is, encode characters so that they are transported, stored and displayed correctly over a network. The five common characters ><&”’ all have ‘safe’ equivalents, eg &gt; &lt; &amp;. See page 15 of the Technical Specifications for further information.

Last updated 14 May 2010

[top]

Applied Measures

What is a patent family name and how do I provide it?
The 'patent family' has been devised by the ARC, in consultation with IP Australia, for ERA purposes only.

Institutions which submit patents for ERA are required to identify those patents that are essentially the same patent registered in more than one country. The patent family is a data tag which enables this kind of identification. It is up to institutions to devise their own patent family names.

Where an individual patent is submitted that does not relate to any other submitted patent, the patent family name should be the same as the individual patent name.

What is a plant breeder’s rights family name and how do I provide it?
The ‘plant breeder’s rights family' has been devised by the ARC, in consultation with IP Australia, for ERA purposes only.

Institutions which submit plant breeder’s rights for ERA are required to identify those plant breeder’s rights that are essentially the same plant breeder’s rights registered in more than one country. The plant breeder’s rights family is a data tag which enables this kind of identification. It is up to institutions to devise their own plant breeder’s rights family names.

Where individual plant breeder’s rights are submitted that do not relate to any other submitted plant breeder’s rights, the plant breeder’s rights family name should be the same as the individual plant breeder’s rights name.

Last updated 23 December 2009

[top]

Esteem measures

For the esteem measure ‘recipient of a nationally-competitive research fellowship’ can my institution claim a fellowship if it was not the administering organisation at the time the fellowship was awarded?
To claim a fellowship under this esteem measure the institution must have been the administering or host organisation for the fellowship during the reference period, regardless of who the administering organisation was when the fellowship was awarded.

Where can I find a list of eligible Statutory Committees?
There is no exhaustive set of statutory committees and, as such, the ARC cannot supply a finite list. Eligible committees are legislative working groups established by statute. Under section 5.7.2.7 of the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines, the ARC seeks information on membership of statutory committees recognised by Commonwealth Government Agencies, the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Institutions may check the eligibility of committees nominated by researchers by undertaking their own checks, e.g. reviewing relevant web sites.

Last updated 3 May 2010

[top]

Background Statements

In cases where two-digit FoRs appear in multiple clusters do institutions need to submit a Background Statement for each cluster?
There are three two-digit FoRs that cross clusters: Technology (10), Medical and Health Sciences (11), and Built Environment and Design (12). For each of these, institutions will be able to provide two Background Statements, with the text of the statement that is prepared for one cluster being different to that of the second cluster. This will, in effect, enable institutions to ensure that Research Evaluation Committees are given appropriate contextual information about research being undertaken in FoRs which are cross-disciplinary in scope.

When can I amend my Background Statements?
Background Statements can be amended within SEER Submit prior to the finalisation of Stage 2, at which time all data will be locked.

Last updated 3 May 2010

[top]

Repositories

Will we be able to test our institution’s repository prior to the Submission process in June?
Documentation has been provided regarding the testing and management of institutional repositories for ERA 2010. This documentation outlines key repository-related issues faced in the 2009 ERA Trial of the Humanities and Creative Arts as well as the Repository Testing Strategy for ERA 2010.

Can I link my research outputs to Google Books rather than to a RODA?
An institution should not use Google Books as a reference to a research output. This is due to the technical complexities associated with rendering this type of link through SEER while maintaining anonymity of the ERA peer reviewers. Institutions should instead provide a RODA link within their repository or make extracts of the output available as per the instructions in the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines.

Do we need to place research statements for peer review items in our institution’s repository?
The text of research statements is submitted as part of the xml submission file – refer to the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines section 5.4.10.1 and Appendix D. Institutions may also choose to place the research statement in their repository but this is not required.

Do we need to submit research statements for peer review outputs only in the HCA cluster, or in all clusters?
Where non-traditional research outputs are identified by an institution for ERA peer review, a statement identifying the research component of each such research output must be provided, regardless of the cluster in which they will be evaluated.

Last updated 14 May 2010

[top]

Non-repository items

How and when should we provide research outputs flagged for peer review but not available in our repository?
Where a research output is flagged for peer review and is not available in your repository, institutions must have five copies of each research output ready to be sent to the ARC upon request, however, the ARC may not request every research output. The ARC will advise institutions during September which research outputs must be sent. All research outputs must be ready for immediate dispatch at that time. Exact dates and the research outputs which must be dispatched will be provided to institutions closer to the time. The ARC will cover all costs of dispatch for items requested.

If we have a research output in digital form that is not provided in our repository, do we still need to provide five copies?
Yes. All items must be provided in a way that facilitates the ARC sending individual copies to multiple reviewers.

Do we need to provide full copies of books flagged for peer review where we have already provided a part of the book in our repository?
As per section 6.2 of the ERA 2010 Submission Guidelines, institutions should still have full copies of the book ready to be sent upon request. These can be digital copies.

Will we need to send research outputs to individual reviewers?
No. All items must be sent to the ARC. The ARC will dispatch items to reviewers as appropriate.

Last updated 12 July 2010

[top]

Submission Timeline

If we find errors or omissions in the submitted data during Stage 2, can we add, delete and change data that has not been identified in the ARC/SEER checks?
Stage 2 of the submission process allows the ARC to complete further verification on your submission. Any potential errors identified will be returned to you for resolution. Once these errors have been identified and amended, you will then be required to upload a new submission file. Any time a submission file is uploaded, it will undergo the Stage 1 and Stage 2 validation and verification processes anew.
Irrespective of whether or not you correct errors or delete or add new information, your new file will have to go through the Stage 1 and Stage 2 validation and verification processes. It is an institution's responsibility to ensure that it allows enough time to successfully complete these validation and verification processes to meet the Stage 2 Finalisation and Stage 3 Certification deadlines.

Can I make changes to my Submission after 29 July?
No. After the finalisation of Stage 2, you will be unable to alter any of your XML Submission file.

Last updated 3 May 2010

[top]

Rating Scales

What is the rating scale for the full ERA evaluation process?
The rating scale for ERA was tested and reviewed in 2009 by the Research Evaluation Committees (RECs) appointed for Cluster One (PCE) and Cluster Two (HCA). The clusters were deliberately selected for the trial for the broad range of information they were expected to provide from the Trial, and feedback and advice from the trial RECs has been taken into consideration in the further development of ERA in 2010. The rating scale for the full ERA is informed by the experience of the RECs in the 2009 trial. It is broadly consistent with the approach taken in research evaluation processes in other countries to allow for international comparison where appropriate. The scale for all clusters in the full ERA is:

ERA Rating Scale

Rating
Descriptor
5 The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of outstanding performance well above world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.
4 The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of performance above world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.
3 The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of average performance at world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.
2 The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of performance below world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.
1 The Unit of Evaluation profile is characterised by evidence of performance well below world standard presented by the suite of indicators used for evaluation.
NA Not assessed due to low volume. The number of research outputs does not meet the volume threshold standard for evaluation in ERA.

In order to achieve a rating at a particular point on the scale, the majority of the output from a unit of evaluation will normally be expected to meet the standard for that rating point. The term 'world standard' used throughout the scale refers to a quality standard. It does not refer to the nature or geographical scope of particular disciplines, or to the locus of research nor its place of dissemination.

Last updated 5 February 2010

[top]

ERA 2009 Trial

Where is the ERA 2009 Trial up to now?
The ERA 2009 Trial of the Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences (PCE) and the Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA) clusters has now ended, and the National Outcome Reports have been made available.

Further details about the Trial, including the National Outcome Reports are available on the Trial 2009 page.

The FAQs specific to the ERA 2009 trial have been archived and are available on the Frequently Asked Questions for Trial 2009 page.

Last updated 14 December 2009

Content Last Modified: 12/07/10

Top of page