Section 1

Section 1 provides a national summary of research performance, a summary of all data submitted for the ERA 2015 evaluation, a snapshot of comparative data for ERA 2010, ERA 2012 and ERA 2015, and some preliminary analyses of selected ERA 2015 submission data.

Research Quality

This sub-section presents the research quality results from ERA 2015. It summarises the ratings results for all four-digit Units of Evaluation (UoEs), then presents a number of analyses that highlight areas of research excellence in Australia’s eligible institutions. It then shows the results of the two-digit evaluations. The final four charts display the full array of results at the four-digit level–for every assessed UoE and each four-digit FoR code.

Research quality – four-digit UoEs

Of the 1,775 four-digit UoEs that were rated during ERA 2015, 563 (32 per cent) attracted a rating of 5 (i.e. well above world standard). A further 544 (31 per cent) received a rating of 4–above world standard–while 470 (26 per cent ) were rated 3–at world standard. Overall, 62 per cent of four-digit UoEs were rated above or well above world standard.

The number of assessed UoEs and the distribution of ratings among these UoEs varied by discipline. In absolute terms, 11 Medical and Health Sciences had the largest number of four-digit UoEs (274). The FoR 10 Technology had the fewest (19), but achieved excellent results: all 19 were rated above or well above world standard.

Distribution of ratings across all four-digit UoEs

UoE ratings (aggregated four-digit results, grouped by two-digit FoR code)

The following chart shows the percentage distribution of four-digit UoEs, allowing comparisons between disciplines of different sizes. The FoRs 10 Technology, 05 Environmental Sciences and 02 Physical Sciences each had more than 90 per cent of their underlying four-digit UoEs rated as 4 or 5.

Distribution of ratings for four-digit UoEs (aggregated four-digit results, grouped by two-digit FoR code)

Another approach to identifying research excellence across disciplines is to consider the national distribution of all outputs that were submitted for assessment. In doing so, it is important to distinguish between the peer review and the citation disciplines. In peer review disciplines, this refers to all eligible outputs, while in citation disciplines, this refers to indexed journal articles. The figure below shows that nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of these outputs were in UoEs rated 4 or 5 (above or well above world standard). Eleven two-digit disciplines had at least two-thirds of their outputs contributed to UoEs rated 4 or 5.

Distribution of outputs by four-digit UoE rating (aggregated four-digit results, grouped by two-digit FoR code)

The chart below is the same as the previous chart, but disciplines are sorted by the proportion of outputs in UoEs that received a rating of 3, 4 or 5 (rather than just 4 and 5). Overall, just over 80 per cent of these outputs were in UoEs that were rated at or above world standard. Less than a fifth of these outputs were in UoEs that were either not assessed or were submitted by UoEs rated below world standard (1 or 2).

Distribution of outputs by four-digit UoE rating (aggregated four-digit results, grouped by two-digit FoR code)

The following chart plots disciplines along the vertical axis according to the proportion of their outputs that were submitted by UoEs that received a 5 rating. Results are shown for each two-digit FoR, but each is an aggregation of ratings and volume from the underlying four-digit UoEs. The plot also indicates the scale of the national research effort in each discipline by showing the total volume of outputs for each two-digit FoR (for the six-year reference period, along the horizontal axis).

Proportion of outputs in UoEs rated ‘well above world standard’ (5) vs. discipline volume

The next chart is similar to the previous one, except that it plots disciplines along the vertical axis according to the proportion of their outputs that were submitted by UoEs that received a 4 or a 5 rating (not just 5). Again the plot indicates the scale of the national research effort in each discipline by showing the total volume of outputs for each two-digit FoR (along the horizontal axis).

Proportion of outputs in UoEs rated ‘above world standard’ or ‘well above world standard’ (4 or 5) vs. discipline volume

Two-digit UoEs – all results

Of the 656 two-digit Units of Evaluation (UoEs) that were rated during ERA 2015, 96 attracted a rating of 5 (well above world standard) and 206 received a rating of 4 (above world standard). This is a total of 302 two-digit UoEs rated above or well above world standard.

UoE ratings (two-digit UoEs)

Ratings among two-digit UoEs are also presented as a percentage distribution in the following chart, allowing comparisons between disciplines of different sizes. FoRs 10 Technology, 05 Environmental Sciences and 04 Earth Sciences each had 75 per cent or more of their two-digit UoEs rated as 4 or 5.

Distribution of UoE ratings among two-digit FoR codes

Four-digit UoEs – all results

The following charts present a full tally of UoE ratings for every four-digit FoR code. For ease of presentation, the 157 four-digit FoR codes are split across four charts.

UoE rating count by four-digit FoR (FoRs 0101 through 0699)

UoE rating count by four-digit FoR (FoRs 0701 through 1099)

UoE rating count by four-digit FoR (FoRs 1101 through 1599)

UoE rating count by four-digit FoR (FoRs 1601 through 2299)