View More View Less
  • 1 School of Public Affairs, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China yongyi@mail.ustc.edu.cn
  • 2 School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China gxl@mail.ustc.edu.cn
  • 3 Institute of Higher Education Research, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China qiwei@ustc.edu.cn
Restricted access

Abstract

For a long time, rankings overused in evaluating Chinese universities’ research performance. The relationship between research production and research quality hasn't been taken seriously in ranking systems. Most university rankings in China put more weight on research production rather than research quality. Recently, the developmental strategy of Chinese universities has shifted from ‘quantity’ to ‘quality’. As a result, a two-dimensional approach was developed in this article to balance ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’. The research production index and the research quality index were produced to locate research universities (RU) from Mainland China, Hong Kong (HK) and Taiwan (TW) in the two-dimensional graph. Fifty-nine RU were classified into three categories according to their locations, which indicated the relevant level of research performance. University of Hong Kong, National Taiwan University, Tsing Hua University and Peking University appeared to be leading universities in research performance. The result showed that the mainland universities were generally of higher research production and lower research quality than HK and TW universities, and proved that the merging tides of Chinese universities enlarged their research production while causing a low level of research quality as well.

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Costa, F. D. (2011). Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? Scientometrics, 88 (3), 915928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braun, T, Glänzel, W, Schubert, A 2006 A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 69:169173 .

  • Calero-Medina, C, López-Illescas, C, Visser, MS, Moed, HF 2008 Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: An example from oncology. Research Evaluation 17:7181 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cole, S, Cole, JR 1967 Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review 32:377390 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Enserink, M 2007 Who ranks the university rankers?. Science 317:10261028 .

  • Feist, GJ 1997 Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important?. Creativity Research Journal 10 4 325335 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Glänzel, W, Schubert, A, Thijs, B, Debackere, K 2008 A new generation of relational charts for comparative assessment of citation impact. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 56:373379 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hirsch, JE 2005 An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:1656916572 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huang, MH 2008 Application of H-index for research evaluation at university level. Evaluation in Higher Education 1:3150.

  • Jin, BH, Rousseau, R, Sun, XX 2006 Key Labs and Open Labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Their role in the national and international scientific arena. Scientometrics 67 1 314 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kostoff, RN 2008 Comparison of China/USA science and technology performance. Journal of Informetrics 2:354363 .

  • Moed, HF 2000 Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics 47:323346 .

  • Moed, HF 2002 Measuring China's research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 53 3 281296 .

  • Moed, HF 2002 The impact factors debate: The ISI's uses and limits. Nature 415:731732 .

  • Moed, HF 2008 UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?. Scientometrics 74 1 153161 .

  • Moed, HF 2009 New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 57:1318 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saad, G 2006 Exploring the H-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics 69:117120 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). (2010a). Retrieved from http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp. Accessed 15 April 2011.

  • The Methodology of Carnegie Classifications. (2010). Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/methodology/basic.php. Accessed 27 April 2011.

  • The Methodology of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). (2010b). Retrieved from http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2010.jsp. Accessed 15 April 2011.

  • The Methodology of the QS World University Rankings. (2010a). Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/methodology/data-indicators. Accessed 14 April 2011.

  • The Methodology of the World University Rankings by Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). (2010a). Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html. Accessed 14 April 2011.

  • The QS World University Rankings. (2010b). Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings. Accessed 14 April 2011.

  • The World University Rankings by Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). (2010b). Retrieved from THES http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/. Accessed 14 April 2011.

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Moreno-Torres, J. G., Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). A methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: The IFQ2A index. Scientometrics, 88 (3), 771786.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AFJ Van Raan 2005 Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 62:133143 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, DX, Banker, RD, Li, XX, Liu, WB 2011 Performance impact of research policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Research Policy 40:875885 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhou, P, Leydesdorff, L 2006 The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy 35 1 83104 .

  • Zhou, P, Thijs, B, Glänzel, W 2009 Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output. Scientometrics 81:839857 .

  • Zhu, X, Wu, Q, Zheng, YZ, Ma, X 2004 Highly cited research papers and the evaluation of a research university: A case study: Peking University 1974–2003. Scientometrics 60 2 237247 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation