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), 915–928.
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Costa, F. D. (2011). Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones?Scientometrics, 88 (3), 915–928.)| false
Calero-Medina, C, López-Illescas, C, Visser, MS, Moed, HF2008Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: An example from oncology. Research Evaluation17:71–8110.3152/095820208X280907.)| false
Glänzel, W, Schubert, A, Thijs, B, Debackere, K2008A new generation of relational charts for comparative assessment of citation impact. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis56:373–37910.1007/s00005-008-0040-3.)| false
Hirsch, JE2005An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America102:16569–1657210.1073/pnas.0507655102.)| false
Jin, BH, Rousseau, R, Sun, XX2006Key Labs and Open Labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Their role in the national and international scientific arena. Scientometrics6713–1410.1007/s11192-006-0047-7.)| false
Saad, G2006Exploring the H-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics69:117–12010.1007/s11192-006-0142-9.)| false
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), 771–786.
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), 771–786.)| false
Zhu, X, Wu, Q, Zheng, YZ, Ma, X2004Highly cited research papers and the evaluation of a research university: A case study: Peking University 1974–2003. Scientometrics602237–24710.1023/B:SCIE.0000027795.69665.09.)| false