Recently there are many organizations conducting projects on ranking world universities from different perspectives. These ranking activities have made impacts and caused controversy. This study does not favor using bibliometric indicators to evaluate universities’ performances, but not against the idea either. We regard these ranking activities as important phenomena and aim to investigate correlation of different ranking systems taking bibliometric approach. Four research questions are discussed: (1) the inter-correlation among different ranking systems; (2) the intra-correlation within ranking systems; (3) the correlation of indicators across ranking systems; and (4) the impact of different citation indexes on rankings. The preliminary results show that 55 % of top 200 universities are covered in all ranking systems. The rankings of ARWU and PRSPWU show stronger correlation. With inclusion of another ranking, WRWU (2009–2010), these rankings tend to converge. In addition, intra-correlation is significant and this means that it is possible to find out some ranking indicators with high degree of discriminativeness or representativeness. Finally, it is found that there is no significant impact of using different citation indexes on the ranking results for top 200 universities.
Altbach, P 2006 The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education 42:2–3.
Billaut, JC, Bouyssou, D, Vincke, P 2009 Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view. Scientometrics 72 1 25–32.
Bookstein, FL, Seidler, H, Fieder, M, Winckler, G 2010 Too much noise in the times higher education rankings. Scientometrics 85:295–299 .
Cybermetrics Lab , Centro de CienciasHumanas y Sociales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (2011) Webometrics ranking of world universities. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.webometrics.info/.
Hazelkorn, E 2008 Globalization, internationalization, and rankings. International Higher Education 53:8–10.
Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (2011) Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities—2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/.
Holmes, R 2006 The THES university rankings: are they really world class?. Asian Journal of University Education 2 1 1–14.
Hou, YQ, Morse, R, Jiang, ZL 2011 Analyzing the movement of ranking order in world universities’ rankings: how to understand and use universities’ rankings effectively to draw up a universities’ development strategy. Evaluation Bimonthly 30:43–49.
Huang, MX 2009 Exposing the black box of the ranking of the Times higher education supplement. Evaluation Bimonthly 22:31–36.
Huang, MX 2011 The comparison of performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities and other ranking systems. Evaluation Bimonthly 29:53–59.
International Ranking Expert Group (2006) Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions. Retrieved Nov 29, 2011, from http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf.
Ioannidis, A., Patsopoulos, N., Kavvoura, F., Tatsioni, A., Evangenlou, E., Kouri, I., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D., & Liberopoulous, G. (2007). International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. BMC Medicine, 5 (30). Retrieved Nov 29, 2011, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174504/.
Lawani, SM 1981 Bibliometrics: its theoretical foundations methods and applications. Libri 31 4 294–315 .
Liu, WQ 2008 How to look upon universities’ rankings?. Evaluation Bimonthly 13:6–7.
Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: where to from here? Communication to the Asia-Pacific Association for International Education, National University of Singapore, 7-9, March, 2007. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://mt.educarchile.cl/mt/jjbrunner/archives/APAIE_090307_Marginson.pdf.
MINES ParisTech (2010) International professional ranking of higher education institutions: 2007, 2008, 2009. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html.
Qiu, JP 2009 Practice, features, and analysis in evaluating 2009 world class universities and research institutions. Evaluation and Management 7 2 19–28.
RatER.(2010). Global universities ranking. Retrieved Jan 3, 2010, from http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/.
Shanghai Ranking Consultancy & Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2011) Academic ranking of world universities: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://www.arwu.org/.
The Times Higher Education Supplement (2011) World university rankings: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2011, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/.
A Van Raan 2005 Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 62 1 133–143 .
Van Raan, A. F. J., Moed, H. F., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2006). License to Rank. Coimbra Group Annual MeetingUniversity of Tartu. Retrieved Nov 3, 2010, from http://www.ut.ee/coimbra2006/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=166720/TartuWebsite.pdf.
Vo, B. T., Sreeram, V., & Vo, B. N. (2010). On the assessment of university research impact: towards simplicity, transparency and fairness. TECH REPT. Retrieved Nov 3, 2010, from http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/uwarpi2010-article.pdf.
Williams, R. (2008). Methodology, meaning, and usefulness of rankings. Australian Universities’ Review, 50 (2), 51–58.
Yu, L., Pan, Y., & Wu, Y. (2008). Two new indicators to compare different evaluation methods’ effect. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 3, 135–140. Retrieved Feb 24, 2012, from http://image.sciencenet.cn/olddata/kexue.com.cn/upload/blog/file/2008/10/200810592044466910.pdf.
|H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.|
Springer Nature Switzerland AG
|H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
CH-6330 Cham, Switzerland Gewerbestrasse 11.
|Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó|
|Abstract Views||Full Text Views||PDF Downloads|