Authors:Angela Yung-Chi Hou, Martin Ince and Chung-Lin Chiang
With the growth of competition between nations in our knowledge-based world economy, excellence programs are becoming a national agenda item in developing as well as developed Asian countries. The main purpose of this paper is to compare the goals, funding policies and selection criteria of excellence programs in China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan and to analyze the academic achievement of their top ranked universities in three areas: research output, internationalization, and excellence, by using data from the Shanghai Jiao Tong, QS, and HEEACT rankings. The effectiveness of Taiwan's “Development Plan for World Class Universities and Research Centers of Excellence” was assessed as a case study in the paper via a survey targeting on 138 top administrators from 11 Taiwan's universities and 30 reviewers. The study found that more funding nations had, the more outputs and outcomes they would gain, for example China. The Taiwan case demonstrates that world-class universities and research centers are needed in Asian nations despite the concerns for inequality which they raise.
Authors:Chiang Kao, Hsiou-Wei Lin, San-Lin Chung, Wei-Chi Tsai, Jyh-Shen Chiou, Yen-Liang Chen, Liang-Hsuan Chen, Shih-Chieh Fang and Hwei-Lan Pao
To improve the quality of journals in Taiwan, the National Science Council (NSC) of the Republic of China evaluates journals
in the fields of humanities and social sciences periodically. This paper describes the evaluation of 46 management journals
conducted by the authors, as authorized by the NSC. Both a subjective approach, with judgments solicited from 345 experts,
and an objective approach, with data collected on four indicators: journal cross citation, dissertation citation, authors’
scholastic reputation, and author diversity, were used to make a comprehensive evaluation. Performance in the four indicators
were aggregated using weights which were most favourable to all journals, in a compromise sense, to produce the composite
indices. The subjective evaluation reflects the general image, or reputation, of journals while the objective evaluation discloses
blind spots which have been overlooked by experts. The results show that using either approach alone would have produced results
which are misleading, which suggests that both approaches should be used. All of the editors of the journals being evaluated
agreed that the evaluation was appropriate and the results are reasonable.