New Report Out
Global University Rankings and their Impact: Report II
Andrejs Rauhvargers
Friday, April 26, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Asian higher education revolution a long way off
My article in University World News can be accessed here.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
The Leiden Ranking
The Leiden ranking for 2013 is out. This is produced by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University and represents pretty much the state of the art in assessing research publications and citations.
A variety of indicators are presented with several different settings but no overall winner is declared which means that these rankings are not going to get the publicity given to QS and Times Higher Education.
Here are top universities, using the default settings provided by CWTS.
Total Publications: Harvard
Citations per Paper: MIT
Normalised Citations per Paper: MIT
Quality of Publications: MIT
There are also indicators for international and industrial collaboration that I hope to discuss later.
It is also noticeable that high flyers in the Times Higher Education citations indicator, Alexandria University, Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI), Hong Kong Baptist University, Royal Holloway, do not figure at all in the Leiden Ranking. What happened to them?
How could MEPhI, equal first in the world for research influence according to THE and Thomson Reuters, fail to even show up in the normalised citation indicator in the Leiden Ranking?
Firstly, Leiden have collected data for the top 500 universities in the world according to number of publications in the Web of Science. That would have been sufficient to keep these institutions out of the rankings.
In addition, Leiden use fractionalised counting as a default setting so that the impact of mutiple-author publications is divided by the number of university addresses. This would drastically reduce the impact of publications like the Review of Particle Physics.
Also, by field Leiden mean five broad subject groups whereas Thomson Reuters appears to use a larger number (21 if they use the same system as they do for highly cited researchers.) There is accordingly more chance of anomalous cases having a great influence in the THE rankings.
THE and Thomson Reuters would do well to look at the multi-authored, and most probably soon to be multi-cited, papers that were published in 2012 and look at the universities that could do well in 2014 if the methodology remains unchanged.
The Leiden ranking for 2013 is out. This is produced by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University and represents pretty much the state of the art in assessing research publications and citations.
A variety of indicators are presented with several different settings but no overall winner is declared which means that these rankings are not going to get the publicity given to QS and Times Higher Education.
Here are top universities, using the default settings provided by CWTS.
Total Publications: Harvard
Citations per Paper: MIT
Normalised Citations per Paper: MIT
Quality of Publications: MIT
There are also indicators for international and industrial collaboration that I hope to discuss later.
It is also noticeable that high flyers in the Times Higher Education citations indicator, Alexandria University, Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI), Hong Kong Baptist University, Royal Holloway, do not figure at all in the Leiden Ranking. What happened to them?
How could MEPhI, equal first in the world for research influence according to THE and Thomson Reuters, fail to even show up in the normalised citation indicator in the Leiden Ranking?
Firstly, Leiden have collected data for the top 500 universities in the world according to number of publications in the Web of Science. That would have been sufficient to keep these institutions out of the rankings.
In addition, Leiden use fractionalised counting as a default setting so that the impact of mutiple-author publications is divided by the number of university addresses. This would drastically reduce the impact of publications like the Review of Particle Physics.
Also, by field Leiden mean five broad subject groups whereas Thomson Reuters appears to use a larger number (21 if they use the same system as they do for highly cited researchers.) There is accordingly more chance of anomalous cases having a great influence in the THE rankings.
THE and Thomson Reuters would do well to look at the multi-authored, and most probably soon to be multi-cited, papers that were published in 2012 and look at the universities that could do well in 2014 if the methodology remains unchanged.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Combining Rankings
Meta University Ranking has combined the latest ARWU, QS and THE World Rankings. Universities are ordered by place so that Harvard gets the highest (i.e. lowest score) with an average of 2.67 (1st in ARWU, 3rd in QS and 4th in THE).
After that there is MIT, Cambridge, Caltech and Oxford.
Meta University Ranking has combined the latest ARWU, QS and THE World Rankings. Universities are ordered by place so that Harvard gets the highest (i.e. lowest score) with an average of 2.67 (1st in ARWU, 3rd in QS and 4th in THE).
After that there is MIT, Cambridge, Caltech and Oxford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)