Comparison of Local and Global Ranking in Networks

2014 ◽  
pp. 355-364
Author(s):  
Šárka Zehnalová ◽  
Miloš Kudělka ◽  
Zdeněk Horák ◽  
Pavel Krömer ◽  
Václav Snášel
Keyword(s):  
Global Ranking

Accreditation and ranking of higher education institutions (HEIs): review, observations and recommendations for the Indian higher education system

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerald Ozee Fernandes ◽  
Balgopal Singh
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Education System ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Academic Quality ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Global Ranking ◽  
Higher Education System ◽  
The World ◽  
Indian Higher Education

PurposeThe higher education system has been entrusted globally to provide quality education, especially to the youth, and equip them with required skills and capabilities. The visionaries and policymakers of the countries around the world have been working relentlessly to improve the standard of the higher education system by establishing national and global accreditation and ranking bodies and expecting measuring performance through setting up accreditation and ranking parameters. This paper focuses on the review of Indian university accreditation and ranking system and determining its efficacy in improving academic quality for achieving good position in global quality accreditation and ranking.Design/methodology/approachThe study employed exploratory research approach to know about the accreditation and ranking issues of Indian higher education institutions to overcome the challenges for being globally competitive. The accreditation and ranking parameters and score of leading Indian universities was collected from secondary data sources. Similarly, the global ranking parameters and scores of these Indian universities with top global universities was explored. The performance gaps of Indian university in global academic quality parameter is assessed by comparing it with scores of global top universities. Further, each domestic and global accreditation and ranking parameters have been taken up for discussion.FindingsThe study identified teaching and learning, research and industry collaboration as common parameter in the accreditation and ranking by Indian and global accreditation and ranking body. Furthermore, the study revealed that Indian accreditation and ranking body assess leniently on parameters and award high scores as compared to rigorous global accreditation and ranking practice. The study revealed that “research” and “citations” are important parameters for securing prestigious position in global ranking, this is the reason Indian universities are trailing. The study exposed that Indian academic fraternity lack prominence in research, publication and citations as per need of global accreditation and ranking standards.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitation of this study is that it focused only on few Indian and global accreditation and ranking bodies. The future implication of this study will be the use of methodology designed in this study for comparing accreditation and ranking bodies’ parameters of different continents and countries in different economic development stages i.e. emerging and developed economies to know the disparity and shortcomings in their higher education system.Practical implicationsThe article is a review and comparison of national and global accreditation and ranking parameters. The article explored the important criteria and key indicators of accreditation and ranking that would provide an important and meaningful insight to academic institutions of the emerging economies of the world to develop its competitiveness. The study contributed to the literature on identifying benchmark for improving academic and higher education institution quality. This study would be further helpful in fostering new ideas toward setting up of contemporary globally viable and acceptable academic quality standard.Originality/valueThis is possibly the first study conducted with novel methodology of comparing the Indian and global accreditation and ranking parameters to identify the academic quality performance gap and suggesting ways to attain academic benchmark through continuous improvement activity and process for global competitiveness.

scholarly journals Global Ranking of Universities by Reputation: The Hidden Criterion

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (1-3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor F. Peretomode
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Internationalization Of Higher Education ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Important Criterion ◽  
Global Ranking ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Salient Factor ◽  
Is Value

ABSTRACT The ranking of World Universities is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is one of the products of internationalization of higher education. Many of the indices used by the ranking systems are now familiar to readers and writers. The age of an institution is one salient factor often not considered in rankings. The objective of this study is to critically discuss the relevance of age in relation to the metrics used and to determine whether or not age can be shown to have a place in university rankings .The analysis of data shows the average age of the top 50 institutions by reputation to be 206 years and the median 162. A look at the rankings will not reveal this important criterion except each of these ranked universities is linked with the year it was founded. It concludes that there is value in age and should be factored into university rankings.

Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2017 update

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 675-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Serenko ◽  
Nick Bontis
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Intellectual Capital ◽  
Process Management ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Expert Survey ◽  
Ranking List ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Global Ranking ◽  
Practice Knowledge

Purpose The purpose of this study is to update a global ranking of 27 knowledge management and intellectual capital (KM/IC) academic journals. Design/methodology/approach The ranking was developed based on a combination of results from a survey of 482 active KM/IC researchers and journal citation impact indices. Findings The ranking list includes 27 currently active KM/IC journals. The A+ journals are the Journal of Knowledge Management and the Journal of Intellectual Capital. The A journals are the Learning Organization, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Knowledge and Process Management, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems and International Journal of Knowledge Management. A majority of recently launched journals did not fare well in the ranking. Whereas a journal’s longevity is important, it is not the only factor affecting its ranking position. Expert survey and citation impact measures are relatively consistent, but expert survey ranking scores change faster. Practical implications KM/IC discipline stakeholders, including practitioners, editors, publishers, reviewers, researchers, students, administrators and librarians, may consult the developed ranking list for various purposes. Compared to 2008, more researchers indicated KM/IC as their primary area of concentration, which is a positive indicator of discipline development. Originality/value This is the most recent ranking list of KM/IC academic journals.

Data-driven global-ranking local feature selection methods for text categorization

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 1941-1949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto H.W. Pinheiro ◽  
George D.C. Cavalcanti ◽  
Tsang Ing Ren
Keyword(s):  
Feature Selection ◽  
Text Categorization ◽  
Local Feature ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Global Ranking

scholarly journals Feasibility of an Internet-Based Global Ranking Instrument

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seshadri C Mudumbai ◽  
David M Gaba ◽  
John Boulet ◽  
Steven K Howard ◽  
M. Frances Davies
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
University Teaching ◽  
Tertiary Referral ◽  
Single Item ◽  
Global Ranking ◽  
Online Technologies ◽  
Institutional Review Board Approval ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Referral Hospitals ◽  
Global Ratings

Abstract Background Single-item global ratings are commonly used at the end of undergraduate clerkships and residency rotations to measure specific competencies and/or to compare the performances of individuals against their peers. We hypothesized that an Internet-based instrument would be feasible to adequately distinguish high- and low-ability residents. Materials and Methods After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, we developed an Internet-based global ranking instrument to rank 42 third-year residents (21 in 2008 and 21 in 2009) in a major university teaching hospital's department of anesthesiology. Evaluators were anesthesia attendings and nonphysicians in 3 tertiary-referral hospitals. Evaluators were asked this ranking question: “When it comes to overall clinical ability, how does this individual compare to all their peers?” Results For 2008, 111 evaluators completed the ranking exercise; for 2009, 79 completed it. Residents were rank-ordered using the median of evaluator categorizations and the frequency of ratings per assigned relative performance quintile. Across evaluator groups and study years, the summary evaluation data consistently distinguished the top and bottom resident cohorts. Discussion An Internet-based instrument, using a single-item global ranking, demonstrated feasibility and can be used to differentiate top- and bottom-performing cohorts. Although ranking individuals yields norm-referenced measures of ability, successfully identifying poorly performing residents using online technologies is efficient and will be useful in developing and administering targeted evaluation and remediation programs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document