Correlation between universities’ Altmetric Attention Scores and their performance scores in Nature Index, Leiden, Times Higher Education and Quacquarelli Symonds ranking systems

2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110308
Author(s):  
Maryam Moshtagh ◽  
Hajar Sotudeh
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Social Performance ◽  
Inverse Correlation ◽  
Spearman Correlation ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Correlational Design ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
University Level ◽  
Positive Correlations ◽  
Insignificant Correlation

Objective: Altmetrics are claimed to measure the scientific, societal, educational, technological and economic impacts of science. They have some of these dimensions in common with university ranking and evaluating systems. Their results are, therefore, expected to be partially convergent with the systems’. Given the importance of the scientific and non-scientific impacts of science, this study investigated the correlations of universities’ altmetrics with their total and dimensional scores in Nature Index, Leiden, Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). Methodology: Following a correlational design, it explored an available sample of the universities commonly ranked in the systems in 2017. The data were collected from online documents using checklists and analysed by the Spearman correlation. As Altmetric Attention Score (ASS) is efficient in that it integrates several indicators into a single one, it was used as the proxy of the universities’ social performance. Findings: The universities showed significant positive correlations between their ASSs and their performance scores on the total and dimensional levels, except for industry income in THE, with an insignificant correlation, and proportion of collaborative publication less than 100 km. in Leiden, with an inverse correlation. The correlations ranged from weak to marginally strong. Conclusion: The positive relationships between the universities’ performance and ASSs signified that there existed some similarities in what they measured. However, they were of weak-to-marginally strong powers, implying that the metrics differed in what they measured. The findings contribute to the existing knowledge by providing some evidence of convergence between university-level altmetrics and university performances in various dimensions.

scholarly journals HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems

2019 ◽  
Vol IV (II) ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Fazeelat Noreen ◽  
Bashir Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
National Level ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Research And Teaching ◽  
International Trends ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
Ranking Criteria ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Global University ◽  
University Ranking Systems

Globalization and market-based orientation of higher education institutions has increased interest of students, parents, employers, universities, funding agencies, governments, and relevant stakeholders in knowing the rank of their concerned universities at national/global level. This has led to the emergence of several global university ranking systems. Aligned with international trends of ranking, Higher Education of Pakistan [HEC] also initiated ranking of universities at the national level in Pakistan. Subsequently, HEC designed comprehensive ranking criteria for ranking of universities and has implemented it since 2010. This study analyzes the nature of HEC ranking criteria and its constituent indicators from the perspective of global university ranking systems. Using content and thematic analysis, this study found that global university ranking systems mainly focus quality of research and teaching, while HEC additionally focuses effective and efficient use of resources, provision of facilities, social integration, and impact on community development.

scholarly journals Determining the Standard of Quality: Examining the Turkish University Ranking Systems According to the Berlin Principles

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-268
Author(s):  
Engin Karadağ ◽  
Cüneyt Belenkuyu
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Educational Policies ◽  
Competitive Environment ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Assessment Study ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Critical Problems ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
University Ranking Systems

The increasing competitive environment arising from the commercialization and internationalization of higher education (HE) and the increasing influence of the liberal character of educational policies have led to the emergence of HE ranking systems which have become an inevitable part of HE with the effect they have created. The lack of unambiguous methodological processes is one of the oft-cited critical problems in the HE ranking system literature. These systems vary due to the particular methods they adopt in creating their ranking results. This variation requires a set of principles on how best to perform these rankings. The principles established under Berlin Principles in 2006 aimed to address this need. This study aims to determine to what extent Turkish ranking systems comply with the basic tenets determined in the Berlin Principles. The study was designed as a methodological assessment study and the data were obtained from the websites and printed and electronic publications related to Turkish ranking systems. The data obtained were scored according to an evaluation form consisting of the tenets set out in the Berlin Principles. The findings show that the majority of the Turkish university ranking systems were not designed to be fully compliant with the Berlin Principles and instead they evaluate HE institutions by their research approach and quality definitions.

scholarly journals Global Ranking and Its Implications in Higher Education

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
P. S. Aithal ◽  
Suresh Kumar P. M.
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Generic Model ◽  
Research Publication ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Global Ranking ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The World ◽  
Global University

Higher Education Institutions try to enhance their competitiveness so as to become distinguished centers of learning and research. Various agencies conduct rankings of institutions independent of each other using different criteria. Although the purpose of ranking is to encourage healthy competition and distinguish the best institution in the interest of the learners to choose, the differences in criteria have cast a lot of confusion in building a parity. Academic performance and allied factors, as well as research, publication, and allied factors, are common to all. Some ranking agencies take into consideration industry-institution collaborations, international outlook, alumni, overall reputation, and even financial stability. This paper aims to attempt a comparison of the ranking methodology adopted by selected prominent Global University Ranking Agencies all over the world and throw light on the positive and negative outcomes of the global ranking. Based on in-depth analysis and critical comments on the limitations of these ranking systems, a generic model for balanced global university ranking is also proposed. Given the fact that nations differ, cultures differ, and the context of higher education itself differ across nations, the study illuminates the fallacy and dangers of segregating all institutions under the same mould.

Globalization of World University Rankings and Its Impact on Asian Universities

2017 ◽  
pp. 329-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fraide A. Ganotice Jr. ◽  
Hei-Hang Hayes Tang ◽  
Gordon Tsui ◽  
Jonalyn B. Villarosa ◽  
Susanna S. Yeung
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Global Prevalence ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Academic Ranking

This chapter discusses how Asian universities respond to the global prevalence of university rankings, which are operated in various form with different emphases. First, it defines the context and rationales of the rise of world university rankings. Next, it compares and contrasts the three dominant university rankings, namely, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), and Times higher Education University Rankings (THE). After assessing the controversies, limitations and solutions of the dominant ranking systems, we will evaluate the current performance of Asian universities and discuss what lessons are to be learned by Asian universities amid the globalizing forces of world university ranking.

scholarly journals Monitoring the Scientific Productivity of Higher Education Institutions in Turkey: A Review of Current State and Suggestions

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-48
Author(s):  
muhammet damar
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Performance Monitoring ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Current State ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Educational Processes ◽  
Strategic Plans ◽  
Performance Dimensions

In the rapidly developing and changing world, higher education institutions have taken their place among the institutions struggling in global competition conditions. With the educational processes, the opportunities they provide to their students, employees, researchers and society, and the values they create with these stakeholders, these institutions are in an effort to progress in the ranking steps. There are many university ranking systems adopted on international platforms, and the common point of these ranking systems is the priorities they give to the criteria for scientific productivity. At this point, authorities who want to move their institutions to upper levels need to closely and effectively monitor the relevant performance indicators.This study, which presents research in this context, reveals how institutions monitor their scientific productivity levels and how much they adopt implementation components and policies in well-developed institutions. Data obtained from one-to-one interviews with a representative sample group accompanied by a form and from online announcement channels of institutions are summarized and presented. In the light of the data, all situations that cause problems to occur are made more visible and solutions are suggested. General findings show that although performance monitoring processes differ from each other, they exist in every institution, but some important performance dimensions cannot be monitored by all institutions in an efficient way. For example, although particular academic performance indicators are taken into account, it is observed that there are deficiencies in clearly expressing the goals and policies towards the improvement of the indicator values in the strategic plans and following them on a field basis.

scholarly journals Preparing for Academic Ranking Reports in the Kurdistan Regional Government Higher Education

10.28945/3426 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
Similar System ◽  
Ranking System ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Academic System ◽  
Academic Ranking ◽  
Ministry Of Higher Education ◽  
University Ranking Systems

This paper explains the development of a system of academic ranking across the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) colleges and universities. The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHE) at KRG has embarked on a project to develop a system for ranking the universities under their jurisdiction. The MHE wanted their ranking system to be modeled on other established university ranking systems. They studied other systems of academic rankings, considered the factors that goes into them systems and tried to create a similar system of providing data in order to issue such ranking reports. However, dissimilarities between the established academic system and that of the KRG necessitated modifying to the ranking system in order to provide a reliable and relevant ranking report. This study explains the steps involved in establishing a system for ranking academic performance of Kurdistan universities. It begins by reviewing literature about the established systems of academic ranking, and the factors that are included in their ranking systems. It then details the factors that typically considered into completing such ranking system and how the MHE attempted to modify some of them in order to produce a reliable ranking system of higher education in Kurdistan universities.

scholarly journals FACTORS OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS RANKING (COMPARISON OF THREE WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS)

2019 ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
Nattapong Techarattanased ◽  
Pleumjai Sinarkorn
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Science Citation Index ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Social Science Citation Index ◽  
Science Citation ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
University Ranking ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Global University

Many universities have drawn attention to world university rankings, which reflect the international competition of universities and represent their relative statuses. This study does not radically contradict all types of global university rankings but calls for an examination of the effects of their indicators on the final ranking of universities. This study investigates the indicator contribution to the ranking of universities in world university ranking systems including the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education (THE), and QS World University Rankings. Results showed that in the ARWU system, three indicators regarding faculty members who won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals and papers published in Nature and Science and in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index journals predicted the ranking of universities. For the QS and THE systems, the more powerful contributors to the ranking of universities were expert-based reputation indicators.

scholarly journals Towards Developing a Framework to Analyze the Qualities of the University Websites

Computers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Maliha Rashida ◽  
Kawsarul Islam ◽  
A. S. M. Kayes ◽  
Mohammad Hammoudeh ◽  
Mohammad Shamsul Arefin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
University Ranking ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Notice Board ◽  
Academic Websites ◽  
Multi Method Approach ◽  
The University ◽  
University Ranking Systems ◽  
Ranked List

The website of a university is considered to be a virtual gateway to provide primary resources to its stakeholders. It can play an indispensable role in disseminating information about a university to a variety of audience at a time. Thus, the quality of an academic website requires special attention to fulfil the users’ need. This paper presents a multi-method approach of quality assessment of the academic websites, in the context of universities of Bangladesh. We developed an automated web-based tool that can evaluate any academic website based on three criteria, which are as follows: content of information, loading time and overall performance. Content of information contains many sub criteria, such as university vision and mission, faculty information, notice board and so on. This tool can also perform comparative analysis among several academic websites and generate a ranked list of these. To the best of our knowledge, this is the very first initiative to develop an automated tool for accessing academic website quality in context of Bangladesh. Beside this, we have conducted a questionnaire-based statistical evaluation among several universities to obtain the respective users’ feedback about their academic websites. Then, a ranked list is generated based on the survey result that is almost similar to the ranked list got from the University ranking systems. This validates the effectiveness of our developed tool in accessing academic website.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document