scholarly journals Ranking Web of Universities: Is Webometrics a Reliable Academic Ranking?

10.47657/2631 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 103-135
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Shehatta ◽  
Abdullah M. Al-Rubaish ◽  
Khalid Mahmood
Keyword(s):  
Academic Performance ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Impact Category ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Global University ◽  
Academic Ranking

Global university rankings continue to gain growing interest and have high visibility from all stakeholders. Of these, Webometrics Ranking (WR) faces many criticisms about its function. Some people believe WR evaluates only the websites of universities but not their global performance and impact as mentioned by WR authors. This stimulates us to examine the idea of using WR as a reliable academic ranking for the world universities. To test this hypothesis, we apply the WR results with two widely accepted indexes, i.e., the global university rankings and the bibliometrics. Therefore, the WR ranking of the Top 100 institutions are correlated with the corresponding values of six world ranking systems’ 2015 edition (ARWU, USNWR, QS, THE, NTU and URAP) that commonly accepted to evaluate the academic performance of the university, as well as with the objectively bibliometric indicators gathered from the Web of Science (WOS) InCitesTM - Thomson Reuters. The findings revealed that the WR results provide a good correlation with both ranking systems’ results and with 12 bibliometric variables namely: WOS Documents, Times Cited, Citation Impact (CI), Citation Impact: Category Normalized (CNCI), Citation Impact: Journal Normalized (JNCI), Impact Relative to World, % of Top 1% Documents, % of Top 10% Documents, Highly Cited Papers, h-index, International Collaborations, and % Industry Collaborations. The consistency between WR and the studied six rankings increases with increasing the weight percent of the research or bibliometric indicators in these six global rankings. Moreover, the consistency between WR and survey-based rankings (USNWR, THE and QS) increases with decreasing the weight of the subjective reputation survey indicators. The North American, especially USA universities are characterized by the extremely high visibility in WR as well as in the studied seven global rankings. Thus, web-based indicators ranking (WR) offers results of comparable and similar quality to those of the six major global university rankings. Accordingly, they have the capability to rank institutional academic performance. Moreover, the reliability could be enhanced if each university has only one web-domain that accurately reflects its actual performance and activity. We recommend all institutions to apply all ranking systems together since their criteria and indicators complement each other and can form a comprehensive index for covering various HEIs activities/functions worldwide.

Citations, Open Access and University Rankings

2017 ◽  
pp. 129-139
Author(s):  
Clive Baldock
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Highly Cited Papers ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Highly Cited

The citation impact of research articles contributes to the assessment of the research performance of universities in some international university ranking systems either as the number of citations per paper, number of citations per faculty, total number of citations, number of highly cited papers or percentage of highly cited papers. Publishing research articles in Open Access (OA) journals has the potential for increasing the citation impact of research articles and in so doing improve an institutions position in university rankings. This chapter reviews the evidence for an increase in citations through publishing in Open Access publications.

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 Highly prestigious international academic awards and their impact on university rankings

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Lokman I. Meho
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United States ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
World University Rankings ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
Shanghai Ranking ◽  
Academic Ranking ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Highly Cited

This study uses the checklist method, survey studies, and Highly Cited Researchers to identify 100 highly prestigious international academic awards. The study then examines the impact of using these awards on the Academic Ranking of World Universities (the Shanghai Ranking), the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Results show that awards considerably change the rankings and scores of top universities, especially those that receive a large number of awards and those that receive few or no awards. The rankings of all other universities with relatively similar numbers of awards remain intact. If given 20% weight, as was the case in this study, awards help ranking systems set universities further apart from each other, making it easier for users to detect differences in the levels of performance. Adding awards to ranking systems benefits United States universities the most as a result of winning 58% of 1,451 awards given in 2010–2019. Developers of ranking systems should consider adding awards as a variable in assessing the performance of universities. Users of university rankings should pay attention to both ranking positions and scores.

scholarly journals Globalization and University Rankings: Consequences and Prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 190
Author(s):  
Hira Khan ◽  
Khairul Anuar Mohammad Shah ◽  
Jamshed Khalid ◽  
Majed Ageel A Harnmal ◽  
Anees Janee Ali
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Community Involvement ◽  
Continuous Exposure ◽  
University Rankings ◽  
Ranking Systems ◽  
The Social ◽  
International Ranking ◽  
Global University ◽  
Education Market ◽  
Higher Education Market

This study focuses on the effect of globalization on university ranking and current developments and challenges that HEIs face in the global higher education market. It provides detailed information about the origins of international ranking systems, diversification of university rankings and strategic planning of higher education institutes. Moreover, this study describes the global university classification, continuous exposure to elite universities, neglect of the humanities, arts and the social sciences researches, limited description of methods and indigent metrics. The expected effects on ranking system amid the COVID-19 crisis are mentioned which are widely being discussed by the researchers. The study concludes that there is a threat that universities which are investing time and money in accumulating and using statistics and data for the sake of improvement in their performance for the rankings may destabilize themselves from the development in other areas such as learning, teaching or community involvement.

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.

How Rankings Produce Competition: The Case of Global University Rankings

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Brankovic ◽  
Leopold Ringel ◽  
Tobias Werron
Keyword(s):  
University Rankings ◽  
Global University

ZusammenfassungDer Zusammenhang zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz wird häufig unterstellt, aber selten genauer untersucht. Der vorliegende Aufsatz geht ihm am Beispiel globaler Universitätsrankings nach. Ausgehend von einem soziologischen Verständnis von Konkurrenz bestimmen wir „Ranken“ als eine soziale Operation, die vier Teiloperationen miteinander kombiniert: Vergleich von Leistungen, Quantifizierung, Visualisierung, und wiederholte Publikation. Visualisierung und Publikation stehen für die in der Literatur bisher kaum berücksichtigte performative Dimension von Rankings, die für die Analyse des Zusammenhangs zwischen Rankings und Konkurrenz von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Auf dieser Grundlage zeigen wir, wie globale Universitätsrankings zur Konstruktion von Konkurrenz beitragen: durch (a) Globalisierung eines spezifischen Exzellenzdiskurses; (b) Verknappung von Reputation; (c) Transformation einer stabilen in eine dynamische Statusordnung. Wir schließen mit einer Diskussion von Implikationen dieser Analyse für die soziologische Erforschung von Konkurrenz und ihrer gesellschaftlichen Effekte.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document