Comparing university rankings

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 243-256

  Aguillo, Isidro F ^a   Bar Ilan, Judit ^b   Levene, Mark ^c   Ortega, José Luis ^d  

^a INSTITUTO DE HISTORIA   (Spain)

^b BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d CSIC   (Spain)

Author keywords

Comparative analysis; Leiden ranking; Ranking; Shanghai ranking; Taiwan ranking; Times ranking; Universities; Webometrics ranking

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955845500     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0190-z     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296-1302.
2. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 234-244.
3. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 26-34.
4. Billaut, J., Bouyssou, D., & Vinke, P. (2010). Should we believe the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0115-x.
5. Black, T. R. (1994). Evaluating social science research: An introduction. London: SAGE Publications.
6. CEPES. (2006). The Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions. Retreived January 11, 2009 from http://www. cepes. ro/hed/meetings/berlin06/Berlin%20Principles. pdf.
7. Diaconis, P., & Graham, R. L. (1977). Spearman's footrule as a measure of disarray. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39, 262-268.
8. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables and public policy: A cross national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, 499-533.
9. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the Web. In Proceedings of the 10th World Wide Web Conference, May 2001, Hong-Kong, (pp. 613-622).
10. Eccles, C. (2002). The use of university rankings in the United Kingdom. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 423-432.
11. Fagin, R., Kumar, R., & Sivakumar, D. (2003). Comparing top k lists. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 17(1), 134-160.
12. Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). The academic ranking of world universities-methodologies and problems. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127-136.
13. Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2008). Examining major rankings according to the Berlin principles. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 201-208.
14. Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 306-329.
15. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36, 397-420.
16. van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction-conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143.
17. Webster, T. J. (2001). A principal component analysis of the US News & World Report tier rankings of colleges and universities. Economics of Education Review, 20(3), 235-244.