A comparative study on world university rankings: A bibliometric survey

Scientometrics

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 89-103

  Chen, Kuang hua ^a   Liao, Pei yu ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Ranking indicators; World university rankings

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862659042     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0724-7     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Altbach, P. (2006). The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education, 42, 2-3.
2. Billaut, J. C., Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (2009). Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view. Scientometrics, 72(1), 25-32.
3. Bookstein, F. L., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., & Winckler, G. (2010). Too much noise in the times higher education rankings. Scientometrics, 85, 295-299.
4. Cybermetrics Lab, Centro de CienciasHumanas y Sociales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (2011) Webometrics ranking of world universities. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www. webometrics. info/.
5. Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Globalization, internationalization, and rankings. International Higher Education, 53, 8-10.
6. Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (2011) Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities-2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://ranking. heeact. edu. tw/.
7. Holmes, R. (2006). The THES university rankings: are they really world class? Asian Journal of University Education, 2(1), 1-14.
8. Hou, Y. Q., Morse, R., & Jiang, Z. L. (2011). Analyzing the movement of ranking order in world universities' rankings: how to understand and use universities' rankings effectively to draw up a universities' development strategy. Evaluation Bimonthly, 30, 43-49.
9. Huang, M. X. (2009). Exposing the black box of the ranking of the Times higher education supplement. Evaluation Bimonthly, 22, 31-36.
10. Huang, M. X. (2011). The comparison of performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities and other ranking systems. Evaluation Bimonthly, 29, 53-59.
11. International Ranking Expert Group (2006) Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions. Retrieved Nov 29, 2011, from http://www. che. de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534. pdf.
12. Ioannidis, A., Patsopoulos, N., Kavvoura, F., Tatsioni, A., Evangenlou, E., Kouri, I., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D., & Liberopoulous, G. (2007). International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. BMC Medicine, 5 (30). Retrieved Nov 29, 2011, from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174504/.
13. Lawani, S. M. (1981). Bibliometrics: its theoretical foundations methods and applications. Libri, 31(4), 294-315.
14. Liu, W. Q. (2008). How to look upon universities' rankings? Evaluation Bimonthly, 13, 6-7.
15. Marginson, S. (2007) Global university rankings: where to from here? Communication to the Asia-Pacific Association for International Education, National University of Singapore, 7-9, March, 2007. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://mt. educarchile. cl/mt/jjbrunner/archives/APAIE_090307_Marginson. pdf.
16. MINES ParisTech (2010) International professional ranking of higher education institutions: 2007, 2008, 2009. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://www. ensmp. fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking. html.
17. Qiu, J. P. (2009). Practice, features, and analysis in evaluating 2009 world class universities and research institutions. Evaluation and Management, 7(2), 19-28.
18. RatER.(2010). Global universities ranking. Retrieved Jan 3, 2010, from http://www. globaluniversitiesranking. org/.
19. Shanghai Ranking Consultancy & Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2011) Academic ranking of world universities: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://www. arwu. org/.
20. The Times Higher Education Supplement (2011) World university rankings: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2011, from http://www. timeshighereducation. co. uk/.
21. van Raan, A. (2005). Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143.
22. van Raan, A. F. J., Moed, H. F., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2006). License to Rank. Coimbra Group Annual MeetingUniversity of Tartu. Retrieved Nov 3, 2010, from http://www. ut. ee/coimbra2006/orb. aw/class=file/action=preview/id=166720/TartuWebsite. pdf.
23. Vo, B. T., Sreeram, V., & Vo, B. N. (2010). On the assessment of university research impact: towards simplicity, transparency and fairness. TECH REPT. Retrieved Nov 3, 2010, from http://www. highimpactuniversities. com/uwarpi2010-article. pdf.
24. Williams, R. (2008). Methodology, meaning, and usefulness of rankings. Australian Universities' Review, 50(2), 51-58.
25. Yu, L., Pan, Y., & Wu, Y. (2008). Two new indicators to compare different evaluation methods' effect. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 3, 135-140. Retrieved Feb 24, 2012, from http://image. sciencenet. cn/olddata/kexue. com. cn/upload/blog/file/2008/10/200810592044466910. pdf.