IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v112y2017i1d10.1007_s11192-017-2403-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?

Author

Listed:
  • Osmo Kivinen

    (University of Turku)

  • Juha Hedman

    (University of Turku)

  • Kalle Artukka

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

The paper asks to what extent the top 200 universities in scientific publishing in four research fields are the same universities that occupy the top 200 positions in global university rankings. In this article, the top 200 lists of universities in scientific publishing are compiled of universities’ contribution rates in four fields: biological, physical, social and life sciences. Out of some 4000 academic institutions included in InCites, the paper identifies 437 top publishing universities in at least one field. The paper analyses the extent to which those universities are covered in six global university rankings’ top 200 listings: Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities (NTU), QS World University Rankings (QS), Times Higher Education World University rankings (THE), University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) and US News and World Report Best Global University Rankings (USNWR). Out of these rankings, URAP, NTU and USNWR are more distinctive than ARWU, QS and THE in covering the 437 top publishing universities in their top 200 listings. Therefore URAP, NTU and USNWR are utilized in analyzing top publishing universities’ chances to be recognized. The paper identifies a total of 64 top publishing universities in at least three out of four fields recognized without exception in the top 200 lists of NTU, URAP and USNWR; out of them 24 reside in the USA, 21 in the EU and 19 in the rest of the World. In addition, the paper identifies other (373) top publishing universities variably recognized by the relevant of the three rankings (in terms of odds) depending on the fields in which the universities reach the top 200; odds range from 0.01 (biological sciences) to 12.00 (life, social and biological sciences). The region of residence of these 373 universities also varies, so that those reaching the top 200 in life sciences reside most frequently in the EU, those reaching the top 200 in social sciences in the USA and those reaching the top 200 in physical or in biological sciences in the rest of the World.

Suggested Citation

  • Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2403-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicolás Robinson-García & Clara Calero-Medina, 2014. "What do university rankings by fields rank? Exploring discrepancies between the organizational structure of universities and bibliometric classifications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1955-1970, March.
    2. Ibrahim Shehatta & Khalid Mahmood, 2016. "Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1231-1254, November.
    3. Domingo Docampo, 2011. "On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the research performance of university systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 77-92, January.
    4. Ellen Hazelkorn, 2009. "Rankings and the battle for world-class excellence: Institutional strategies and policy choices," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 21(1), pages 1-22.
    5. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    6. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    7. Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry & Norrin Halilem, 2015. "What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 489-530, May.
    8. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    9. Domingo Docampo, 2013. "Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 567-587, February.
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    12. Joseph Macri & Dipendra Sinha, 2006. "Rankings Methodology for International Comparisons of Institutions and Individuals: an Application to Economics in Australia and New Zealand," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 111-156, February.
    13. Saisana, Michaela & d'Hombres, Béatrice & Saltelli, Andrea, 2011. "Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 165-177, February.
    14. Shuiqing Huang & Bo Yang & Sulan Yan & Ronald Rousseau, 2014. "Institution name disambiguation for research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 823-838, June.
    15. Ruth A. Pagell, 2014. "Bibliometrics and University Research Rankings Demystified for Librarians," Springer Books, in: Chuanfu Chen & Ronald Larsen (ed.), Library and Information Sciences, edition 127, pages 137-160, Springer.
    16. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    17. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 133-143, January.
    18. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    19. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Päivi Kaipainen, 2013. "Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input–output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 683-699, February.
    20. Domingo Docampo, 2011. "Erratum to: On using the Shanghai ranking to assess the research performance of university systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 237-237, January.
    21. Ernesto R. Gantman, 2012. "Economic, linguistic, and political factors in the scientific productivity of countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 967-985, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim Holmberg & Juha Hedman & Timothy D. Bowman & Fereshteh Didegah & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Do articles in open access journals have more frequent altmetric activity than articles in subscription-based journals? An investigation of the research output of Finnish universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 645-659, January.
    2. McAleer, M.J. & Nakamura, T. & Watkins, C., 2018. "Size, Internationalization and University Rankings: Evaluating Times Higher Education (THE) Data for Japan," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2018-43, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    3. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Michael McAleer & Tamotsu Nakamura & Clinton Watkins, 2019. "Size, Internationalization, and University Rankings: Evaluating and Predicting Times Higher Education (THE) Data for Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, March.
    5. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Manuel Muñoz-Suárez & Natividad Guadalajara & José M. Osca, 2020. "A Comparative Analysis between Global University Rankings and Environmental Sustainability of Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    2. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    3. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    4. Vicente Safón, 2013. "What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 223-244, November.
    5. Massucci, Francesco Alessandro & Docampo, Domingo, 2019. "Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRank," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 185-201.
    6. Olcay, Gokcen Arkali & Bulu, Melih, 2017. "Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 153-160.
    7. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2015. "On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: the case of the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1325-1346, February.
    8. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    9. D. Docampo & D. Egret & L. Cram, 2015. "The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 175-191, July.
    10. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    11. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    12. Veljko Jeremic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic & Zoran Radojicic, 2011. "A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 587-596, June.
    13. Calabrese, Armando & Capece, Guendalina & Costa, Roberta & Di Pillo, Francesca & Giuffrida, Stefania, 2018. "A ‘power law’ based method to reduce size-related bias in indicators of knowledge performance: An application to university research assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1263-1281.
    14. Milica Jovanovic & Veljko Jeremic & Gordana Savic & Milica Bulajic & Milan Martic, 2012. "How does the normalization of data affect the ARWU ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 319-327, November.
    15. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2017. "Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 739-764, February.
    16. Pin-Hua Lin & Jong-Rong Chen & Chih-Hai Yang, 2014. "Academic research resources and academic quality: a cross-country analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 109-123, October.
    17. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Päivi Kaipainen, 2013. "Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input–output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 683-699, February.
    18. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    19. Gnewuch, Matthias & Wohlrabe, Klaus, 2018. "Super-efficiency of education institutions: an application to economics departments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26, pages 610-623.
    20. Civera, Alice & Lehmann, Erik E. & Paleari, Stefano & Stockinger, Sarah A.E., 2020. "Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2403-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.