IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v90y2012i2d10.1007_s11192-011-0544-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach

Author

Listed:
  • Feng Li

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Yong Yi

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Xiaolong Guo

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Wei Qi

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

Abstract

For a long time, rankings overused in evaluating Chinese universities’ research performance. The relationship between research production and research quality hasn’t been taken seriously in ranking systems. Most university rankings in China put more weight on research production rather than research quality. Recently, the developmental strategy of Chinese universities has shifted from ‘quantity’ to ‘quality’. As a result, a two-dimensional approach was developed in this article to balance ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’. The research production index and the research quality index were produced to locate research universities (RU) from Mainland China, Hong Kong (HK) and Taiwan (TW) in the two-dimensional graph. Fifty-nine RU were classified into three categories according to their locations, which indicated the relevant level of research performance. University of Hong Kong, National Taiwan University, Tsing Hua University and Peking University appeared to be leading universities in research performance. The result showed that the mainland universities were generally of higher research production and lower research quality than HK and TW universities, and proved that the merging tides of Chinese universities enlarged their research production while causing a low level of research quality as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Feng Li & Yong Yi & Xiaolong Guo & Wei Qi, 2012. "Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 531-542, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0544-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0544-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0544-1
    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/s11192-011-0544-1?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. Zhang, Daqun & Banker, Rajiv D. & Li, Xiaoxuan & Liu, Wenbin, 2011. "Performance impact of research policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 875-885, July.
    2. Gad Saad, 2006. "Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 117-120, October.
    3. Henk F. Moed, 2008. "UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 153-161, January.
    4. Bihui Jin & Ronald Rousseau & Xiaoxing Sun, 2006. "Key Labs and Open Labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Their role in the national and international scientific arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(1), pages 3-14, April.
    5. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Jose G. Moreno-Torres & Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar & Francisco Herrera, 2011. "A methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: the IFQ 2 A index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 771-786, September.
    6. Ping Zhou & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2009. "Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 839-857, December.
    7. Henk F. Moed, 2000. "Bibliometric Indicators Reflect Publication and Management Strategies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 323-346, February.
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2011. "Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 915-928, September.
    9. Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 281-296, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Kostoff, Ronald N., 2008. "Comparison of China/USA science and technology performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 354-363.
    12. Bihui Jin & Ronald Rousseau & Xiaoxing Sun, 2006. "Key Labs and Open Labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Their role in the national and international scientific arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(1), pages 3-14, April.
    13. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    14. Tibor Braun & Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2006. "A Hirsch-type index for journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 169-173, October.
    15. Xing Zhu & Qi Wu & Yingzi Zheng & Xin Ma, 2004. "Highly cited research papers and the evaluation of a research university: A case study: Peking University 1974–2003," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 237-347, June.
    16. Clara Calero-Medina & Carmen López-Illescas & Martijn S Visser & Henk F Moed, 2008. "Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: an example from oncology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 71-81, March.
    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. Teodoro Luque-Martínez & Salvador Barrio-García, 2016. "Constructing a synthetic indicator of research activity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1049-1064, September.
    2. Yi Zhang & Mingting Kou & Kaihua Chen & Jiancheng Guan & Yuchen Li, 2016. "Modelling the Basic Research Competitiveness Index (BR-CI) with an application to the biomass energy field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1221-1241, September.
    3. Kübra Akyol Özcan, 2023. "Sustainability Ranking of Turkish Universities with Different Weighting Approaches and the TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-24, August.
    4. Dalibor Fiala, 2013. "Science Evaluation in the Czech Republic: The Case of Universities," Societies, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Li, Feng & Miao, Yajun & Yang, Chenchen, 2015. "How do alumni faculty behave in research collaboration? An analysis of Chang Jiang Scholars in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 438-450.
    6. Hyejin Park & Han Woo Park, 2018. "Research evaluation of Asian countries using altmetrics: comparing South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 771-788, November.
    7. Oğuzhan Alaşehir & Murat Perit Çakır & Cengiz Acartürk & Nazife Baykal & Ural Akbulut, 2014. "URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 159-178, October.
    8. Yuandi Wang & Jiashun Huang & Yantai Chen & Xiongfeng Pan & Jin Chen, 2013. "Have Chinese universities embraced their third mission? New insight from a business perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 207-222, November.
    9. Liu, Weishu & Hu, Guangyuan & Tang, Li & Wang, Yuandi, 2015. "China's global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 555-569.

    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. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    2. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    3. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    4. Yang, Guo-liang & Rousseau, Ronald & Yang, Li-ying & Liu, Wen-bin, 2014. "A study on directional returns to scale," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 628-641.
    5. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    6. Maria Karaulova & Abdullah Gök & Oliver Shackleton & Philip Shapira, 2016. "Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 645-670, May.
    7. Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2008. "Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 267-288, November.
    8. Jiancheng Guan & Xia Gao, 2008. "Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 357-379, May.
    9. S. Hennemann & T. Wang & I. Liefner, 2011. "Measuring regional science networks in China: a comparison of international and domestic bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 535-554, August.
    10. Themis Lazaridis, 2010. "Ranking university departments using the mean h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 211-216, February.
    11. Chi Mai Nguyen & Jae-Yong Choung, 2020. "Scientific knowledge production in China: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1279-1303, August.
    12. Costas, Rodrigo & Bordons, María, 2007. "The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 193-203.
    13. Jonkers, Koen, 2011. "A functionalist framework to compare research systems applied to an analysis of the transformation of the Chinese research system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1295-1306.
    14. 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.
    15. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.
    16. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Maziar Montazerian & Edgar Dutra Zanotto & Hellmut Eckert, 2019. "A new parameter for (normalized) evaluation of H-index: countries as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1065-1078, March.
    19. Jean-Francois Molinari & Alain Molinari, 2008. "A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(1), pages 163-174, April.
    20. Chan-Yuan Wong, 2019. "A century of scientific publication: towards a theorization of growth behavior and research-orientation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 357-377, April.

    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:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0544-1. 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.