Ranking academic institutions based on the productivity, impact, and quality of institutional scholars

Amir Faghri, Theodore L. Bergman
{"title":"Ranking academic institutions based on the productivity, impact, and quality of institutional scholars","authors":"Amir Faghri, Theodore L. Bergman","doi":"10.2478/jdis-2024-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The quantitative rankings of over 55,000 institutions and their institutional programs are based on the individual rankings of approximately 30 million scholars determined by their productivity, impact, and quality.\n \n \n \n The institutional ranking process developed here considers all institutions in all countries and regions, thereby including those that are established, as well as those that are emerging in scholarly prowess. Rankings of individual scholars worldwide are first generated using the recently introduced, fully indexed ScholarGPS database. The rankings of individual scholars are extended here to determine the lifetime and last-five-year Top 20 rankings of academic institutions over all Fields of scholarly endeavor, in 14 individual Fields, in 177 Disciplines, and in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties. Rankings associated with five specific Fields (Medicine, Engineering & Computer Science, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences & Mathematics, and Social Sciences), and in two Disciplines (Chemistry, and Electrical & Computer Engineering) are presented as examples, and changes in the rankings over time are discussed.\n \n \n \n For the Fields considered here, the Top 20 institutional rankings in Medicine have undergone the least change (lifetime versus last five years), while the rankings in Engineering & Computer Science have exhibited significant change. The evolution of institutional rankings over time is largely attributed to the recent emergence of Chinese academic institutions, although this emergence is shown to be highly Field- and Discipline-dependent.\n \n \n \n The ScholarGPS database used here ranks institutions in the categories of: (i) all Fields, (ii) in 14 individual Fields, (iii) in 177 Disciplines, and (iv) in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties. A comprehensive investigation covering all categories is not practical.\n \n \n \n Existing rankings of academic institutions have: (i) often been restricted to pre-selected institutions, clouding the potential discovery of scholarly activity in emerging institutions and countries; (ii) considered only broad areas of research, limiting the ability of university leadership to act on the assessments in a concrete manner, or in contrast; (iii) have considered only a narrow area of research for comparison, diminishing the broader applicability and impact of the assessment. In general, existing institutional rankings depend on which institutions are included in the ranking process, which areas of research are considered, the breadth (or granularity) of the research areas of interest, and the methodologies used to define and quantify research performance. In contrast, the methods presented here can provide important data over a broad range of granularity to allow responsible individuals to gauge the performance of any institution from the Overall (all Fields) level, to the level of the Specialty. The methods may also assist identification of the root causes of shifts in institution rankings, and how these shifts vary across hundreds of thousands of Fields, Disciplines, and Specialties of scholarly endeavor.\n \n \n \n This study provides the first ranking of all academic institutions worldwide over Fields, Disciplines, and Specialties based on a unique methodology that quantifies the productivity, impact, and quality of individual scholars.\n","PeriodicalId":515322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Data and Information Science","volume":" 43","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Data and Information Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2024-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The quantitative rankings of over 55,000 institutions and their institutional programs are based on the individual rankings of approximately 30 million scholars determined by their productivity, impact, and quality. The institutional ranking process developed here considers all institutions in all countries and regions, thereby including those that are established, as well as those that are emerging in scholarly prowess. Rankings of individual scholars worldwide are first generated using the recently introduced, fully indexed ScholarGPS database. The rankings of individual scholars are extended here to determine the lifetime and last-five-year Top 20 rankings of academic institutions over all Fields of scholarly endeavor, in 14 individual Fields, in 177 Disciplines, and in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties. Rankings associated with five specific Fields (Medicine, Engineering & Computer Science, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences & Mathematics, and Social Sciences), and in two Disciplines (Chemistry, and Electrical & Computer Engineering) are presented as examples, and changes in the rankings over time are discussed. For the Fields considered here, the Top 20 institutional rankings in Medicine have undergone the least change (lifetime versus last five years), while the rankings in Engineering & Computer Science have exhibited significant change. The evolution of institutional rankings over time is largely attributed to the recent emergence of Chinese academic institutions, although this emergence is shown to be highly Field- and Discipline-dependent. The ScholarGPS database used here ranks institutions in the categories of: (i) all Fields, (ii) in 14 individual Fields, (iii) in 177 Disciplines, and (iv) in approximately 350,000 unique Specialties. A comprehensive investigation covering all categories is not practical. Existing rankings of academic institutions have: (i) often been restricted to pre-selected institutions, clouding the potential discovery of scholarly activity in emerging institutions and countries; (ii) considered only broad areas of research, limiting the ability of university leadership to act on the assessments in a concrete manner, or in contrast; (iii) have considered only a narrow area of research for comparison, diminishing the broader applicability and impact of the assessment. In general, existing institutional rankings depend on which institutions are included in the ranking process, which areas of research are considered, the breadth (or granularity) of the research areas of interest, and the methodologies used to define and quantify research performance. In contrast, the methods presented here can provide important data over a broad range of granularity to allow responsible individuals to gauge the performance of any institution from the Overall (all Fields) level, to the level of the Specialty. The methods may also assist identification of the root causes of shifts in institution rankings, and how these shifts vary across hundreds of thousands of Fields, Disciplines, and Specialties of scholarly endeavor. This study provides the first ranking of all academic institutions worldwide over Fields, Disciplines, and Specialties based on a unique methodology that quantifies the productivity, impact, and quality of individual scholars.
根据机构学者的生产力、影响力和质量对学术机构进行排名
对 55,000 多所机构及其机构项目的量化排名是基于约 3,000 万名学者的个人排名,排名依据的是他们的生产力、影响力和质量。 在此制定的机构排名过程中,考虑了所有国家和地区的所有机构,因此包括了那些学术实力雄厚的老牌机构和新兴机构。全球学者个人排名首先使用最近推出的、索引齐全的 ScholarGPS 数据库生成。学者个人的排名在此得到扩展,以确定学术机构在所有学术领域、14 个单独领域、177 个学科和大约 350,000 个独特专业的终身排名和最近五年的前 20 名排名。本文以五个具体领域(医学、工程与计算机科学、生命科学、物理科学与数学、社会科学)和两个学科(化学、电子与计算机工程)的排名为例,讨论了排名随时间推移而发生的变化。 在本报告所涉及的领域中,医学的前 20 名院校排名变化最小(生前排名与过去五年的排名相比),而工程与计算机科学的排名则变化显著。机构排名随时间的演变主要归因于中国学术机构最近的崛起,尽管这种崛起在很大程度上取决于领域和学科。 本文使用的 ScholarGPS 数据库对院校进行了分类排名:(i) 所有领域,(ii) 14 个领域,(iii) 177 个学科,(iv) 大约 350,000 个专业。对所有类别进行全面调查是不现实的。 现有的学术机构排名包括(i) 常常局限于预先选定的机构,从而影响了对新兴机构和国家学术活动的潜在发现;(ii) 只考虑广泛的研究领域,从而限制了大学领导层根据评估结果采取具体行动或进行对比的能力;(iii) 只考虑狭隘的研究领域进行比较,从而削弱了评估的广泛适用性和影响。一般来说,现有的院校排名取决于哪些院校被纳入了排名过程、考虑了哪些研究领域、关注的研究领域的广度(或粒度)以及用于定义和量化研究绩效的方法。相比之下,本文介绍的方法可以在广泛的粒度范围内提供重要数据,使负责任的个人可以从整体(所有领域)层面到专业层面衡量任何机构的绩效。这些方法还有助于确定机构排名变化的根本原因,以及这些变化在成千上万个领域、学科和专业的学术努力中是如何变化的。 本研究首次提供了全球所有学术机构在领域、学科和专业方面的排名,该排名基于一种独特的方法,可量化学者个人的生产力、影响力和质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信