Finding “similar” universities using ChatGPT for institutional benchmarking: A large-scale comparison of European universities

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Benedetto Lepori, Lutz Bornmann, Mario Gay
{"title":"Finding “similar” universities using ChatGPT for institutional benchmarking: A large-scale comparison of European universities","authors":"Benedetto Lepori,&nbsp;Lutz Bornmann,&nbsp;Mario Gay","doi":"10.1002/asi.25010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT in identifying “similar” institutions for benchmarking the research performance of a university. Benchmarking is deemed a promising approach to compare “similar with similar” as a better alternative to rankings (comparing “different” universities). Current approaches either focus on a limited number of “quantitative” dimensions or are too complex for most users. We conducted large-scale testing by tasking ChatGPT with identifying the most similar European universities in terms of research performance, utilizing the European Tertiary Education Register data. We tested whether the peers suggested by ChatGPT were similar to the focal university on size, research intensity, and subject composition. Additionally, we evaluated whether providing more specific instructions improved the results. The findings offer a nuanced perspective on the potential and risks of using ChatGPT to identify peer institutions for benchmarking. On one hand, solely using ChatGPT would replicate the visibility biases associated with university rankings, thereby undermining the rationale for benchmarking. On the other hand, relying on semantic associations might capture dimensions of university similarity that are relevant and difficult to capture through quantitative methods. We finally reflected on the broader implications for scholars in higher education and science studies research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"76 9","pages":"1174-1187"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.25010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT in identifying “similar” institutions for benchmarking the research performance of a university. Benchmarking is deemed a promising approach to compare “similar with similar” as a better alternative to rankings (comparing “different” universities). Current approaches either focus on a limited number of “quantitative” dimensions or are too complex for most users. We conducted large-scale testing by tasking ChatGPT with identifying the most similar European universities in terms of research performance, utilizing the European Tertiary Education Register data. We tested whether the peers suggested by ChatGPT were similar to the focal university on size, research intensity, and subject composition. Additionally, we evaluated whether providing more specific instructions improved the results. The findings offer a nuanced perspective on the potential and risks of using ChatGPT to identify peer institutions for benchmarking. On one hand, solely using ChatGPT would replicate the visibility biases associated with university rankings, thereby undermining the rationale for benchmarking. On the other hand, relying on semantic associations might capture dimensions of university similarity that are relevant and difficult to capture through quantitative methods. We finally reflected on the broader implications for scholars in higher education and science studies research.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

使用ChatGPT作为机构基准来寻找“相似”的大学:对欧洲大学的大规模比较
研究目的是评估ChatGPT在确定“类似”机构以衡量大学研究绩效方面的功效。标杆管理被认为是一种很有前途的比较“同类”的方法,是比排名(比较“不同”的大学)更好的选择。当前的方法要么关注有限数量的“定量”维度,要么对大多数用户来说过于复杂。我们利用欧洲高等教育注册数据,委托ChatGPT识别在研究表现方面最相似的欧洲大学,从而进行了大规模测试。我们测试了ChatGPT推荐的同行在规模、研究强度和学科构成上是否与重点大学相似。此外,我们评估了提供更具体的指导是否能改善结果。研究结果为使用ChatGPT识别同行机构的潜力和风险提供了细致入微的视角。一方面,单独使用ChatGPT会重复与大学排名相关的可见性偏差,从而破坏基准测试的基本原理。另一方面,依赖语义关联可能会捕获相关的、难以通过定量方法捕获的大学相似度维度。最后,我们思考了高等教育和科学研究对学者的更广泛影响。
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
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
8.60%
发文量
115
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is a leading international forum for peer-reviewed research in information science. For more than half a century, JASIST has provided intellectual leadership by publishing original research that focuses on the production, discovery, recording, storage, representation, retrieval, presentation, manipulation, dissemination, use, and evaluation of information and on the tools and techniques associated with these processes. The Journal welcomes rigorous work of an empirical, experimental, ethnographic, conceptual, historical, socio-technical, policy-analytic, or critical-theoretical nature. JASIST also commissions in-depth review articles (“Advances in Information Science”) and reviews of print and other media.
×
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