Comprehensive quantitative analysis of TOP-100s of ARWU, QS and THE World University Rankings for 2014–2018

Московкин, В. М.; Zhong, Huanhuan; Sadovski, Marina V.; Serkina, Olesya V.

doi:10.3233/efi-211539

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…De esta manera, califica la información que ofrecen los rankings como esencial, útil e independiente, (Ramírez et al, 2019), lo cual permite a los tomadores de decisiones comparar a sus instituciones con respecto a otras, identificando fortalezas y debilidades. Es importante tomar en consideración que el uso de rankings ha sido cuestionado como criterio de evaluación de calidad, debido a que presentan deficiencias metodológicas (Serra et al, 2021;Moskovkin et al, 2022), tales como el uso de datos blandos como encuestas de reputación y la presencia de sesgos estructurales que afectan de manera no homogénea los resultados de las universidades de contextos territoriales y educativos diversificados (Marginson y Van-der-Wende, 2007; Williams y Van-Dyke, 2008;Calderón y Franca, 2018;Krauskopf, 2021;Bellantuono et al, 2022;Wut et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Rankings universitarios e influencia en el desempeño: Comparando perspectivas en Chile y Venezuela

Ganga-Contreras

Valderrama-Hidalgo

Botello

2022

retos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Los rankings de universidades son considerados en la actualidad una medida de comparación y posicionamiento entre instituciones,por lo que su estudio suscita un gran interés. El objetivo principal de esta investigación es analizar comparativamente la percepción que tienen las personas expertas de las universidades de Chile y Venezuela, con respecto a nueve dimensiones y cuatro variables de contexto que utilizan los rankings de universidades, y cómo perciben su influencia en el desempeño institucional. La metodología consiste en el análisis estadísticode una encuesta aplicada a 189 funcionarios de diversos cargos provenientes de instituciones de educación superior, de los cuales el 41,2 % corresponden a Venezuela y el 58,8 % a Chile, quienes integran un total de 33 instituciones entre ambos países. Los resultados revelan que enlíneas generales no existen diferencias significativas en las dimensiones y variables de contexto identificadas, a excepción de la dimensión deinternacionalización desde la perspectiva de comparación entre países; en segundo lugar, la infraestructura desde la mirada de la esfera de lo público y lo privado. En cuanto a las variables de contexto, la territorialidad resultó ser la más significativa en relación con la condición deantigüedad en la institución. Se concluye que estos tres aspectos identificados constituyen factores críticos de éxito a promover en los planes estratégicos de las instituciones, de acuerdo con las condiciones particulares de cada institución.

show abstract

Section: Introductionunclassified

Rankings universitarios e influencia en el desempeño: Comparando perspectivas en Chile y Venezuela

Ganga-Contreras

Valderrama-Hidalgo

Botello

2022

retos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Faghri,

Bergman

2024

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Research limitations 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. Practical implementations 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. Originality/value 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.

show abstract

Recommendations and Tools to Promote Internationalisation at Home in Higher Education

Ruiz,

Cirugeda

2024

Encouraging Transnational Learning Through Virtual Exchange in Global Teacher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationalisation is a key factor both for professional development in the 21st century and international university rankings, and it is indeed at the very core of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This chapter analyses policies of internationalisation for higher education both in Spain and the international arena, such as the dimensions of major university rankings, together with tools for the concept known as internationalisation at home, such as the offer of English friendly courses and degrees offered in English as a medium of instruction (EMI), together as the use of COIL (collaborative online international learning) and eTwinning. Its main goal is to indicate successful strategies for the internationalisation of higher education programmes and means of effective collaborative instruction through digital technologies.

show abstract

Comprehensive quantitative analysis of TOP-100s of ARWU, QS and THE World University Rankings for 2014–2018

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

Rankings universitarios e influencia en el desempeño: Comparando perspectivas en Chile y Venezuela

Rankings universitarios e influencia en el desempeño: Comparando perspectivas en Chile y Venezuela

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

Recommendations and Tools to Promote Internationalisation at Home in Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About