Ranking of Indian Universities in Social Sciences using Bibliometric Indicators during 2008-12

Abstract

The paper analyses the rankings of 25 most productive Indian universities in overall social sciences and in its four subfields, based on various quantitative indicators, such as the total number of papers and international collaborative papers, qualitative indicators such as the average number of citations per paper and h-index value, and in terms of new composite indicator (which combines quantitative and qualitative aspects). Many universities changed their ranking positions, when their ranking based on quantitative and qualitative indicator is compared with composite indicator. Finally, analysed that the ranking, based on composite indicators, gives much better results than other indicators as it combines both quantity and quality. The overall ranking of top 25 Indian universities in social sciences give an indicative, if not nearly comprehensive, assessment of how the social science education is performing as generators of new knowledge.

Metrics employed in the evaluation of research productivity: A systematic literature review

“…The h-index of the University of Hyderabad, Delhi University, and Punjab University were 49, 45, and 44 respectively. Gupta et al (2014b) evaluated the performance of 25 Indian Universities in Social Sciences. The h index and p index of Jadavpur University were 15 and 12.10 respectively; the h index of Aligarh Muslim University, University of Calcutta, and Banaras Hindu University were 12 for each and with different p index 8.61, 7.74, and 5.77, respectively.…”

“…The major collaborative countries were the USA, South Korea, and South Arabia. The productivity of six major universities in Karnataka was studied by Gupta et al (2014a). The findings revealed that the NCP was 56.69% with 3616 papers and ICP was 27.78% with 1635 papers.…”

“…Other qualitative measures used for performance evaluation are the h-index, g-index, p-index, and i10 index. Several studies apply one or more of these indicators for evaluation and these papers were contributed by Cancino et al (2017), Gupta (2010), Gupta et al (2014b), Gupta and Mahesh (2013), Kaur et al (2011), Kpolovie and Onoshagbegbe (2017), Gao et al (2013), Pandita and Singh (2015), Parabhoi (2019), Prathap and Gupta (2009), Savanur and Konnur (2012), Singh and Kumar (2014), Sweileh et al (2018), Vasishta (2011), and Wang et al (2011). Cancino et al (2017) studied the innovation research (IR) output of leading universities based on the Web of Science.…”

“…(2019), Ramos et al (2009), Ray et al (2016), Research Council UK (2010), Siwach and Satish Kumar (2015), Sudhier and Kumar (2010), Tsafe et al (2016), Uma and Rao (2014), Vasishta (2011), Visakhi and Gupta (2013) and Webber (2012). The indicators that reveal the number of collaborative papers at the local, national and international levels are termed as Locally collaborated papers (LCP), Domestic collaborative papers (DCP), National collaborative papers (NCP), and International collaborative papers ICP respectively and reflected in many studies likely Dash et al (2013), Gupta and Dhawan (2008), Dhawan et al (2017), Gautam andMishra (2015), Gupta (2013), Gupta et al (2014a), Gupta (2016), and Sevukan et al (2007). Gupta and Dhawan (2008) examined the Indian scientific research output and found that the NCP is higher than ICP and the collaborative research showed a faster growth rate (729.6%) than the country average (51.78%).…”

Pollution Control Research Output in India from Scopus Database: A Scientometric Analysis

“…Ritu Gupta, Kumbar B.D., and Rishi Tiwari, (2014) [3] reveals the research performance of 25 leading universities research output, citations and International collaborative papers on Ranking of Indian Universities in Social Sciences using bibliometric indicators during 2008-12. Raju N.G., (2014) [4] in his paper entitled "Ranking and Scattering of Journals in Physics: A Quantitative Study" shed a light about the International Journal of information dissemination and technology papers into bibliographic form-wise distribution, ranking and scattering of journals, the productivity, the obsolescence of literature and half-life of journals citations.…”