Ranking Romanian academic departments in three fields of study using the<i>g</i>-index

Miroiu, Adrian; Păunescu, Mihai; Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru

doi:10.1080/13538322.2015.1051794

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to these intradepartmental differences, strong polarization between the departments was also reported; the distribution of departments presented two clusters similar to the case in this study: one includ-ed a few top performers and the other consisted in poorer performers that make up the larger part of the departments and presented a slight differentiation. (Miroiu et al, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a measure of research impact, these indices therefore only focus on a specific dimension of knowledge production and dissemination, while consciously disregarding other legitimate dimensions of research, for example patents, participation in research projects, engagement with public or private actors involved in innovation. Therefore, these indices should not be interpreted as an exhaustive measure of the quality of research (Miroiu, Paunescu, & Viiu, 2015). There were also attempts to rank departments based on prizes, medals, awards, and poll for students (Dusansky & Vernon, 1998;Mixon & Upadhyaya, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ranking Chemical Engineering Departments in Turkey Based on Academic Performance

Uyar¹

2018

Yuksekogretim Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I I n contrast to other G20 countries, Turkey has focused on expanding the number and size of its universities in recent years (British Council, 2015): The number of universities increased from 71 to 179, total number of students increased from 1.6 million to more than 6 million between 2011 and 2016 (YÖK, 2016). While there are few number of universities performing well in the global university rankings, majority of the Turkish universities are classified as virtually 'research-inactive', a situation which requires attention (British Council, 2015). University rankings that have been initially originated in the United States attracting considerable interest of countries. Ranking a university gives an overall picture of its quality. However, many universities are quite heterogeneous, thus,

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking Chemical Engineering Departments in Turkey Based on Academic Performance

Uyar¹

2018

Yuksekogretim Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies and analyses of the Romanian funding system, based on quality indicators, have not been few, especially in the last ten years. Particularly noteworthy are the studies and analyses that conducted an assessment of the funding policies operational at that time (and/or compared to the one that had been implemented previously), emphasising the ongoing challenges caused by the chronical underfunding of Romanian higher education system, the need for predictability in funding policies, and the need to improve and strengthen institutional mechanisms focused on quality assurance in the education and research process (CNFIS 2015, CNFIS 2016, 2017,CNFIS 2015,CNFIS 2019 (Miroiu and Vlasceanu 2012), (Miroiu et al 2015) (Vîiu et al 2016).…”

Section: Funding System and Performance-indicators In Romanias' Highe...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance-Based Funding—The Romanian Experience of the Last Five Years (2016–2020)

Păunescu

Gheba

Jitaru

2022

Higher Education in Romania: Overcoming Challenges and Embracing Opportunities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance-based funding has a long experience of debates and implementation in Romania, distinguishing three main stages of refinement in its implementation, starting with 2002. The actual form is similar starting with 2016, an important share of Romanian higher education funding for teaching activities in public universities (26.5%) being distributed according to quality indicators (applied by field of study). Given that the main objective of this mechanism is to reward performance, as well as to assure a more transparent and predictable resource allocation, the aim of this paper is to identify how this allocation mechanism actually worked over the past five years. The performance-based criteria employed in the supplementary funding component cover four main categories: teaching/learning, scientific research/artistic creation, international orientation, regional orientation & social equity. According to the national funding allocation mechanism, each quality indicator is assigned a share of the total funding, with the final distribution being determined by each institutions performance score relative to the others in the same scientific field. The paper unfolds the evolution of this systems implementation in the five years since its adoption (2016–2020) and presents the main results of a preliminary analysis. We also explore the extent to which certain characteristics of universities, such as their size or their dominant field of study, impact the resulting distribution of funds. This paper results may enrich and contribute to the larger national and international debate on performance-based funding and quality assurance in higher education.

show abstract

“…This has been alluded to by Andreescu et al (2015), Miroiu et al (2015) and Andreescu et al (2012) and is primarily a consequence of the fact that the classification was based on the composite scores of university performance which were sorted in descending order and clustered in accordance with predefined thresholds. Moreover, the classification relied on the research scores obtained by the constituent study programs of the universities and, therefore, on the partial results of the ranking process of these programs.…”

Section: The Romanian Policy Of Classification and Rankingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research-driven classification and ranking in higher education: an empirical appraisal of a Romanian policy experience

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we investigate the problem of university classification and its relation to ranking practices in the policy context of an official evaluation of Romanian higher education institutions and their study programs. We first discuss the importance of research in the government-endorsed assessment process and analyze the evaluation methodology and the results it produced. Based on official documents and data we show that the Romanian classification of universities was implicitly hierarchical in its conception and therefore also produced hierarchical results due to its close association with the ranking of study programs and its heavy reliance on research outputs. Then, using a distinct dataset on the research performance of 1385 faculty members working in the fields of political science, sociology and marketing we further explore the differences between university categories. We find that our alternative assessment of research productivity-measured with the aid of Hirsch's (Proc Natl Acad Sci 102 (46):16569-16572, 2005) h-index and with Egghe's (Scientometrics 69(1):131-152, 2006) g-index-only provides empirical support for a dichotomous classification of Romanian institutions.

show abstract

Ranking Romanian academic departments in three fields of study using theg-index

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

Ranking Chemical Engineering Departments in Turkey Based on Academic Performance

Ranking Chemical Engineering Departments in Turkey Based on Academic Performance

Performance-Based Funding—The Romanian Experience of the Last Five Years (2016–2020)

Research-driven classification and ranking in higher education: an empirical appraisal of a Romanian policy experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About