题名

A Comparison of Three Major Academic Rankings for World Universities: From a Research Evaluation Perspective

DOI

10.6182/jlis.2011.9(1).001

作者

Mu-Hsuan Huang

关键词

World Universities ； Performance Ranking ； Scientific Papers ； Research Evaluation

期刊名称

圖書資訊學刊

卷期/出版年月

9卷1期（2011 / 06 / 01）

页次

1 - 25

内容语文

英文
英文摘要

This paper introduces three current major university ranking systems. The Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities by Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT Ranking) emphasizes both the quality and quantity of research and current research performance. The Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Jiao Tung University (ARWU) focuses on outstanding performance of universities with indicators such as Nobel Prize winners. The QS World University Ranking (2004-2009) by Times Higher Education (THE-QS) emphasizes on peer review with high weighting in evaluation. This paper compares the 2009 ranking results from the three ranking systems. Differences exist in the top 20 universities in three ranking systems except the Harvard University, which scored top one in all of the three rankings. Comparisons also revealed that the THE-QS favored UK universities. Further, obvious differences can be observed between THE-QS and the other two rankings when ranking results of some European countries (Germany, UK, Netherlands, & Switzerland) and Chinese speaking regions were compared.
主题分类 人文學 > 圖書資訊學
参考文献
  1. Huang, M. H.(2005).Research evaluation of research-oriented universities in Taiwan.Bulletin of Library and Information Science,55,9-23.
    連結：
  2. Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan (2008). Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities 2008. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2008%20by%20field/page/methodology
  3. Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (2009b).Ranking methodology. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.arwu.org/ARWUFieldMethodology2009.jsp
  4. Campbell, D. F. J. (2002). Conceptual framework for the evaluation of university research in Europe. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.gwu.edu/~cistp/research/publications/campbell_2002.pdf
  5. Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan (2009b). Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities 2009. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2009/TOP/100
  6. Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (2009c).Ranking methodology. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.arwu.org/ARWUSubjectMethodology2009.jsp
  7. Times Higher Education (2009). Top 200 world universities. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=438
  8. Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (2009d). Academic ranking of world universities- 2009. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp
  9. Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan (2009a). Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities 2009. Retrieved September 2,2010, from http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/zh-tw/2009/Page/Methodology
  10. Shanghai Ranking Consultancy (2009a).Ranking methodology. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2009.jsp
  11. Times Higher Education (2010). Robust, transparent and sophisticated. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/worldu-niversity-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html
  12. Aguillo, I.,Bar-Ilan, J.,Levene, M.,Ortega, J.(2010).Comparing university rankingsScientometrics.Scientometrics,85(1),243-256.
  13. Aksnes, D. W.,Taxt, R. E.(2004).Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university.Research Evaluation,13(1),33-41.
  14. Bookstein, F.,Seidler, H.,Fieder, M.,Winckler, G.(2010).Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings.Scientometrics,85(1),295-299.
  15. Buela-Casal, G.,Gutiérrez-Martínez, O.,Bermúdez-Sánchez, M.,Vadillo-Muñoz, O.(2007).Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities.Scientometrics,71(3),349-365.
  16. Daniel, H. D.,Fisch, R.(1990).Research performance evaluation in the German university sector.Scientometrics,19(5-6),349-361.
  17. Hong, D. R.(2009).A critical study on the university and academic assessment system in Korea.Inter-Asia Cultural Studies,10(2),292-302.
  18. Huang, Z. J.(2003).Controversial issues of academic evaluation.Teacher Welfare,438
  19. Kokko, H.,Sutherland, W. J.(1999).What do impact factors tell us?.Trends in Ecology and Evolution,14,382-384.
  20. Kruytbosch, C. E.(1989).The role and effectiveness of peer review.The evaluation of scientific research,Chichester,N. Y.:
  21. Leimu, R.,Koricheva, J.(2005).What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers?.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,20(1),28-32.
  22. Liu, N. C.,Cheng, Y.,Liu, L.(2005).Academic ranking of world universities using scientometrics - A comment to the "Fatal Attraction".Scientometrics,64(1),101-109.
  23. Liu, Y.(1998).Problem pedigree comparison method of peer review: A new approach of peer review.Studies in Dialectics of Nature,14(10),32-36.
  24. Makino, J.(1998).Productivity of research groups: Relation between citation analysis and reputation within research communities.Scientometrics,43(1),87-93.
  25. Meho, L. I.,Sonnenwald, D. H.(2000).Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: A case study of Kurdish scholarship.Journalof the American Society for InformationScience,51(2),123-138.
  26. Norris, M.,Oppenheim, C.(2003).Citation counts and the research assessment exercise V: Archaeology and the 2001 RAE.Journal of Documentation,59(6),709-730.
  27. Rinia, E. J.,van Leeuwen, Th. N.,van Vuren, H. G.,van Raan, A. F. J.(1998).Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands.Research Policy,27(1),95-107.
  28. S o, C. Y. K.(1998).Citationranking versus expert judgment in evaluating communication scholars: Effects of research specialty size and individual prominence.Scientometrics,41(3),325-333.
  29. Staropoli, A.(1987).The comite national d' evaluation: Preliminary results of a French experiment.European Journal of Education,22(2),123-131.
  30. Thomas, P. R.,Watkins, D. S.(1998).Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: A comparative case study with policy implications.Scientometrics,41(3),335-355.
  31. van Leeuwen, T. N.,Moed, H. F.,Reedijk, J.(1999).Critical comments on institute for scientific information impact factors: A sample of inorganic molecular chemistry journals.Journal of Information Science,25(6),489-498.
  32. van Raan, A. F. J.(1996).Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises.Scientometrics,36(3),397-420.
  33. van Raan, A. F. J.(2005).Fatal attraction: Conceptualand methodlogical problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods.Scientometrics,62(1),133-143.
  34. Weingart, P.(2005).Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?.Scientometrics,62(1),117-131.
  35. Wong, B. B. M.,Kokko, H.(2005).Is science as global as we think?.Trends in Ecology & Evolution,20(9),475-476.
被引用次数
  1. Liang-Yuh Ouyang,Farrah Pei-Chen Chang(2018).Trend Models on the Academic Ranking of World Universities.International Journal of Information and Management Sciences,29(1),35-56.
  2. 阮明淑、余詠南(2013)。傳播學門之教師與碩士研究主題之網絡分析初探。圖書資訊學刊，11(1)，131-165。
  3. 張天心、林奇秀(2017)。非戰之罪：研究評鑑制度下台灣社會學學術專書論著之困境。教育資料與圖書館學，54(2)，135-160。
  4. (2012).World University Rankings: What Is in for Top Ten East Asian Universities?.教育曙光,60(2),36-50.
print cancel