publication . Article . 2011

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

Mu-hsuan Huang;
Open Access Chinese
  • Published: 01 Jun 2011 Journal: Journal of Library and Information Studies (issn: 1606-7509, eissn: 1606-7509, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: National Taiwan University
Abstract
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 resul...
Subjects
free text keywords: world universities, performance ranking, scientific papers, research evaluation, Bibliography. Library science. Information resources, Z
35 references, page 1 of 3

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. [OpenAIRE]

Aguillo, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243-256.

B o o k s t e i n, F., S e i d l e r, H., F i e d e r, M., & Winckler, G. (2010). Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 295-299.

Buela-Casal, G., Gutiérrez-Martínez, O., B e r m ú d e z-S á n c h e z, M., & Va d i l l oMuñoz, O. (2007). Comparative study of international academic rankings of u n i v e r s i t i e s. S c i e n t o m e t r i c s , 7 1(3), 349-365.

C a m p b e l l, D. F. J. (2002). C o n c e p t u a l framework for the evaluation of university research in Europe. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.gwu.edu/~cistp/ research/publications/campbell_2002.pdf

Daniel, H. D., & Fisch, R. (1990). Research performance evaluation in the German university sector. Scientometrics, 19(5-6), 349-361.

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. t w/e n-u s/2008%20b y%20f i e l d/p a g e/ methodology

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

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

Hong, D. R. (2009). A critical study on the university and academic assessment system in Korea. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 10(2), 292-302.

Huang, M. H. (2005). Research evaluation of research-oriented universities in Taiwan. Bulletin of Library and Information Science, 55, 9-23. [Text in Chinese]

Huang, Z. J. (2003). Controversial issues o f a c a d e m i c e v a l u a t i o n. Te a c h e r Welfare 438. Retrieved May 30, 2008, f r o m h t t p://w e b.n u t n.e d u.t w/g a c110/ p r e s i d e n t s a y/20031115.d o c. [Te x t i n Chinese]

Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 28-32.

L i u, N. C., C h e n g, Y., & L i u, L. (2005). Academic ranking of world universities using scientometrics - A comment to the “Fatal Attraction”. Scientometrics, 64(1), 101-109.

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. [Text in Chinese]

35 references, page 1 of 3
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue