Dataset Information

Global network centrality of university rankings.

ABSTRACT: Universities and higher education institutions form an integral part of the national infrastructure and prestige. As academic research benefits increasingly from international exchange and cooperation, many universities have increased investment in improving and enabling their global connectivity. Yet, the relationship of university performance and its global physical connectedness has not been explored in detail. We conduct, to our knowledge, the first large-scale data-driven analysis into whether there is a correlation between university relative ranking performance and its global connectivity via the air transport network. The results show that local access to global hubs (as measured by air transport network betweenness) strongly and positively correlates with the ranking growth (statistical significance in different models ranges between 5% and 1% level). We also found that the local airport's aggregate flight paths (degree) and capacity (weighted degree) has no effect on university ranking, further showing that global connectivity distance is more important than the capacity of flight connections. We also examined the effect of local city economic development as a confounding variable and no effect was observed suggesting that access to global transportation hubs outweighs economic performance as a determinant of university ranking. The impact of this research is that we have determined the importance of the centrality of global connectivity and, hence, established initial evidence for further exploring potential connections between university ranking and regional investment policies on improving global connectivity.

SUBMITTER: Guo W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5666288 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global network centrality of university rankings.

Guo Weisi W Del Vecchio Marco M Pogrebna Ganna G

Royal Society open science 20171004 10

Universities and higher education institutions form an integral part of the national infrastructure and prestige. As academic research benefits increasingly from international exchange and cooperation, many universities have increased investment in improving and enabling their global connectivity. Yet, the relationship of university performance and its global physical connectedness has not been explored in detail. We conduct, to our knowledge, the first large-scale data-driven analysis into whet ...[more]

PMID: 29134105

Similar Datasets

Project description:Backround. University rankings are getting very high international media attention, this holds particularly true for the Times Higher Education Ranking (THE) and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University's Academic Ranking of World Universities Ranking (ARWU). We therefore aimed to investigate how reliable the rankings are, especially for universities with lower ranking positions, that often show inconclusive year-to-year fluctuations in their rank, and if these rankings are thus a suitable basis for management purposes. Methods. We used the public available data from the web pages of the THE and the ARWU ranking to analyze the dynamics of change in score and ranking position from year to year, and we investigated possible causes for inconsistent fluctuations in the rankings by the means of regression analyses. Results. Regression analyses of results from the THE and ARWU from 2010-2014 show inconsistent fluctuations in the rank and score for universities with lower rank positions (below position 50) which lead to inconsistent "up and downs" in the total results, especially in the THE and to a lesser extent also in the ARWU. In both rankings, the mean year-to-year fluctuation of universities in groups of 50 universities aggregated by descending rank increases from less than 10% in the group of the 50 highest ranked universities to up to 60% in the group of the lowest ranked universities. Furthermore, year-to-year results do not correspond in THES- and ARWU-Rankings for universities below rank 50. Discussion. We conclude that the observed fluctuations in the THE do not correspond to actual university performance and ranking results are thus of limited conclusiveness for the university management of universities below a rank of 50. While the ARWU rankings seems more robust against inconsistent fluctuations, its year to year changes in the scores are very small, so essential changes from year to year could not be expected. Furthermore, year-to-year results do not correspond in THES- and ARWU-Rankings for universities below rank 50. Neither the THES nor the ARWU offer great value as a tool for university management in their current forms for universities ranked below 50, thus we suggest that both rankings alter their ranking procedure insofar as universities below position 50 should be ranked summarized only in groups of 25 or 50. Additionally, the THE should omit the peer reputation survey, which most likely contributes heavily to the inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations in ranks, and ARWU should be published less often to increase its validity.

Project description:Concerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when examining quality and outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate usefulness of ranking systems and identify opportunities to support research quality and performance improvement.A systematic review of university ranking systems was conducted to investigate research performance and academic quality measures. Eligibility requirements included: inclusion of at least 100 doctoral granting institutions, be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include both global and US universities, publish rank calculation methodology in English and independently calculate ranks. Ranking systems must also include some measures of research outcomes. Indicators were abstracted and contrasted with basic quality improvement requirements. Exploration of aggregation methods, validity of research and academic quality indicators, and suitability for quality improvement within ranking systems were also conducted.A total of 24 ranking systems were identified and 13 eligible ranking systems were evaluated. Six of the 13 rankings are 100% focused on research performance. For those reporting weighting, 76% of the total ranks are attributed to research indicators, with 24% attributed to academic or teaching quality. Seven systems rely on reputation surveys and/or faculty and alumni awards. Rankings influence academic choice yet research performance measures are the most weighted indicators. There are no generally accepted academic quality indicators in ranking systems.No single ranking system provides a comprehensive evaluation of research and academic quality. Utilizing a combined approach of the Leiden, Thomson Reuters Most Innovative Universities, and the SCImago ranking systems may provide institutions with a more effective feedback for research improvement. Rankings which extensively rely on subjective reputation and "luxury" indicators, such as award winning faculty or alumni who are high ranking executives, are not well suited for academic or research performance improvement initiatives. Future efforts should better explore measurement of the university research performance through comprehensive and standardized indicators. This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of university ranking systems are used in efforts to improve academic prominence and research performance.

Dataset Information

Global network centrality of university rankings.

Publications

Global network centrality of university rankings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure