Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently there are many organizations conducting projects on ranking world universities from different perspectives. These ranking activities have made impacts and caused controversy. This study does not favor using bibliometric indicators to evaluate universities’ performances, but not against the idea either. We regard these ranking activities as important phenomena and aim to investigate correlation of different ranking systems taking bibliometric approach. Four research questions are discussed: (1) the inter-correlation among different ranking systems; (2) the intra-correlation within ranking systems; (3) the correlation of indicators across ranking systems; and (4) the impact of different citation indexes on rankings. The preliminary results show that 55 % of top 200 universities are covered in all ranking systems. The rankings of ARWU and PRSPWU show stronger correlation. With inclusion of another ranking, WRWU (2009–2010), these rankings tend to converge. In addition, intra-correlation is significant and this means that it is possible to find out some ranking indicators with high degree of discriminativeness or representativeness. Finally, it is found that there is no significant impact of using different citation indexes on the ranking results for top 200 universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altbach, P. (2006). The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education, 42, 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billaut, J. C., Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (2009). Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view. Scientometrics, 72(1), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, F. L., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., & Winckler, G. (2010). Too much noise in the times higher education rankings. Scientometrics, 85, 295–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cybermetrics Lab, Centro de CienciasHumanas y Sociales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (2011) Webometrics ranking of world universities. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.webometrics.info/.

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Globalization, internationalization, and rankings. International Higher Education, 53, 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (2011) Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities—2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/.

  • Holmes, R. (2006). The THES university rankings: are they really world class? Asian Journal of University Education, 2(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, Y. Q., Morse, R., & Jiang, Z. L. (2011). Analyzing the movement of ranking order in world universities’ rankings: how to understand and use universities’ rankings effectively to draw up a universities’ development strategy. Evaluation Bimonthly, 30, 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. X. (2009). Exposing the black box of the ranking of the Times higher education supplement. Evaluation Bimonthly, 22, 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. X. (2011). The comparison of performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities and other ranking systems. Evaluation Bimonthly, 29, 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Ranking Expert Group (2006) Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions. Retrieved Nov 29, 2011, from http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf.

  • Ioannidis, A., Patsopoulos, N., Kavvoura, F., Tatsioni, A., Evangenlou, E., Kouri, I., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D., & Liberopoulous, G. (2007). International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. BMC Medicine, 5 (30). Retrieved Nov 29, 2011, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174504/.

  • Lawani, S. M. (1981). Bibliometrics: its theoretical foundations methods and applications. Libri, 31(4), 294–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W. Q. (2008). How to look upon universities’ rankings? Evaluation Bimonthly, 13, 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2007) Global university rankings: where to from here? Communication to the Asia-Pacific Association for International Education, National University of Singapore, 7–9, March, 2007. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://mt.educarchile.cl/mt/jjbrunner/archives/APAIE_090307_Marginson.pdf.

  • MINES ParisTech (2010) International professional ranking of higher education institutions: 2007, 2008, 2009. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.html.

  • Qiu, J. P. (2009). Practice, features, and analysis in evaluating 2009 world class universities and research institutions. Evaluation and Management, 7(2), 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • RatER.(2010). Global universities ranking. Retrieved Jan 3, 2010, from http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/.

  • Shanghai Ranking Consultancy & Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2011) Academic ranking of world universities: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved Nov 22, 2011, from http://www.arwu.org/.

  • The Times Higher Education Supplement (2011) World university rankings: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2011, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/.

  • Van Raan, A. (2005). Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J., Moed, H. F., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (2006). License to Rank. Coimbra Group Annual MeetingUniversity of Tartu. Retrieved Nov 3, 2010, from http://www.ut.ee/coimbra2006/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=166720/TartuWebsite.pdf.

  • Vo, B. T., Sreeram, V., & Vo, B. N. (2010). On the assessment of university research impact: towards simplicity, transparency and fairness. TECH REPT. Retrieved Nov 3, 2010, from http://www.highimpactuniversities.com/uwarpi2010-article.pdf.

  • Williams, R. (2008). Methodology, meaning, and usefulness of rankings. Australian Universities’ Review, 50(2), 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., Pan, Y., & Wu, Y. (2008).Two new indicators to compare different evaluation methods’ effect. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 3, 135–140. Retrieved Feb 24, 2012, from http://image.sciencenet.cn/olddata/kexue.com.cn/upload/blog/file/2008/10/200810592044466910.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions. The authors would like to thank Professor Szu-chia Lo for her invaluable help in reviewing the draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, National Taiwan University, 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt RD, Taipei, 10617, Taiwan

    Kuang-hua Chen & Pei-yu Liao

Authors
  1. Kuang-hua Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pei-yu Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuang-hua Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, Kh., Liao, Py. A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey. Scientometrics 92, 89–103 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0724-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0724-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation