Abstract
For a long time, rankings overused in evaluating Chinese universities’ research performance. The relationship between research production and research quality hasn’t been taken seriously in ranking systems. Most university rankings in China put more weight on research production rather than research quality. Recently, the developmental strategy of Chinese universities has shifted from ‘quantity’ to ‘quality’. As a result, a two-dimensional approach was developed in this article to balance ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’. The research production index and the research quality index were produced to locate research universities (RU) from Mainland China, Hong Kong (HK) and Taiwan (TW) in the two-dimensional graph. Fifty-nine RU were classified into three categories according to their locations, which indicated the relevant level of research performance. University of Hong Kong, National Taiwan University, Tsing Hua University and Peking University appeared to be leading universities in research performance. The result showed that the mainland universities were generally of higher research production and lower research quality than HK and TW universities, and proved that the merging tides of Chinese universities enlarged their research production while causing a low level of research quality as well.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Costa, F. D. (2011). Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? Scientometrics, 88(3), 915–928.
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69, 169–173.
Calero-Medina, C., López-Illescas, C., Visser, M. S., & Moed, H. F. (2008). Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: An example from oncology. Research Evaluation, 17, 71–81.
Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32, 377–390.
Enserink, M. (2007). Who ranks the university rankers? Science, 317, 1026–1028.
Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 325–335.
Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2008). A new generation of relational charts for comparative assessment of citation impact. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56, 373–379.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.
Huang, M. H. (2008). Application of H-index for research evaluation at university level. Evaluation in Higher Education, 1, 31–50.
Jin, B. H., Rousseau, R., & Sun, X. X. (2006). Key Labs and Open Labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Their role in the national and international scientific arena. Scientometrics, 67(1), 3–14.
Kostoff, R. N. (2008). Comparison of China/USA science and technology performance. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 354–363.
Moed, H. F. (2000). Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics, 47, 323–346.
Moed, H. F. (2002a). Measuring China’s research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 53(3), 281–296.
Moed, H. F. (2002b). The impact factors debate: The ISI’s uses and limits. Nature, 415, 731–732.
Moed, H. F. (2008). UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153–161.
Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57, 13–18.
Saad, G. (2006). Exploring the H-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively. Scientometrics, 69, 117–120.
The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). (2010a). Retrieved from http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp. Accessed 15 April 2011.
The Methodology of Carnegie Classifications. (2010). Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/methodology/basic.php. Accessed 27 April 2011.
The Methodology of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). (2010b). Retrieved from http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2010.jsp. Accessed 15 April 2011.
The Methodology of the QS World University Rankings. (2010a). Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/methodology/data-indicators. Accessed 14 April 2011.
The Methodology of the World University Rankings by Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). (2010a). Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html. Accessed 14 April 2011.
The QS World University Rankings. (2010b). Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings. Accessed 14 April 2011.
The World University Rankings by Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). (2010b). Retrieved from THES http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/. Accessed 14 April 2011.
Torres-Salinas, D., Moreno-Torres, J. G., Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). A methodology for Institution-Field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: The IFQ2A index. Scientometrics, 88(3), 771–786.
Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62, 133–143.
Zhang, D. X., Banker, R. D., Li, X. X., & Liu, W. B. (2011). Performance impact of research policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Research Policy, 40, 875–885.
Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.
Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2009). Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output. Scientometrics, 81, 839–857.
Zhu, X., Wu, Q., Zheng, Y. Z., & Ma, X. (2004). Highly cited research papers and the evaluation of a research university: A case study: Peking University 1974–2003. Scientometrics, 60(2), 237–247.
Acknowledgments
Dr. Wei Wang and Dr. Mi Zhou in Institute of Higher Education Research at University of Science and Technology of China gave substantial advises on the research topic and helped in improving the English writing. We also acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, F., Yi, Y., Guo, X. et al. Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach. Scientometrics 90, 531–542 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0544-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0544-1