Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study describes the basic methodological approach and the results of URAP-TR, the first national ranking system for Turkish universities. URAP-TR is based on objective bibliometric data resources and includes both size-dependent and size-independent indicators that balance total academic performance with performance per capita measures. In the context of Turkish national university rankings, the paper discusses the implications of employing multiple size-independent and size-dependent indicators on national university rankings. Fine-grained ranking categories for Turkish universities are identified through an analysis of ranking results across multiple indicators.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al, U., Şahiner, M., & Tonta, Y. (2006). Arts and humanities literature: Bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskurt, O. K. (2011). Time series analysis of publication counts of a university: What are the implications? Scientometrics, 86(3), 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergerson, A. A. (2009). Special Issue: College choice and access to college: Moving policy, research, and practice to the 21st Century. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(4), 1–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of US News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broto, C., & Ruiz, E. (2004). Estimation methods for stochastic volatility models: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(5), 613–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartter, A. M., & Sawyer, R. A. (1966). An assessment of quality in graduate education. Physics Today, 19, 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, J. M. (1906a). American men of science. Utrecht: Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, J. M. (1906b). A statistical study of American men of science III. Science, 24(623), 732–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(20), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, H. (1904). A study of British genius. London: Hurst and Blackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galton, F. (1875). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. New York City: D. Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokceoglu, C., Okay, A. I., & Sezer, E. (2008). International earth science literature from Turkey—1970–2005: Trends and possible causes. Scientometrics, 74(3), 409–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the US News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995–2004. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 244–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gossart, C., & Özman, M. (2009). Co-authorship networks in social sciences: The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78(2), 323–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gülgöz, S., Yedekçioğlu, Ö. A., & Yurtsever, E. (2002). Turkey’s output in social science publications: 1970-1999. Scientometrics, 55(1), 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking system on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M. (1925). A study of the graduate schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University.

    Google Scholar 

  • InCites. (2013). Total number of documents published by Turkey in 2007-2011 for ESI subject categories. Thomson Reuters. http://incites.isiknowledge.com/.

  • Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2007). College and university ranking systems: Global perspectives and American challenges. Washington, DC: IHEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. V., Lindzey, G., & Coggeshall, P. E. (1982). An assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States: Social and behavioral sciences. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., Yi, Y., Guo, X., & Qi, W. (2012). Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: Based on a two-dimensional approach. Scientometrics, 90(2), 531–542. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0544-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N. C., & Liu, L. (2005). University rankings in China. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lykes, R. W. (1975). Higher education and the United States Office of Education (1867-1953). Superintendent of Documents, U.S: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, A. H. H. (1900). Where we get our best men: Some statistics showing their nationalities, counties, towns, schools, universities, and other antecedents, 1837-1897. Marshall, Hamilton: Simpking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean’s. (2012). Maclean’s ranking indicators – Maclean’s On Campus. Retrieved May 24, 2013, from http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/11/02/macleans-ranking-indicators-2/.

  • Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sponsler, B. A. (2009). The Role and Relevance of Rankings in Higher Education Policymaking. Institute for Higher Education Policy: Issue Brief.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolz, I., Hendel, D. D., & Horn, A. S. (2010). Ranking of rankings: Benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe. Higher Education, 60(5), 507–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2007). A global survey of university ranking and league tables. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzun, A. (1990). A quantitative analysis of Turkish publication output in physics between 1938–1987. Scientometrics, 19(1), 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Wegner, E. L. (1967). The relationship of college characteristics to graduation. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., Bergstrom, T., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores: Don’t let correlation coefficients fool you. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1800–1807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Cai, F. (2009). Food demand and nutritional elasticity in poor rural areas of China. In China’s Economy: Rural Reform and Agricultural Development (Vol. 1, pp. 309–335). World Scientific.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this article has been partially supported by METU Scientific Research Projects BAP-08-11-2012-008 ‘Academic Performance of World Universities’. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Informatics Institute, Middle East Technical University, Üniversiteler Mah Dumlupınar Blvd. Çankaya, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Oğuzhan Alaşehir, Murat Perit Çakır, Cengiz Acartürk, Nazife Baykal & Ural Akbulut

Authors
  1. Oğuzhan Alaşehir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Murat Perit Çakır
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cengiz Acartürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nazife Baykal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ural Akbulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat Perit Çakır.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alaşehir, O., Çakır, M.P., Acartürk, C. et al. URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance. Scientometrics 101, 159–178 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1333-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1333-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation