Ranking and classification of universities  based on advanced bibliometric mapping
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 52

Hariolf Grupp 3 July 1950 – 20 January 2009 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Ranking and classification of universities  based on advanced bibliometric mapping Leiden University 3rd International Symposium on University Rankings February 6-7, 2009 Anthony F.J. van Raan Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden University.

Download Presentation

Hariolf Grupp 3 July 1950 – 20 January 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Ranking and classification of universities  based on advanced bibliometric mappingLeiden University 3rd International Symposium on University RankingsFebruary 6-7, 2009Anthony F.J. van RaanCenter for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden University


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Hariolf Grupp 3 July 1950 – 20 January 2009


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Contents of this presentation:

Indicators and Ranking

Classification

Benchmarking

Some fascinating statistics

Latest developments


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

CWTS has a unique bibliometric data-system:

1000 universities worldwide are defined and ‘unified’

as accurate as possible;

For these universities all bibliometric indicators are

calculated and updated,

for the universities as a whole (average over all fields) and for each

of the 16 main fields: Ranking

Comparison any of these universities with any selection:

Benchmarking

There are in the world ~500 largest

universities with P > 700/y


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Leiden Ranking 2009properties1. Target: Universities, worldwideEurope now on the internet, World will followExtension with non-university institutions2. Activity: Research3. Method: Bibliometric analysis (100%)New approaches necessary to cover engineering, social sciences and humanities more adequatelynon-journal: political science, economy, psychology


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

4. Time period2000-2007 (now on the internet) latest version 2003-2007 next month 2004-2008 on the internet5. IndicatorsP, P(0), C, CPP, CPP/FCSm, P*CPP/FCSm, P(t=20, 10, 5, 1%), largest 100, 2506. Differentiation into 16 main fieldsclinical medicine, chemistry,….psychology, humanities7. Benchmarking with universities of choice LERU, US universities,…8. Profiles for each benchmark university


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Leiden Ranking 2000-2007, EU Top-100 rank by P, yellow list, first 30


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Position 30-50….


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Problem of field-specific representation


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Problem of language


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Is the difference in chosen variable (e.g., impact) between University A

with rank 12 and University B with rank 14 significant?

Most probably NOT

Is therefore the concept of ranking useless?

Certainly NOT

The ranking is mathematically equivalent to the distribution function which contains crucial statistical information


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Leiden Ranking 2000-2007, EU Top-100 rank by CPP, blue list, first 30


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Position 30-50….


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Field normalizationCPP >> CPP/FCSm is absolutely necessary butCPP: is as it is….. FCSm: do we apply the right field-specific normalization?Problems: size of the field, appropriateness of the WoS-category, role of underlying distribution function (>small non-linearity)?


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

From basic to applied


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Leiden Ranking 2000-2007, EU Top-100 rank by CPP/FCSm, green list, first 30


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Position 30-50….


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Fatal attraction


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Leiden Ranking 2000-2007, EU Top-100 rank by P*{CPP/FCSm}, orange list, first 30


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

250 European Universities with P(y) > 350

Top-20 in ‘size’, Physics, ranked by crown indicator’

Ranking by field >>>

Field-specific benchmarking universities by field


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Current and recent benchmark projects

Manchester, Leiden, Heidelberg, Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Zürich,

Lisbon UNL, Amsterdam UvA,

Amsterdam VU, Southampton

Gent, Antwerp, Brussels VUB, UC London, Aarhus

Examples:


How bibliometric classification works

This classification addresses all important aspects concerning size, international scientific influence (both by field!) and disciplinary width

How bibliometric classification works

disciplinary spectrum

impact

size


Large broad european university

Large, Broad EuropeanUniversity

Focus: top 25 % in

publication output

and citation impact

Top 25%

Impact

ranking

Bottom 25%

Bottom 25%

Top 25%

Publ.ranking


Top research university

‘Top’ research university

Top 25%

University has

a top position

in each discipline

Impact

ranking

large university

smaller university

Bottom 25%

Publ.ranking

Bottom 25%

Top 25%


Smaller specialized european university

Smaller Specialized EuropeanUniversity

Top 25%

ECON

MATH

Specialized in Economy and related fields

Among top 25 % in

citation impact, but in the lower-50% of publication output

Impact

ranking

PSYCH

Bottom 25%

Bottom 25%

Top 25%

Publ.ranking


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Latest developments - 1

Of all 16 main fields aresearch forefront mapis constructed:

*2003-2007

*Only the top-10%-impact publications

*Chemistry & Chemical Engineering

*All European universities are positioned on this map in size and in impact

http://studies.cwts.nl/projects/leiden-ranking-2009


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Latest developments – 2

We add a new research indicator: university-industry collaboration (UI intensity)

P(UI)/P for the following fields


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Latest developments – 3

Worldwide ranking including all other novelties

http://studies.cwts.nl/projects/leiden-ranking-2009


Hariolf grupp 3 july 1950 20 january 2009

Thank you for your attention


  • Login