Comparative Study of Research Performance and Innovation-Industry Indicators in National and International University Ranking Systems
Journal of Medical Library and Information Science,
Vol. 3 No. 3 (2022),
29 January 2022
,
Page 1-11
https://doi.org/10.22037/jmlis.v3i.38107
Abstract
Introduction: There are different national and international university ranking systems in the world which rank universities in terms of numerous metrics. Previous studies have investigated some educational and research indicators, but research and innovation metrics have not yet been compared. The present study aimed to compare research performance and innovation-industry indicators in the national and international university ranking systems based on measured dimensions, data extraction sources, and find the highest innovational and research-oriented ranking systems than others.
Methods: This cross-sectional study covered the 2020 edition of each ranking, and the data were collected in January 2021. According to the inclusion criteria, 20 national and international university rankings were selected among 75 ranking systems. This study used a thematic method for data analysis.
Results: Among 20 included university rankings in the study, 17 were international and three national university rankings that all have research performance indicators, and seven of them applied innovation-industry indicators. The highest research-oriented rankings were CWTS, NTU, U.S. News, URAP, and Research Excellence Framework. The highest innovative-industrial-oriented rankings were U-Multilink and Scivision. The U-Multilink and the Scivision were the most research and innovative-industry-oriented rankings, among others.
Conclusion: The international university rankings are more innovational and research-oriented than national rankings. So, the national university rankings must introduce new national research and innovation-industry indicators for their universities' performance evaluation.
- Research performance
- Innovation
- Industry
- Indicator
- University rankings
How to Cite
References
Rauhvargers A. Global university rankings and their impact. Brussels: European University Association [Book on the Internet]; 2011 [cited 2021 Feb 20]. Available from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/EUA_seminar_June_2011/76/5/Rankings_Seminar_Rauhvargers_Presentation_of_Report_607765.pdf
Safón V. What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity. Scientometrics. 2013 March;97(2):223-244. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-0986-8
Moed HF. A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics. 2016 December;110(2):967-990. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2212-y
Saisana M, d’Hombres B, Saltelli A. Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Res Policy. 2011 February;40(1):165-177. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.003
Soh K. The seven deadly sins of world university ranking: A summary from several papers. J Higher Educ Pol Manage. 2017 November;39(1):104-115. doi: 10.1080/1360080x.2016.1254431
Marconi G, Ritzen J. Determinants of international university rankings scores. Appl Econ. 2015 August;47(57):6211-6227. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2015.1068921
Van Raan AF. Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics. 2005 January;62(1):133-143. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6
Soh KC, Ho KK. A tale of two cities’ university rankings: Comparing Hong Kong and Singapore. High Educ. 2014 March;68(5):773-787. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9743-z
Çakır MP, Acartürk C, Alaşehir O, Çilingir C. A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics. 2015 April;103(3):813-848. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1586-6
Tijssen RJ, Yegros-Yegros A, Winnink JJ. University–industry R&D linkage metrics: Validity and applicability in world university rankings. Scientometrics. 2016 August;109(2):677-696. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2098-8
Dill DD, Soo M. Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. High Educ. 2005 June;49(4):495-533. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-1746-8
Usher A, Savino M. A global survey of rankings and league tables. College and university ranking systems. Global perspectives and American challenges. 2007. P. 1-18. doi: 10.1163/9789087908164_002
Taylor P, Braddock R. International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. J Higher Educ Pol Manage. 2008 Jun;29(3):245-60. doi: 10.1080/13600800701457855
Kiraka R, Maringe F, Kanyutu W, Mogaji E. University league tables and ranking systems in Africa: Emerging prospects, challenges and opportunities. 2020. doi: 10.4324/9780429325816-15
Osareh F, Farajpahlou A, Rahimi F, ParsaeiMohammadi P. A study of the criteria and indicators of the National University Ranking Systems. Sci Res J [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Feb 20]; 5(10):1-22. [In Persian]. Available from: http://rsci.shahed.ac.ir/article_874_a0cb19de652ff7d37a2f63f73e1fd317.pdf?lang=en
Fernandes G, O’Sullivan D. Benefits management in university-industry collaboration programs. Int J Project Manage. 2021 January;39(1):71-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.10.002
Steinmo M, Rasmussen E. The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Res Policy. 2018 December;47(10):1964-74. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.004
Tseng F-C, Huang M-H, Chen D-Z. Factors of university–industry collaboration affecting university innovation performance. J Technol Transf. 2018 February;45(2):560-577. doi: 10.1007/s10961-018-9656-6
Fischer BB, Schaeffer PR, Vonortas NS. Evolution of university-industry collaboration in Brazil from a technology upgrading perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2019 August ;145:330-340. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.001
Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics. 2012 May;94(3):851-872. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9
Chen K, Zhang Y, Fu X. International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies? Res Policy. 2019 February;48(1):149-168. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.005
Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F. Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? High Educ. 2008 April;57(2):155-171. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9139-z
Kwiek M, Roszka W. Gender disparities in international research collaboration: A study of 25,000 university professors. J Econ Surv. 2021 December;35(5):1344-1380. doi: 10.1111/joes.12395
Open Access Australia. What are the different types of open access? [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2021 Feb 20]. Available from: https://oaaustralasia.org/2021/05/25/what-are-the-different-types-of-open-access/
Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W. Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod. 2013;48:10-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006
Speake J, Edmondson S, Nawaz H. Everyday encounters with nature: Students perceptions and use of university campus green spaces. J Stud Res Hum Geogr. 2013;7(1):21-31. doi: 10.5719/hgeo.2013.71.21
Tseng F-C, Huang M-H, Chen D-Z. Factors of university–industry collaboration affecting university innovation performance. J Technol Transf. 2020;45(2):560-577. doi: 10.1007/s10961-018-9656-6
Docampo D, Cram L. On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: The case of the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics. 2015;102(2):1325-1346. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1488-z
Waltman L, van Eck NJ. Field normalization of scientometric indicators. Springer handbook of science and technology indicators: Springer; 2019. p. 281-300. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1801.09985
- Abstract Viewed: 714 times
- e30 (PDF) Downloaded: 238 times
