Figure - uploaded by Erwin Krauskopf
Content may be subject to copyright.
List of Web of Science categories and research areas. For each Web of Science category, the total number of documents (Total docs), article- type documents (Total articles), highly cited papers (Total HCP) is provided. % Articles stands for the proportion of article-type documents while % HCP represents the proportion of highly cited papers. Data was collected for the 2014-2018 time period.
Source publication
Global university rankings have achieved public popularity as they are portrayed as an objective measure of the quality of higher education institutions. One of the latest rankings is the Shanghai Global Ranking of Academic Subjects, which classifies institutions according to five fields-Engineering, Life Sciences, Medical Sciences, Natural Science...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... is puzzling is the fact that 57 WoS categories have not been considered by the Shanghai Global Ranking of Academic Subjects. As Table 1 shows, the vast majority of these WoS categories belong either to Arts & Humanities or Social Sciences. Since this ranking is based on bibliometric data, one could argue that perhaps the number of articles published in these categories is not significant. ...Context 2
... illustrate this, a total of 69,729 articles were published by researchers in the WoS category of History between 2014-2018, compared to 35,842 articles published in Oceanography. Moreover, 14 WoS categories which have not been considered by the Shanghai Global Ranking of Academic Subjects (Table 1), have published more articles that Oceanography in the same time period. Perhaps these WoS categories are excluded because the proportion of published articles is low in comparison to other document types? ...Context 3
... the ranking methodology indicates, only article-type documents are considered to estimate the four indicators (Q1, CNCI, IC and TOP) based on bibliometric data, with an exception in the subject of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, which also considers review-type documents for the assessment of the TOP indicator. Nevertheless, this is not the case as 31 WoS categories have preferentially used article (> 60%) over any other document type as shown in Table 1. But leaving aside the quantity of articles published, various journals publish important article-type "letters" that go well beyond the response to a recently published article (Van-Raan, 2005). ...Similar publications
Currently, we are being invited to reflect on education in its multiple aspects and, in this regard, the continued training of teachers seeks to promote methodological didacticization and educational practices, leading to the most varied perspectives of expanding learning and intellectual production frameworks. That said, this work discusses Contin...
Citations
... Huang et al. (2020) based on a comparative analysis of the three largest databases, revealed discrepancies in bibliometric data, which can significantly affect the positions of universities in the ranking. Krauskopf (2021) based on the analysis of the methodology of ARWU subject rankings, revealed the problem of uneven distribution of Web of Science categories between different ARWU subjects (54 categories are absent altogether). It is noteworthy that most of the criticism of bibliometric data sources related to ARWU and, accordingly, Web of Science. ...
... s associated with QS reputation questionnaires. The ranking methodology suggests that questionnaires can serve as an indicator of university performance, but in fact they are only an indicator of reputation. The return rate and lack of control over experience and qualifications of the respondents casts doubt on the representativeness of the sample.Krauskopf (2021) highlighted arbitrariness of top journals identification (ARWU) among other methodological flaws. ...
We address the question of why global university rankings should not be used for research evaluation. To answer this question, we analyze four groups of literature (academic vs non-academic literature, English-language vs Russian-language literature). The analysis shows that most researchers agree that rankings should not be used to evaluate research. However, they are still used for these purposes directly or indirectly, although recent developments give us hope for a change in the situation in the near future.
... De esta manera, califica la información que ofrecen los rankings como esencial, útil e independiente, (Ramírez et al., 2019), lo cual permite a los tomadores de decisiones comparar a sus instituciones con respecto a otras, identificando fortalezas y debilidades. Es importante tomar en consideración que el uso de rankings ha sido cuestionado como criterio de evaluación de calidad, debido a que presentan deficiencias metodológicas (Serra et al., 2021;Moskovkin et al., 2022), tales como el uso de datos blandos como encuestas de reputación y la presencia de sesgos estructurales que afectan de manera no homogénea los resultados de las universidades de contextos territoriales y educativos diversificados (Marginson y Van-der-Wende, 2007; Williams y Van-Dyke, 2008;Calderón y Franca, 2018;Krauskopf, 2021;Bellantuono et al., 2022;Wut et al., 2022). ...
... (2018),Ganga-Contreras et al. (2020;2021),Ortiz et al. (2021) y desde la perspectiva de los académicos, el trabajo deSuárez-Amaya et al. (2021), aportando antecedentes en la región. ...
Los rankings de universidades son considerados en la actualidad una medida de comparación y posicionamiento entre instituciones,
por lo que su estudio suscita un gran interés. El objetivo principal de esta investigación es analizar comparativamente la percepción que tienen las personas expertas de las universidades de Chile y Venezuela, con respecto a nueve dimensiones y cuatro variables de contexto que utilizan los rankings de universidades, y cómo perciben su influencia en el desempeño institucional. La metodología consiste en el análisis estadístico
de una encuesta aplicada a 189 funcionarios de diversos cargos provenientes de instituciones de educación superior, de los cuales el 41,2 % corresponden a Venezuela y el 58,8 % a Chile, quienes integran un total de 33 instituciones entre ambos países. Los resultados revelan que en
líneas generales no existen diferencias significativas en las dimensiones y variables de contexto identificadas, a excepción de la dimensión de
internacionalización desde la perspectiva de comparación entre países; en segundo lugar, la infraestructura desde la mirada de la esfera de lo público y lo privado. En cuanto a las variables de contexto, la territorialidad resultó ser la más significativa en relación con la condición de
antigüedad en la institución. Se concluye que estos tres aspectos identificados constituyen factores críticos de éxito a promover en los planes estratégicos de las instituciones, de acuerdo con las condiciones particulares de cada institución.
Medical and health sciences are disciplines of paramount importance in academia. Universities face a crucial challenge in training qualified health experts for teaching and research in these disciplines. With the globalization of the higher education system, international university ranking systems are an increasingly used tool to assess the excellence of universities and help students and researchers to choose an institution. We conduct a scoping review using Web of Science and Google Scholar to search for scientific literature written in English, published between January 2019 and March 2022. We aim to understand to what extent international university ranking systems are adapted to the disciplines of medical and health sciences. We select any scientific article addressing international university ranking systems and their indicators or proposing a new international university ranking system or new indicators. We include a total of 55 articles. Among them, 10 articles propose a new university ranking system, nine propose a new method to analyze or improve existing international university ranking systems, three propose new indicator(s), and two propose a new database. Almost all articles include an analysis of existing rankings. We find no article that specifically addresses the ranking of schools of medical or health sciences. This scoping review highlights the absence of a specific international university ranking system designed for the disciplines of medical and health sciences. Future researchers could investigate how to develop discipline-specific indicators and promote a university ranking system dedicated to these disciplines.
